VIEWS: 95 PAGES: 102 POSTED ON: 9/23/2011
Sarasota County 1998 –1999 Innovative Grant Project #1 Carpet Recycling Final Report to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection February 18, 2000 Submitted by: Prepared by: Sarasota County Government R. W. Beck, Inc. Cover photograph courtesy of R. W. Beck, Inc. This report has been prepared for the use of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (“client”). The conclusions, observations, and recommendations contained herein constitute the opinions of R. W. Beck, Inc., (“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. Printed on recycled paper (25 percent post-consumer content). TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS...........................................................................................................I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................1 UNDERSTANDING CARPET .........................................................................................................1 MARKETS .................................................................................................................................1 SARASOTA COUNTY PILOT COLLECTION PROGRAMS .....................................................................2 LESSONS LEARNED ....................................................................................................................3 CONCLUSIONS .........................................................................................................................3 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................4 KEEP THE PROGRAM SIMPLE .................................................................................................4 PROVIDE INCENTIVES ...........................................................................................................4 PIGGYBACK WITH OTHER OPERATIONS .................................................................................5 TAKE A FLEXIBLE PROGRAM APPROACH..................................................................................5 SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................1 PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES ...............................................................................................2 REPORT ORGANIZATION............................................................................................................2 WHAT IS CARPET? ....................................................................................................................3 BROADLOOM CARPET .........................................................................................................3 OTHER CARPET TYPES ..........................................................................................................4 TRENDS IN CARPET MANUFACTURE .......................................................................................5 SOURCES OF USED CARPET ........................................................................................................5 SECTION 2 - MARKETING RECOVERED CARPET................................................................1 MARKET SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................1 EVERGREEN NYLON RECYCLING LLC......................................................................................2 DUPONT ...........................................................................................................................3 C'BOARD ...........................................................................................................................3 WELLMAN..........................................................................................................................3 COLLINS & AIKMAN (C&A) ..................................................................................................4 BASF ................................................................................................................................4 MILLIKEN & COMPANY ........................................................................................................4 INTERFACE FLOORING SYSTEMS .............................................................................................4 UNITED RECYCLING, INC. (URI) ...........................................................................................4 ADVANCED TEXTILE RECYCLERS (ATR)....................................................................................4 MARKET ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................................5 IMPACT OF THE EVERGREEN NYLON RECYCLING PLANT ON MARKET DEMAND .............................5 IMPACT OF THE EVERGREEN NYLON RECYCLING PLANT ON MARKET PRICING ..............................7 IN-STATE MARKET ALTERNATIVES FOR SARASOTA COUNTY ........................................................8 W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC R. W. Beck, Inc. Page i Table of Contents SECTION 3 - CARPET RECYCLING PROGRAM DESIGN .....................................................1 WASTE FLOW ISSUES THAT AFFECT RECYCLING PROGRAM DESIGN ..................................................1 STEPS TAKEN IN SELECTING CARPET RECYCLING PROGRAM OPTIONS ...............................................3 IDENTIFY STAKEHOLDERS ......................................................................................................3 MAP CARPET FLOW PATHS ...................................................................................................4 EXAMINE OTHER CARPET RECOVERY PROGRAMS .....................................................................9 CARPET WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY .................................................................................11 IDENTIFY AND REVIEW RECOVERY PROGRAM OPTIONS ...........................................................14 CONDUCT A PRO FORMA ANALYSIS OF OPTIONS ..................................................................18 RECOVERY OPTIONS SELECTED FOR IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................19 SECTION 4 - PILOT PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AND RESULTS..................................1 MRF DROP-OFF ......................................................................................................................2 OVERVIEW .........................................................................................................................2 FEES CHARGED TO PROJECT PARTICIPANTS .............................................................................3 EDUCATION PROGRAM ........................................................................................................3 OPERATION........................................................................................................................3 PILOT PROGRAM RESULTS ....................................................................................................4 PILOT PROGRAM ECONOMICS ..............................................................................................6 CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................................9 PAD RECYCLER DROP-OFF......................................................... ERROR! BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................................11 EDUCATION PROGRAM ......................................................................................................11 OPERATION......................................................................................................................11 PILOT PROGRAM RESULTS ..................................................................................................12 PILOT PROGRAM ECONOMICS ............................................................................................12 CONSTRUCTION & DEMOLITION DEBRIS RECYCLER RECOVERY .....................................................15 OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................................15 FEES CHARGED TO PROJECT PARTICIPANTS ...........................................................................15 OPERATION......................................................................................................................16 PILOT PROGRAM RESULTS ..................................................................................................16 PILOT PROGRAM ECONOMICS ............................................................................................17 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................18 SITE SORT ..............................................................................................................................19 OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................................19 FEES CHARGED TO PROJECT PARTICIPANTS ...........................................................................20 EDUCATION PROGRAM ......................................................................................................20 OPERATION......................................................................................................................20 PILOT PROGRAM RESULTS ..................................................................................................21 PILOT PROGRAM ECONOMICS ............................................................................................23 CONCLUSIONS .................................................................................................................24 Page ii R. W. Beck, Inc. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC Table of Contents SECTION 5 - COMPARISON OF RESULTS AND PROGRAM POTENTIAL ..........................1 COST-SAVINGS COMPARISON ....................................................................................................1 OVERALL PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS COMPARISON ........................................................................2 FACTORS CHALLENGING CARPET RECOVERY IN SARASOTA COUNTY.................................................3 LACK OF N66 MARKETS.......................................................................................................4 LOWER NYLON 6 RECOVERY AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL CARPET AND CARPET STORE WASTE ...........5 LACK OF NECESSARY MATERIAL VOLUMES...............................................................................5 SECTION 6 - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................................1 CONCLUSIONS .........................................................................................................................1 RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................................................1 KEEP THE PROGRAM SIMPLE .................................................................................................2 PROVIDE INCENTIVES ...........................................................................................................2 PIGGYBACK WITH OTHER OPERATIONS .................................................................................2 TAKE A FLEXIBLE PROGRAM APPROACH..................................................................................2 APPENDIX A - MEETING THE OBJECTIVES OF THE INNOVATIVE GRANT PROGRAM....1 EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES UTILIZED ...........................................................................................1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .........................................................................................................1 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION .........................................................................................2 ADVANCED RECYCLING TECHNOLOGY .........................................................................................2 DETECTOR TECHNOLOGY.....................................................................................................3 EVALUATION OF THE PORTABLE SPECTROSCOPY AS AN ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY. .......................4 DEPOLYMERIZATION TECHNOLOGY .......................................................................................5 PRESENTATION OF PROGRAM RESULTS ........................................................................................6 APPENDIX B - MARKET DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES...............................................1 RECYCLED RESIN PRODUCTION ..................................................................................................3 DEPOLYMERIZATION ............................................................................................................3 MECHANICAL RECLAMATION AND PURIFICATION .....................................................................4 WHOLE CARPET REPROCESSING ............................................................................................4 INDIVIDUALIZED FIBER PRODUCTION ..........................................................................................5 SHREDDED CARPET, LESS THAN 1”..............................................................................................6 ABSORBENTS AND ANIMAL BEDDING .....................................................................................7 SOUND DEADENING APPLICATIONS .......................................................................................7 ROAD STABILIZER ................................................................................................................7 SHREDDED CARPET, LESS THAN 6”..............................................................................................7 REUSE .....................................................................................................................................8 APPENDIX C - FACTORS THAT AFFECT RECOVERED CARPET MARKET PRICES AND DEMAND .....................................................................................................................1 APPENDIX D - EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS........................................................................1 W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC R. W. Beck, Inc. Page iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Carpet and rugs compose 1.1 percent of generated municipal solid waste in the United States, or about 2 to 3 million tons per year.1 In Florida, carpet and rugs are estimated to account for 275,000 tons of the waste stream annually. Sarasota County, Florida, typifies communities interested in carpet recycling. Although the County manages an aggressive recycling program that has achieved a 54 percent solid waste recycling rate, it continues to "push the envelope" by targeting additional materials, such as carpet, for diversion. Because the Florida Department of Environmental Protection had a common interest in carpet recycling, it provided Innovative Grant funding for a project to evaluate the cost and effectiveness of several pilot collection and processing options. The consulting firm of R. W. Beck, Inc. was selected by Sarasota County (the ”County”) to manage the project. UNDERSTANDING CARPET Carpet is a composite product made from face fibers that are bonded to a backing material. Manufacturers make different brands of carpet from different face fibers, which makes carpet recycling programs more challenging because most carpet recyclers only accept carpet made from a particular type of face fiber. The most common face fibers (and their respective percentage of the carpet market) are: nylon 66 (40 percent), nylon 6 (30 percent), polypropylene “Olefin” (15 percent), polyester “PET” (10 percent), and other (such as wool) (5 percent). MARKETS Carpet recycling is in its infancy in the United States. The carpet recycling industry is driven primarily by certain resin producers seeking a low cost feedstock material and by certain large carpet manufacturers using carpet recycling as a promotional tool to increase their carpet sales. Recycling programs offered by carpet manufacturers are typically only available to large commercial and institutional establishments that utilize a competitive contracting approach for replacing their carpet. Evergreen Nylon Recycling LLC (Augusta, Georgia) is the largest market for used carpet. However, it only accepts carpet made of nylon 6 face fibers. Evergreen can recycle 200 million pounds per year of nylon 6 carpet, approximately 20 percent of all used nylon 6 carpet generated in the United States. Evergreen is continuing to set up a network of suppliers of recovered carpet to meet its demand. Markets for other carpet types, however, are meeting their material needs from existing suppliers at this time, and are not purchasing material from new suppliers. This has created a market imbalance for recovered carpet. 1 Based on national data compiled for the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency for 1997. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC R. W. Beck, Inc. Page ES-1 Executive Summary SARASOTA COUNTY PILOT COLLECTION PROGRAMS Four collection and processing options were pilot tested in Sarasota County: C&D Recycler Recovery; MRF Drop-Off; Site Sort; and Pad Recycler Drop-Off. The C&D Recycler Recovery program diverted roll-off loads of waste from retail carpet stores to a construction and demolition debris (C&D) recycler, whose tip fee was less than Sarasota County's landfill tip fee. Nylon 6 carpet, polyurethane underlay pad, and processible C&D materials (e.g., pallets, ceramic tile, and wood) were all recycled. This option achieved a high level of diversion because it recycled more than just carpet. The program achieved a savings compared to disposal of $435 per retail carpet store per month. The MRF Drop-Off program accepted all types of carpet, underlay pad, and all other carpet installation waste at a materials recovery facility (MRF). The MRF did not charge or pay for any carpet or related material. This method provided a financial incentive of avoided disposal costs to the participating retail stores. The biggest drawback of this option was the lack of incentive for the installers, who are typically independent contractors to the retail stores, to deliver materials to the drop-off location. Unless the stores either required them to deliver their waste, or compensated them for their additional time, most installers did not participate. The MRF Drop-Off Processor program achieved approximately ten percent participation by installers. The program achieved a savings compared to disposal of $526 (before compensating installers) per retail carpet store per month. The Site Sort Collection program operated a collection route among retail carpet stores. Twice per week a recycling collection crew stopped at each participating store and removed only nylon 6 carpet. This option achieved a high level of diversion, although the cost of diversion was high (due to transportation costs and inefficiencies discovered in the collection procedure). The program achieved savings of $163 per retail carpet store per month. The Pad Recycler Drop-Off program included a drop-off site that paid a scrap value for polyurethane underlay pad and accepted nylon 6 carpet at no value. This option had two drawbacks: (1) it was less conveniently located compared to the MRF drop-off site location; and (2) installers still needed to dispose of unmarketable carpet and other installation waste. The primary benefit of this option is that it provided a financial incentive to installers (who recovered marketable pad), and the stores (who avoided nylon 6 carpet disposal fees). The program achieved savings of $130 per retail carpet store per month. An additional option was investigated but not pilot-tested because of unfavorable economics compared to the other pilot options. This additional option would have required carpet to be source-separated and placed into a recycling roll-off container at the store. The carpet would then have been collected and delivered to a central processing facility for sorting. A desk-top analysis revealed that the economics for this option were not favorable compared to the other options discussed above. Page ES-2 R. W. Beck, Inc. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC Executive Summary LESSONS LEARNED Because viable markets were only available for nylon 6 face fiber during this study, only 30 percent of the total used carpet waste stream could be targeted. As a result, it soon became apparent that the lack of markets for the remaining 70 percent made the economics of a carpet recycling program challenging. Furthermore, not enough carpet was collected in Sarasota County to generate significant revenues for most recycling businesses. Successful programs that are operated elsewhere had one or more of the following elements in common: The program operator "got in on the ground floor" and could market at least some nylon 66 carpet to existing markets; The program collected and processed polyurethane underlay pad, and/or other marketable materials; The program operator charged a tipping fee or a recycling service fee; The program operator received some form of government recycling funding, either directly or indirectly (such as reduced residue disposal costs). Other strategies that help to maximize diversion while minimizing costs included targeting only the larger retail generators (including home improvement stores, such as Home Depot and Sears, which also sell and install large amounts of carpet) and targeting commercial contract installers. CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions resulted from the performance of this project: Recycling post-consumer carpet is challenging based on current market conditions. Certain of the options analyzed as part of this project showed promise even though markets are lacking for up to 70 percent of waste carpet. The lack of a consistent viable market for nylon 66 carpet adversely affected the economic results of the program. Had a market been available for nylon 66 carpet, the financial results of the options analyzed would have been significantly better. Participation from carpet retailers and their installers is critical to the success of certain carpet recycling programs, particularly where carpeting must be delivered to a drop-off location. The ability to convince carpet stores to participate in a post-consumer carpet recycling program is heavily influenced by program economics (i.e., financial benefit to the retailer and their installers). However, concern for the environment was also sited by several store owners as their impetus for participating in the program. Local conditions (including local disposal practices; tipping fees; waste container rental, pull, and service fees; labor cost; existing recycling programs for polyurethane pad; and community size) are key factors in determining the success or failure of a carpet recycling program. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC R. W. Beck, Inc. Page ES-3 Executive Summary Sorting of mixed carpet store waste at a C&D processing facility capable of recovering materials in addition to carpet (e.g., wood, ceramics, corrugated cardboard, metals) can be a cost effective method for recovering carpet with minimal disruption to waste handling activities at the retailer. RECOMMENDATIONS Although most of the lessons learned in Sarasota County apply to other communities as well, each community is unique, and what works in one community may not apply to another. Conditions vary between locations. Therefore, it is recommended that the feasibility of carpet recycling be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Potential carpet recyclers need to research and consider other local factors that may or may not be favorable to carpet recycling cost-effectiveness. Four primary recommendations were derived from the research conducted as a result of this grant project: Keep the program simple; Provide incentives; Piggyback with other operations; and Take a flexible program approach. These recommendations are discussed as follows. KEEP THE PROGRAM SIMPLE The first principle is to keep the program simple for participants to achieve greatest participation. Generators (carpet stores and installers) are more open to programs that do not require training or implementing new processes. As the “hassle” factor increases, participation will decrease. Wherever possible, the program should use existing recycling infrastructure and recycling methods already in place. PROVIDE INCENTIVES The next principle is to provide incentives for all participants. This involves allocating revenues/benefits fairly among all the stakeholders. When a program benefits one stakeholder at another’s expense, the program’s success is likely to falter without a reallocation of the benefits resulting from the program (e.g., disposal fee savings). The processor must be compensated as well as the generator. If installers have a role in the recovery effort (by delivering the carpet to a drop-off for example), they must be compensated as well. Generally, a program that diverts significant quantities of carpet will result in significant savings to the carpet store generator. Thus, the savings on tip fees and hauling charges can be shared as recycling fees to processors or incentives to installers. Page ES-4 R. W. Beck, Inc. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC Executive Summary PIGGYBACK WITH OTHER OPERATIONS The third principle is to “piggyback” with other operations to capitalize on existing fixed overhead expenses that are already covered. A carpet program has a greater likelihood of success and profitability if co-located with or operated as a sideline at a polyurethane pad buy-back shop, a MRF, or a C&D recycler than if operated as a stand-alone business. By “piggybacking” the cost of labor, land, buildings, equipment, and overhead is shared in part by other activities. TAKE A FLEXIBLE PROGRAM APPROACH The fourth principle is to take a flexible program approach in designing a program. Local conditions will greatly influence the type of program that is appropriate for an individual community. Program operators must carefully evaluate the resources available before establishing a program. Carpet recycling is in its infancy and flexible programs will be able to incorporate best management practices for operating a carpet recycling program as they continue to emerge. The lessons learned from this project should be factored into any start- up carpet recovery program rather than “reinventing the wheel.” W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC R. W. Beck, Inc. Page ES-5 SECTION 1 - INTRODUCTION According to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (“FDEP”), 50 percent of the State’s waste is commercially generated. Therefore, Florida counties must focus on programs beyond residential curbside programs to improve recycling rates and divert items not traditionally recycled. Carpet waste, which is typically disposed in the commercial waste stream, has not been targeted for recovery in Florida communities. The limited attempts to recycle carpet have been met with significant operational challenges. Sarasota County, Florida, typifies communities interested in the potential of carpet recycling. Although the County manages an aggressive recycling program that has achieved a 54 percent solid waste recycling rate, it continues to "push the envelope" by targeting additional materials, such as carpet, for diversion. Because the FDEP had a common interest in carpet recycling, it provided Innovative Recycling Grant funding for this project to evaluate the cost and effectiveness of several pilot collection and processing options. The consulting firm of R. W. Beck, Inc. was selected by the County to manage the project. This report summarizes the lessons learned in Sarasota County as a result of the project and addresses barriers to carpet recycling and elements of innovation that can lead to increased carpet recycling in the State. The United States Environmental Protection Agency reports that carpet and rugs compose approximately 1.1 percent of generated municipal solid waste (“MSW”), or the equivalent of 275,000 tons of Florida's waste stream annually. As a point of comparison, the types of plastics containers typically targeted by community recycling programs for recycling (beverage and detergent bottles and jugs) compose nearly the same amount of the waste stream (1.0 percent of generated municipal solid waste). In spite of its availability in the waste stream, less than 1 percent of post-consumer carpet and rugs was recycled nationally in 1998 compared to 25 percent of plastic beverage and detergent bottles and jugs recycled. Two main barriers have hindered carpet recycling in the past: (1) the variety of materials used in manufacturing carpet; and (2) limitations of sorting and reclaiming technologies. Recent technological developments now allow carpet to be sorted and reclaimed on a wider scale. For example, an $80 million joint venture facility — Evergreen Nylon Recycling LLC — has been constructed in Augusta, GA to recycle large volumes of post-consumer carpet (up to 200 million pounds of used carpet annually). This new market is a significant driver in the collection of used carpet for recycling and has prompted governmental interest in fostering recovery programs for carpet. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC R. W. Beck, Inc. Page 1-1 Section 1- Introduction PROJECT GOALS AND OBJECTIVES The stated goal of the Sarasota Carpet Recycling Project was to develop a self sustaining carpet recycling program in Sarasota County that could ultimately be adapted to other parts of the State and beyond. The approach used to achieve this overarching goal consisted of four primary tasks as follows: Perform an evaluation of markets available to accept and recycle waste carpet collected as a result of the project; Identify, evaluate, and short list alternative carpet collection and recovery options for nylon 6 and nylon 66; Implement the preferred collection and recovery option(s); and Identify market development opportunities for the 30 percent of carpeting assumed to be unmarketable. The following describes the results of the project as well as conclusions and recommendations that should be considered by other communities that are considering the development of a carpet recycling program. REPORT ORGANIZATION This report contains the following sections: Section 1 – Introduction. Presents the project goals and objectives and provides a basic understanding of carpeting and its properties. This section also provides a brief discussion of where waste carpet is typically generated. Section 2 – Marketing Recovered Carpet. Describes in detail the current market opportunities for recovered carpet and suggests new markets to be explored. Section 3 – Carpet Recycling Program Design. Describes the process and results of pre- implementation research and stakeholder feedback. The section maps out carpet flows — from creation, through use, into recycling, and back into use — and presents the results of carpet waste characterization conducted for this project. Section 4 – Pilot Program Implementation and Results. Describes the four recycling program options pilot-tested as part of this project. Section 5 – Comparison of Results and Program Potential. Compares results of the four recycling program options pilot tested as part of this project and evaluates their potential for long-term implementation, including barriers that must be overcome. Section 6 – Conclusions and Recommendations. Presents the conclusions from the study results and makes recommendations for future programs. Page 1-2 R. W. Beck, Inc. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC Section 1- Introduction WHAT IS CARPET? Carpet is very different from most other commonly recycled products. To start with, carpet is a durable product, which is made to last for many years. The average life of a residential carpet is 12 years. The life of a commercial carpet can vary a great deal depending on the market segment, but is roughly 8 years. This means that the carpet recycled today was sold about a decade ago. BROADLOOM CARPET Carpet is also different because it is a composite product made from several materials that are integrated to resist wear and mechanical degradation. Broadloom carpet, the type most widely used in both homes and businesses, has a structure that includes1: Visible face fiber, which accounts for approximately 46 percent of the carpet weight; Backing material (made of woven polypropylene "olefin" fibers) that the face fibers are woven into, which accounts for approximately 10 percent of the carpet weight; and Mineral-filled latex "glue" that stiffens the backing and holds the whole product together. This component accounts for the remaining 44 percent of the carpet weight. The face fiber itself can be made from several different materials, and one manufacturer may make several different brands of carpet from different face fibers. This diversity in construction makes carpet recycling challenging because most end-markets for post- consumer carpet only accept carpet made from a particular type of face fiber. There are five basic types of carpet face Figure 1-1 fibers: nylon 6; nylon 66; olefin Waste Carpet Generated in 1998 (polypropylene); polyester; and other materials (such as acrylic or wool). The Carpet and Rug Institute reports that approximately 97 percent of all carpet is Ny l o n 6 6 manufactured from synthetic fibers. Figure 40% 1-1, Waste Carpet Generated in 1998, shows the relative proportion of broadloom waste Ny l o n 6 carpet generated in 1998 broken down by 30% face fiber type. The following descriptions include performance assessments from the Carpet and Rug Institute. Ol e f i n Ot he r Nylon face fibers represented approximately P ET 15% 5% 70 percent of waste carpet generated in the 10% United States in 1998. There are two types of nylon used in carpet construction — nylon 66 and nylon 6 – that comprise Source: R. W. Beck estimate derived from carpet sales data. approximately 40 percent and 30 percent of all waste carpet generated, respectively. 1 Source: Evergreen Nylon Recycling W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC R. W. Beck, Inc. Page 1-3 Section 1- Introduction Olefin (polypropylene) carpets represented approximately 15 percent of waste carpet generated in the United States in 1998. Olefin carpets are strong, resists wear and permanent stains, and are easily cleaned and colorfast because color is added during fiber production. Polyester (PET) composes less than 10 percent of waste carpet generated in 1998. Some polyester carpet is made from recycled PET soft drink bottles. Acrylic offers the appearance and feel of wool without the cost. This fiber offers low static level and is moisture and mildew-resistant. Wool is a natural fiber noted for its luxury and performance. Wool is soft, has high bulk, and is available in many colors. Generally, wool is somewhat more expensive than synthetic fibers. Blends, such as wool/nylon and acrylic/olefin, are also used provide specific performance characteristics. Local consumer purchase trends can vary considerably from the averages. Carpet retailers tend to develop relationships with one particular mill or carpet manufacturer. The carpet dealer often promotes one carpet over another, influencing the make up of carpet installations in an area. While these variables tend to average out over a region, this may not be the case in every locale. As a result, the composition of carpeting can vary from community to community. OTHER CARPET TYPES Far less common than broadloom Figure 1-2 carpet is vinyl-backed carpet, which Trends in Carpet Shipments composes only a small percentage of all carpet. This type of carpet is often sold as modular carpet tile (squares of carpet 18 inches on a side) and is typically used in commercial settings, particularly those that experience heavy foot traffic. Vinyl-backed carpet differs from broadloom carpet in that the face fibers, which are almost always nylon, are integrally molded into a vinyl backing. Recycling of vinyl-backed carpet requires a different process than is used for recycling broadloom carpet, so companies that recycle carpet usually accept and recycle either one or the other. Source: Honeywell Page 1-4 R. W. Beck, Inc. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC Section 1- Introduction TRENDS IN CARPET MANUFACTURE Carpet recycled today was probably placed into service approximately ten years earlier. Therefore, carpet recyclers are wise to be aware of carpet manufacturing trends to prepare for recycling. A website created by Honeywell International reports historical industry data on the market share of fibers used in the carpet industry. Between 1980 and 1994, the percentage of nylon carpet market share has fallen from 83.2 percent to 62.0. Meanwhile, the total quantity of carpet produced each year has increased from 1.62 billion pounds in 1980 to 3.15 billion pounds in 1994. Figure 1-2, Trends in Carpet Shipments, depicts annual shipments of carpet by fiber type. As Figure 1-2 shows, nylon shipments have increased over time, but not at the rate of olefin carpets, which grew from 9.4 percent of market share in 1980 to 26.2 percent in 1994. Even though its market share has fallen, nylon remains the largest single component of the carpet stream, providing ongoing opportunity to recycle nylon carpet. SOURCES OF USED CARPET Carpet recovery programs target old carpet that is being removed through: (1) retail carpet replacement for homes and small businesses; and (2) contract carpet replacement for apartments, hotels, motels, large businesses, and institutions. Two-thirds of waste carpet is generated in homes and small businesses, according to Evergreen. The other one-third is generated as a result of competitively bid commercial carpet removal and installation contracts. In many parts of the United States, and in most parts of Florida, old carpet is considered a bulky waste material that cannot be collected curbside on scheduled waste collection days. In these areas, old carpet removed from homes and small businesses is transported by the installer back to the retail store for disposal in the store's waste container. This system presents different options for carpet recovery than does a system where carpet is commonly placed at the curb for disposal. Competition is keen for large commercial carpet installation contracts. As a result, carpet manufacturers have become more actively involved further down the distribution chain and bid on these contracts. For example, DuPont makes nylon raw material, spins it into fiber, converts the fiber to carpet, and installs it through its contract flooring division. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC R. W. Beck, Inc. Page 1-5 SECTION 2 - MARKETING RECOVERED CARPET If real estate development value can be described in three words, “location, location, location,” then successful recycling program development could be described in the three words: “markets, markets, markets.” This section of the report provides: A summary of markets for carpet that is locally collected and processed; and An analysis of national markets and local alternative markets. MARKET SUMMARY The majority of carpet that has been recycled to date in the U. S. has been collected through strategic alliances among collectors, processors, and manufacturers. These relationships have primarily been driven by carpet manufacturers with downstream commercial contract installation businesses. Carpet manufacturers have found that they can get a “foot in the door” for their new carpet on commercial carpet installations by promising to keep used commercial carpet out of the local landfill (either by recycling it or sending it to a waste-to- energy facility). Because the primary business of these companies is to sell new carpet, recycling is not a core business activity and is a loss leader in some situations. The recycling programs operated by these carpet manufacturers are, therefore, typically reserved only for commercial contract installation jobs and are not available to suppliers outside of their distribution network. In considering options for carpet recycling, R. W. Beck attempted to identify potential existing markets for used carpet. We asked each potential market about the carpet types accepted as part of their program, the products made from the recovered carpet, and if the company accepts material from new suppliers. Table 2-1, Potential Markets for Recovered Carpet (found on the next page), summarizes the results of the market survey. Although several companies recycle a wide variety of carpet types, only Evergreen Nylon Recycling LLC currently accepts recovered carpet from new suppliers. All the other companies either: (1) obtain enough carpet from existing suppliers; or (2) restrict their recycling activities to commercial contract carpet recovered through their distribution network. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC R. W. Beck, Inc. Page 2-1 Section 2 - Marketing Recovered Carpet Table 2-1 Potential Markets for Recovered Carpet Company Name and Accepts Carpet Types Recycled Products Made Recycling Facility Location Carpet from Accepted New Suppliers? Evergreen Nylon Recycling LLC Yes Broadloom carpet Produces virgin-equivalent nylon 6 Augusta, GA with nylon 6 face resin fibers DuPont No Any, provided DuPont Automobile parts, sod Chattanooga, TN Contract Flooring reinforcements, carpet backing, installs new DuPont wood-like products, padding, commercial carpet soundproofing, and floor tiles Yes (although C’Board USA Various Fiber underlay matting, padding, currently shut Thomson, GA furniture filling, automotive padding, down and and engineered items. reorganizing) Wellman Inc. Not at this Broadloom carpet Black nylon resin for automobile Johnsonville, SC time with nylon 6 and 66 parts face fibers Collins & Aikman No Any vinyl-backed Vinyl carpet backing Dalton, GA carpet BASF No BASF nylon 6 carpet Produces virgin-equivalent nylon 6 Arnprior, ON, Canada only, or carpet resin. replaced with BASF nylon 6 carpet Milliken Carpet No Milliken commercial Reuse as carpet – clean and overprint LaGrange, GA contract carpet tile Interface Flooring Systems No Lease Interface Maintains carpet over its useful life, LaGrange, GA commercial carpet tile then recycles into various products Advanced Textile Recyclers No Carpet manufacturing Various fiber products Cartersville, GA scrap United Recycling, Inc. No - out of Nylon 6, nylon 66, Extruded products, auto parts, carpet Minneapolis, MN business pad, and tack strips polypropylene Each of these markets is discussed in greater detail below. EVERGREEN NYLON RECYCLING LLC Evergreen Nylon Recycling LLC, Augusta, Georgia (Evergreen) opened its new $80 million nylon 6 carpet recycling facility in November 1999 with a designed capacity to process 200 million pounds per year of used nylon 6 carpet. Evergreen is a joint venture between Honeywell International, Inc. and DSM Chemicals North America, Inc. Honeywell International, Inc. was formed in December 1999 when Honeywell, Inc. merged with Page 2-2 R. W. Beck, Inc. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC Section 2 - Marketing Recovered Carpet AlliedSignal, Inc.. Some people in the carpet recycling industry refer to this facility as the AlliedSignal facility because of AlliedSignal's highly visible involvement in promoting the facility, setting up collection program partners, and sourcing used carpet. All of the carpet that is processed at this facility is purchased through third-party collectors that Honeywell (AlliedSignal) has developed supplier contracts with. Evergreen recycles nylon 6 using a chemical process called depolymerization. This process breaks nylon 6 down to its basic building block chemical (caprolactam), which is refined to high purity to remove colorants and other contaminants, and processes it back into nylon 6 resin. Because of the specific chemistry involved in Evergreen's recycling process, it can only recycle carpet with face fibers made of nylon 6 at its plant. The process produces a recycled resin that is in all respects equivalent to virgin resin, enabling nylon 6 carpet fiber to be recycled closed-loop back into carpet fiber if so desired. DUPONT DuPont is currently operating a carpet separation and recycling facility in Chattanooga, Tennessee to recover nylon 66 from post-consumer carpets. The recovered nylon 66 is compounded into a black resin with 25 percent post-consumer recycled nylon and is used for the production of automobile parts, sod reinforcements, and carpet backing among other things. DuPont also operates a small pilot reactor in Canada to depolymerize both nylon 6 and nylon 66 to recover HMDA (hexamethylenediamine). DuPont has stated that it would like to scale this process up to a larger commercial facility within a few years. DuPont collects most of the carpet it needs on its own. It takes back the carpet that is replaced by DuPont Antron carpets during commercial installations. In 1999, DuPont formed a network of commercial dealers who only sell DuPont products. The company recently announced that all the carpet removed by these dealers will be shipped back to Chattanooga for recycling. This arrangement will limit the need for DuPont to purchase carpet on the open market in the future. C'BOARD Until the fall of 1999, carpet collected by DuPont was sent to C'Board in Thomson, GA for pre-processing. C'Board sorted the carpet by face fiber type, sent the nylon 66 back to DuPont and marketed or recycled the remaining carpeting. C’Board closed in the fall of 1999 for reorganization under bankruptcy proceedings. It hopes to reopen in 2000, and will likely be more restrictive in the carpet it accepts for recycling (such as only accepting nylon carpets). WELLMAN Wellman's involvement in carpet recycling is very similar to DuPont's. They are producing a black nylon resin. The carpet accepted at this facility is collected through a small number of large third-party collectors under contract to Wellman. Wellman does not currently purchase any carpet on the open market, although a need for additional suppliers is anticipated in the future. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC R. W. Beck, Inc. Page 2-3 Section 2 - Marketing Recovered Carpet COLLINS & AIKMAN (C&A) C&A has a program to recycle its own vinyl-backed carpet, although it may accept other vinyl-backed carpet on a case-by-case basis. C&A recycles the whole carpet into vinyl backing for its new carpets. The nylon fibers from the recycled carpet reportedly make the new backing stronger than virgin vinyl backing. BASF BASF's recycling program is primarily market driven. When a customer purchases BASF's brand 6ix Again product, BASF guarantees that they will recycle the carpet at the end of its useful life (with some restrictions). BASF requires: The original sales receipt; Proof of the 6ix Again logo back stamp; and The customer must bear the cost to transport the carpet to one of BASF's collection centers. Customers receive no revenue for returning the carpet, and BASF does not purchase anything from independent collectors. Recently, BASF announced an “expansion" program. Under this program, BASF will accept any carpet that is replaced by a 6ix Again product for recycling. There is a fee for this service and BASF may incinerate some of the recovered material (carpet that can’t be effectively processed through depolymerization). MILLIKEN & COMPANY Milliken has a program to remove vinyl-backed carpet tile, redye it, and resell the carpet. Usually, the carpet reused in this program is carpet tile Milliken originally installed, which is removed, redyed, and resold to the original customer. Conventional broadloom carpet with a woven polypropylene backing cannot be reused in this program. Furthermore, Milliken deals directly with the customer rather than through independent collectors. INTERFACE FLOORING SYSTEMS Interface has a commercial carpet lease program in which it retains ownership of the carpet installed in commercial buildings. Under this program Interface maintains the carpet and ensures reuse or recycling. UNITED RECYCLING, INC. (URI) URI collected and processed all types of carpet in the Minneapolis, St. Paul area until it went bankrupt in 1999. Its assets are for sale. URI’s efforts were limited to this geographic region. ADVANCED TEXTILE RECYCLERS (ATR) ATR recycles post-industrial waste from the carpet industry. Although it has expressed interest in recycling post-consumer carpet, it has no plans to do so for the immediate future. Page 2-4 R. W. Beck, Inc. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC Section 2 - Marketing Recovered Carpet MARKET ANALYSIS At the time the Sarasota Carpet Recycling Program was proposed, markets for nylon 66 carpet were accepting new supplies of material. However, most markets are closed to new suppliers of post-consumer carpet. Currently, only nylon 6 carpet is in demand, while demand for other types of carpeting such as nylon 66, polyester, olefin, and other carpeting (which makes up 70 percent of all waste carpet generated) is limited, if not non-existent. Ideally, markets for a recovered commodity will develop at the same pace as collection of the commodity. Market equilibrium can be upset by excessive demand by manufacturers or excessive supply by collectors. IMPACT OF THE EVERGREEN NYLON RECYCLING PLANT ON MARKET DEMAND Supply and demand for recovered carpet have been evenly paced, Figure 2-1 although growing slowly in the past Approximate Recovered Carpet Market Demand decade. Figure 2-1, Approximate Recovered Carpet Market Demand, depicts historical recycling market 300 Millions of Pounds consumption for all types of carpets 250 and illustrates the effect of the 200 Evergreen facility on projected total 150 recovered carpet demand through 100 2003. 50 0 When Evergreen opened its nylon 6 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 carpet recycling facility in November 19 19 19 19 20 20 20 20 1999 with an enormous demand for used nylon 6 carpet, the facility created both opportunity and Source: R. W. Beck, Inc. imbalance in the carpet recycling market. Evergreen's new facility presents an opportunity because of the significant increase in market demand for recovered carpet. As early as 1997, in anticipation of the facility’s startup, Evergreen began aggressively setting up a network of waste carpet suppliers and also began stockpiling material. By December 2000, Evergreen hopes to complete its network of suppliers so it can operate the facility at its designed capacity. However, this new nylon 6 market has also created an imbalance. Nylon 6 carpet makes up only about 30 percent of the total waste carpet generated. Because no one can identify nylon 6 by sight, touch, or smell, used carpets must be tested with special detection equipment in order to identify and divert those carpets with nylon 6 face fiber. Thus, for every ton of nylon 6 carpet collected, it is estimated that another 2 to 3 tons of other carpeting must be handled. Because of Evergreen’s need for only nylon 6 fiber, and the difficulties of easily segregating this product from other carpet types, incidental collection of other face fiber types of carpet W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC R. W. Beck, Inc. Page 2-5 Section 2 - Marketing Recovered Carpet (in particular nylon 66) has increased dramatically. However, end-user market growth for carpet made with other face fibers has not kept pace with the explosion in collections spurred by Evergreen. As a result, existing markets that had previously purchased nylon 66 carpet don't currently accept this material from new suppliers and limit the amount of nylon 66 carpet they accept from existing suppliers. Markets for other face-fiber types are extremely limited or non-existent. Therefore, most non-nylon 6 carpet that is collected outside of contract commercial carpet replacements is disposed. The lack of markets for nylon 66 and other non-nylon 6 carpeting is a significant obstacle to cost-effective waste carpet recovery. At the time the Sarasota Carpet Recovery Project was initially conceived, end markets existed for all types of nylon carpeting (both nylon 6 and nylon 66). As a result, it was anticipated during the initial program design that up to 70 percent of the waste carpet generated and collected would be marketed. However, changing market conditions at the project start resulted in disposing of all carpet handled except for nylon 6 carpet. This adversely affected the overall economics of the pilot alternatives identified at the inception of the project (more fully described in Section 4 of this report). There is market risk associated with the Evergreen joint venture, particularly if not enough nylon 6 carpet is recovered on the local level and shipped to the plant. A comparison can be made to the failure of post-consumer PET bottle (e.g., soft drink bottles) depolymerization facilities in early 1990s. Those facilities failed, in part, because they were unable to source enough PET bottles to meet plant capacity-utilization levels required to produce chemically- recycled PET at a cost that was competitive with virgin resin manufacture. The situation is different with nylon because of the higher virgin resin price nylon enjoys compared to PET, and because other competing markets for the material are not as well developed. However, a common challenge will be to fully utilize the plant, which is designed to utilize approximately 20 percent of the total available nylon 6 carpet disposed in the United States.1 Recovering this much material will be difficult given the market obstacles discussed in this section, and other obstacles that are discussed later in this report. The Evergreen facility will continue to drive the recovery of used carpet for the immediate future. The challenge to the industry is finding viable and profitable markets for the other carpet that will be collected, but not utilized at the Evergreen plant. Evergreen is aware of the imbalance and is investigating markets and processes to utilize other carpet types, especially nylon 66, which may hold the best value. Other parties also see opportunity in carpet recycling spurred by the Evergreen project and are searching for methods to cost- effectively recycle these other grades of carpeting. A review of other potential market development opportunities for carpet was performed as part of this project. A summary of these market development findings is provided in Appendix B of this report. 1 Source: Honeywell. Page 2-6 R. W. Beck, Inc. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC Section 2 - Marketing Recovered Carpet IMPACT OF THE EVERGREEN NYLON RECYCLING PLANT ON MARKET PRICING Destabilization of market equilibrium will influence commodity pricing. Assuming a free market with open competition, if the demand requirements increase beyond supply, commodity prices rise. If supply increases beyond demand, then a glut occurs and commodity prices fall. Evergreen provides an interesting case study in economics. In an open market, a company with such a large demand for material would normally be pressured by suppliers to pay prices sufficiently high enough to cover the cost of collection, handling, and transport of the material to market as well as a fair return on investment or risk losing its supply of material. However, Evergreen currently sets the street price for recovered nylon 6 carpet (currently about six cents per pound, FOB processor) at a price that, in many instances, does not result in a positive net return to the supplier. This market dynamic has come about for the following reasons: Alternative nylon 6 markets are limited to just a couple of companies, which have a much smaller demand for the material than Evergreen. As a result, suppliers that have initiated collection of carpet have limited outlets for their collected product. Suppliers are dependent on Evergreen’s proprietary carpet identification instrument (the CarpID,™ discussed further in Appendix A), which offers advantages of low cost and portability compared to other instruments. Evergreen only leases — it will not sell — the CarpID™ to suppliers. Furthermore, its lease agreement requires suppliers to only market nylon 6 carpet to Evergreen. This effectively eliminates market competition for nylon 6 carpet when Evergreen’s detector is used. Due to the nascent nature of the carpet recovery industry, many suppliers are unsure of the exact costs associated with collecting carpet and initially underestimate the operating and capital costs required to collect waste carpet. It is expected that as suppliers build a more extensive work history collecting carpet, increased efficiency resulting from new collection and handling techniques will ultimately lower suppliers’ operating costs and, as a result, their break even points. Clearly, a large and steady supply of nylon 6 carpet will be required to run the Evergreen plant near its designed capacity to operate efficiently. Evergreen may ultimately be required to increase the market price paid for recovered nylon 6 if the current market price proves insufficient to: (1) sustain existing carpet collection and processing programs (after taking into account improved program efficiency); or (2) attract sufficient new suppliers to collect enough waste carpet to meet its facility’s feedstock needs. Alternatively, if competitive identification instruments and markets develop, free-market competition could also pressure price increases for nylon 6 carpet. Unfortunately, given the large imbalance between supply and demand for carpet of other face fiber types, it is unlikely that market pricing for carpets of other face fibers will significantly improve in the immediate future. However, the market outlook is better for nylon 66 carpet compared to carpet made from other face fiber types because of the higher intrinsic value of nylon compared to other resin types. Appendix D provides additional W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC R. W. Beck, Inc. Page 2-7 Section 2 - Marketing Recovered Carpet detail on factors that impact and limit scrap value for nylon and other face fiber carpet types. IN-STATE MARKET ALTERNATIVES FOR SARASOTA COUNTY This section discusses in-state market alternatives for non-nylon 6 carpet collected in Sarasota County. These alternatives are in discussed greater depth (though not with a Florida focus) in Appendix B. Reuse — Reusing whole carpet "as is" or after simple cleaning is limited to carpet in good condition. Reuse could divert some additional carpet on the margin; however, other recycling markets are needed to significantly reduce the amount of carpeting currently being disposed in the County. Two carpet stores in Sarasota County already divert carpet from disposal through reuse. One store is located near a low income neighborhood and routinely sets “reusable” carpet next to (not inside) the waste container. These set aside carpets “disappear” at night or on weekends. Presumably, the diverted carpet is reused without any further processing. A second store also sets aside “good” reusable carpet. In this case, a landlord collects the carpet and installs it in low-income housing and apartments. The exact economic arrangements between the store and the landlord were not disclosed. Face Fiber Recovery — Carpet shredding and mechanical removal of face fiber offer opportunities for state or regional facilities to add value and divert significant quantities of material. There are no textile recycling companies in the Sarasota area with the equipment needed to remove and individualize fibers from carpets, so recovered carpet would need to be shipped a considerable distance (at significant expense) to make use of individualized fiber markets. Meyer & Gabbert Excavating is a construction and demolition (“C&D”) debris recycler that is located at Sarasota County's landfill complex. Meyer & Gabbert produces alternative daily cover (ADC) for the County's landfill by hammermill shredding. Because the company lacks a shear-shredder capable of handling carpet, it cannot shred carpet for use as ADC without making an additional capital equipment purchase. A Tampa company with a shear-shredder investigated carpet recycling as a potential new business opportunity, but decided that the economics were not favorable, particularly for non-nylon carpet components. The company was not interested in test-shredding carpet for this innovative grant project. Refuse Derived Fuel — An alternative to disposing of unmarketable carpet in Sarasota County's landfill is to burn carpet for fuel. In addition to counties with waste-to-energy plants that could potentially accept whole carpet (Broward, Dade, Lake, Lee, Hillsborough, Palm Beach, and Pinellas), there are other facilities in Florida that produce or burn refuse- derived fuel (RDF) that could include shredded carpet. These facilities are listed below: Ridge Generating Station (Polk County) — burns wood waste and tires. Montenay Power (Dade County Resource Recovery Facility) — produces RDF. Page 2-8 R. W. Beck, Inc. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC Section 2 - Marketing Recovered Carpet Okeelanta (Palm Beach and Osceola Counties) — burn wood waste, RDF, and sugar cane bagasse. Forestry Resources (Lee County) — burns wood waste. Kenetech (Marion County) — burns wood waste. Timber Energy Resources, Inc., (Leon County) — produces RDF from diaper trim scrap plastic, wax-coated corrugated containers, and other waste raw materials. Buck-Eye Cellulose (Taylor County) — burns wood waste. Stone Container Corp. (Bay County) — burns wood waste. Reedy Creek Improvement District (Orange County) — produces RDF. Extruded Products — The potential for creating extruded plastic products could potentially serve as an alternative market for post-consumer carpet. Currently, two plastic lumber production plants located in Florida (Lakeland and Fort Myers) could potentially use ground nylon 66 and olefin carpets as a production feedstock. However, these plants would require extensive testing of the concept, including the evaluation of appropriate processing conditions, potential products that could be produced, and precise mix ratio prior to serving as a feasible market. Discussions were held with several of these potential markets by R. W. Beck staff as part of this project. In general, most of the market alternatives sited above were currently unable to participate in the project for various reasons. However, given more time and sufficient funding for testing, these alternative markets may be worth considering in future carpet recovery research efforts. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC R. W. Beck, Inc. Page 2-9 SECTION 3 - CARPET RECYCLING PROGRAM DESIGN Carpet recycling is in its infancy as a recoverable commodity. As a result, no standard approach currently exists for the cost effective collection and handling of carpet at the community level. In order to develop a cost effective and efficient post-consumer carpet recycling program for the County, it was necessary to collect certain basic information critical to identifying and ranking potential collection and handling options best suited to the County’s circumstances and needs. The first step in this data collection effort involved developing an in-depth understanding of the current collection and handling practices of post-consumer carpet in the County -- from removal at the job site to its ultimate disposal at the landfill. This material flow tracking is typically referred to as a “waste flow” analysis. Waste flow data is typically used to develop an understanding of: Logistics involved in the handling and disposal of a waste product; Stakeholders involved in the material’s handling and disposition, and The economics associated with the material’s transport from point of generation to the ultimate point of disposal. In addition, current local and state regulations affecting the transport and handling of waste must also be taken into consideration. The second step in the data acquisition effort involved collecting information on the quantity and composition of post-consumer carpeting present in the Sarasota County waste stream. This waste flow and quantity data, in conjunction with market data such as that described in the previous chapter, were then used as the basic building blocks for developing a list of potential collection and handling options for consideration. The following report section discusses: The waste flow issues that influenced the carpet collection and handling options considered for implementation and testing; and The steps taken in short-listing and selecting carpet recycling program options for actual field-testing. WASTE FLOW ISSUES THAT AFFECT RECYCLING PROGRAM DESIGN Regulations that govern waste flow as well as local jurisdictional boundaries can greatly impact recycling program design. Whether a material is classified as a recyclable W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC R. W. Beck, Inc. Page 3-1 Section 3 - Carpet Recycling Program Design commodity or a simple waste material can greatly affect how that material must be collected and handled. The issue that arises is how should carpet be legally classified – as a recyclable or a waste material. The answer mainly depends on whether carpet is collected as a pure carpet stream, co-mingled with other "recyclables", or mixed with other solid waste. This is particularly important because its classification ultimately determines who has the authority to collect and process the material. Source separated loads of recovered materials (defined by Florida Statute 403.703 as metal, paper, glass, plastic, textile, or rubber materials with known recycling potential that are separated from solid waste for recycling) can be legally collected and processed by anyone. Alternatively, material classified as C&D debris falls under certain state regulations, whereas municipal solid waste (MSW) undergoes even more stringent regulation. Depending on how carpet is disposed, and with which other materials it is disposed, dictates the method by which the material can be handled and by whom it can be collected. The City of Sarasota, Town of Longboat Key, City of North Port, City of Venice, and Sarasota County Government (for unincorporated county areas) each determine how and by whom solid waste is collected within their jurisdictional boundaries. For example, Sarasota County has granted Waste Management an exclusive franchise to collect commercial MSW in the unincorporated regions of the county, and the City of Venice collects solid waste disposed in its city limits — other haulers may only collect commercial MSW in some of the other incorporated municipalities. Sarasota County, however, does allow other haulers to collect C&D debris, and Florida Statutes allow anyone to collect recovered materials from commercial establishments. Carpet is considered to be a textile. Therefore, when carpet is separated from other waste materials for recycling it is a recovered material and not “solid waste,” and anyone may collect it. However, carpet is often mixed with C&D debris or MSW and is not source separated. If this is the case, then carpet collection is subject to local solid waste hauling franchise agreements and other regulations. Some people question whether unsorted source separated carpet can be considered to be a recovered material. Recovered materials can contain de minimus amounts of solid waste and still maintain their status as recovered materials. Because as much as 70 percent of source separated carpet may not be marketable and may ultimately be disposed, some people question whether unsorted source separated carpet meets the de minimus criterion. Certain waste haulers with exclusive franchises may not want to lose waste hauling and landfill disposal revenues, and may insist that only they (and not a recycler) collect the material. This is a potential obstacle to carpet recycling. The status of diverted carpet also impacts which processors can handle the material. If the material is considered to be solid waste, only a processor with a solid waste permit and environmental protection controls (e.g., a leachate collection system) can accept the material. Only a handful of recyclers in the state, generally C&D debris recyclers, hold such a solid waste permit. C&D is a specially regulated waste that specifically excludes MSW. However, carpet is commonly disposed in waste containers at carpet stores that may contain a small percentage of MSW. Carpet stores would have to change their current practices and dispose of Page 3-2 R. W. Beck, Inc. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC Section 3 - Carpet Recycling Program Design materials considered to be MSW (break-room and general office waste) in a small dedicated MSW container to allow carpet and other C&D waste materials to be recycled at a C&D recycler. It is unlikely that carpet stores would favor this option, nor is it likely that significant cost savings would result. A more favorable option would be to explore possible , C&D recycling permit variances with FDEP or preferably an official opinion that carpet store loads contain de minimus amounts of solid waste. This would enable C&D recycling facilities to accept and process carpet and other waste from carpet retail stores for recycling, even if the loads include a small percentage of MSW. If carpet is ultimately treated as a solid waste material, carpet recycling programs may have to either (1) deliver the material to a facility that holds a solid waste permit; or (2) sort the material at the point of initial disposal (e.g., a carpet retailer’s dumpster or roll-off) to ensure only marketable carpet is collected. Several years ago Sarasota County enacted a local recycling ordinance to remove local obstacles and encourage participation in recycling. That ordinance applies to commercial establishments and includes textiles in its list of materials to be recycled. This ordinance could be used to promote carpet recycling in the County. STEPS TAKEN IN SELECTING CARPET RECYCLING PROGRAM OPTIONS The steps taken to identify and select carpet recycling program options for pilot testing as part of this project included: Identify stakeholders, to obtain their input; Map carpet flow paths, to understand the current methods used for collection and disposal of post-consumer carpet and identify principal diversion opportunities; Examine other carpet recovery programs, to ensure that the Sarasota Carpet Project was innovative in design and not simply "reinventing-the-wheel;" Conduct a carpet retail store waste composition study, to better understand the composition of post-consumer carpeting in the County and be able to effectively evaluate the available collection and processing options; and Create pro forma economic models, to compare the anticipated cost and effectiveness of promising program options. IDENTIFY STAKEHOLDERS As with all projects to recover commodities from the waste stream, a carpet recycling program requires involvement from several parties to provide the infrastructure for reuse and recycling. Key entities include: 1. Generator – Households and businesses that generate post-consumer carpet when replacing carpet. 2. Collector – Entities that transport post-consumer carpet from the generator to the processor or some intermediate stopping point. Collectors include carpet installers who remove carpet from the job site and drop the material off at the W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC R. W. Beck, Inc. Page 3-3 Section 3 - Carpet Recycling Program Design retailer’s location, a carpet drop-off, or a processor. Haulers that collect carpeting from retailer locations, either by site sorting the recoverable carpet at the retailers place of business or by pulling the retailers dumpster or roll-off container of waste and delivering it to a processor for sorting are also considered collectors. 3. Processor – Businesses at the local level able to sort and densify/bale (for economical shipping) the recovered carpet, to meet recycler end market specifications. 4. Recycler/End-Markets – Manufacturers or recyclers (typically outside of the local area) able to convert the recovered carpet, which may be dirty or contaminated, into a raw material or new end product. R. W. Beck developed a thorough understanding of the complex relationships among these key stakeholder groups in the local carpet recycling chain before designing or implementing the recycling collection program options. This was accomplished by meeting with individuals representing companies from each of the stakeholder groups to identify: (1) the issues that are important to each; and (2) incentives that would promote participation in the program. MAP CARPET FLOW PATHS In evaluating the various collection and processing options available to the County, R. W. Beck mapped the flow of post-consumer carpet from the point of generation to the ultimate point of disposal, estimated carpet volumes, and identified stakeholders who were involved or could be impacted by the proposed carpet recycling program. Figure 3-1, Sarasota County Carpet Flow Diagram, provides an illustration of the principal flow of carpets through the recycling chain in Sarasota County. Note that certain activities take place locally, while others occur out of state. Page 3-4 R. W. Beck, Inc. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC Section 3 - Carpet Recycling Program Design Figure 3-3 Sarasota County Carpet Flow Diagram Key: Resin nylon 6 (1 only) New carpet flow Manufacturer Old carpet flow Recycling flow (3) 3 companies Fiber Producer Carpet Manufacturer 1,160 tpy 33% Carpet Product 67% Recycler Manufacturers Carpet Wholesaler Carpet Pad & Contract Sales Dealer/Retailer (3) (40) Plastic lumber Molding resins Commercial Residential Customer Customer Demolition/ Contract Installer Renovation Installer (40) Contractor (7) 33% 62% 5% Pad Commercial Residential Hauler Hauler (6) 95% 5% Recycling Processor (5 multimaterial, 2 Landfill pad, 0 carpet) 1,160 tpy Sarasota County W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC R. W. Beck, Inc. Page 3-5 Section 3 - Carpet Recycling Program Design R. W. Beck identified 10 steps in the life cycle of a carpet that correspond to the flow diagram. A brief description of each step in the cycle is discussed below. Step 1 - Resin Manufacturer. Carpets begin as nylon 6, nylon 66, polypropylene (olefin), and polyester plastic resins produced from petrochemical feedstocks. A significant amount of recycled polyester resin made from recycled polyester beverage bottles (e.g., PET soft drink bottles) is used to produce certain grades of carpeting. Step 2 - Fiber Producer. The fiber producer purchases raw plastic resin and spins, draws, and crimps the material to form carpet fibers. In many cases the fiber producer also twists the carpet fibers together to form a yarn, although this step can be performed by carpet manufacturers. Technically, the yarn is now considered a “textile” rather than a plastic product. Fiber producers are also influenced by recycled content resin pricing and consumer demand for recycled content in finished products. Step 3 - Carpet Manufacturer. The carpet manufacturer assembles the carpet, including adhering the face fiber yarn to a backing. This step also frequently includes applying a dye to the surface of the fibers to give the carpet its color. Solution dyed fibers, where the colorant is impregnated in the molten plastic before forming fibers, is performed by fiber producers. Some carpet manufacturers are vertically integrated into resin manufacture and fiber production, blurring the delineation between facility functions. Step 4 - Carpet Dealers. Carpet dealers sell carpet. They service either the wholesale or retail market, although there is some spillover sales into the non-primary market. Retailers service the small business and residential market, which accounts for approximately 67 percent of post-consumer carpet discards. Carpet wholesalers service commercial customers and contract sales, which accounts for approximately 33 percent of post-consumer carpet discards. There are 40 carpet retailers and 3 carpet wholesalers located in Sarasota County. Brisk competition in the commercial flooring sector has pushed some carpet manufacturers to vertically integrate to capture a portion of the carpet wholesale Figure 3-2 and contract flooring installation Installer Profile markets. For example, DuPont has a The typical carpet installer for the retail market is an flooring removal and installation independent contractor. The installer arrives at the division for serving commercial retailer to load their van with the customer’s carpet. customers. The installer drives to the customer’s location and first removes the old carpet and underlying pad. The Step 5 - Installer. After a carpet dealer installer then installs the new carpet. After makes a carpet sale, generally an installation, the installer typically returns to the independent contractor will install the retailer to discard the used carpet and pad in the carpet at the customer’s location. For retailer’s dumpster or roll-off container. If there is a renovation and demolition contracts, a local market for pad, the installer may recycle the separate entity may remove used carpet. pad, which is valued at about $10-15 for an average See Figure 3-2, Installer Profile, for a size house installation and removal. Some retailers have their own pad recycling program and require description of the typical installer for the the installer to participate. retail market. R. W. Beck has identified 7 Page 3-6 R. W. Beck, Inc. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC Section 3 - Carpet Recycling Program Design commercial/contract carpet installers and 40 retail carpet installers located in Sarasota County. Because installers are independent contractors, stores have limited control over them. Installers require incentives or other compensation for any additional costs incurred by participating in a recycling program. Step 6 - Customers. Carpet is a durable product. The average life of a residential carpet is 12 years. The life of a commercial carpet averages roughly 8 years. Customers decide when to have a carpet replaced. Some customers specify recycled content in new carpet replacements. However, most carpet is purchased based on aesthetic or performance criteria. Recycled content may be transparent to the customer in terms of performance. However, recycled content may be an important marketing element in some cases and would be reflected in the carpet’s pricing based on the customer’s real or perceived premium or discount for a “recycled” content carpet. Step 7 - Haulers. After removal from the floor in Sarasota County, carpet is typically returned by installers to the retail store they are under contract to and placed in a waste container. Disposal practices vary in other areas, even among retail stores in a given locale. In some areas, installers may be able to leave removed carpet at the curb for residential waste collection. In other areas, retail stores may require installers to assume the responsibility for disposal so that installers deliver the material to a local landfill or transfer station. For large commercial replacement or renovation jobs, a roll-off container may be temporarily placed at the job site. A waste hauler then collects the material for disposal. Most carpet in Sarasota County, approximately 95%, is discarded in commercial waste streams, either roll-off or 8 cubic yard containers at the job site or retailer’s shop. Commercial waste haulers collect this waste stream. A small quantity of material, approximately 5%, is discarded by “do-it-your-selfers” and is collected by residential waste haulers. Because carpet stores typically pay for the disposal of used carpet in Sarasota County, many stores could realize significant avoided disposal cost savings that result from diverting materials for recycling. Thus, carpet retailers are in a position to use a portion of the disposal cost-savings to fund certain expected recycling program related costs, such as: Offering an incentive to installers when they have to go out of their way to participate in a recycling program; and/or Paying a collection or processing fee to a local recycler for sorting and handling the post-consumer carpeting. Six (6) haulers collect commercial waste that includes carpet in Sarasota County — Andy's Waste Hauling, Inc; Browning Ferris Industries (BFI); City of Venice; Englewood Disposal (a Waste Management subsidiary); Klein's Rubbish Removal (a Republic Waste subsidiary); and Waste Management. An additional company, Meyer & Gabbert W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC R. W. Beck, Inc. Page 3-7 Section 3 - Carpet Recycling Program Design Excavating Contractors (M&G), also collects commercial waste materials but restricts its collection activities to C&D debris (a waste stream that occasionally includes disposed carpet). Step 8 - Disposal or Processor. If carpet is not source separated, it is disposed at either a Class 1 or Class 3 landfill. R. W. Beck estimated approximately 1,160 tons per year of carpet was landfilled in Sarasota County's Class 1 landfill prior to commencement of this project (1998). If carpeting is recycled rather than disposed of at a local landfill, the material is typically delivered to a processor (Figure 3-3) either in a pure stream or mixed with primarily carpet installation waste. The mixed loads require an increased level of effort on the part of the processor to sort out the recoverable post-consumer carpet prepare it for shipment. As a result, the processor performs several important functions including: 1. Segregating carpet from the waste stream so it is recoverable; Figure 3-3 Carpet Processor 2. Sorting carpet into different categories based on face fiber types; and 3. Baling the carpet for shipment. Processor’s are local entities. They may be located at a central facility, such as a warehouse, MRF, or landfill. They may also be co-located with another business, such as a pad recycling operation or carpet installer’s supply store. Processor’s can also be mobile, processing material at the generator’s or retailer’s site, and removing targeted materials for baling and shipment. However, as mentioned previously, only processors with certain state permits are allowed to handle used carpeting delivered to the facility with other solid waste. There are three material recovery facilities and one C&D debris recycler in Sarasota County. Additionally, there is one carpet pad recycler. Any and all of these facilities are potential carpet processor locations. Step 9 - Carpet Recycler. The carpet recycler accepts pre-sorted post-consumer carpet (typically consisting of only one type of face fiber). The recycler processes carpet, a composite material, into its various components so that these materials can be reclaimed. The recycler may perform the following operations: 1. Liberate the face fiber from the carpet’s backing; 2. Reclaim high-value fiber using physical or chemical recycling processes into recycled resins; and/or 3. Process low-value fiber and/or other carpet constituents into marketable materials or fibers. Page 3-8 R. W. Beck, Inc. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC Section 3 - Carpet Recycling Program Design Carpet recycling is capital intensive. Therefore, recyclers locate regionally to serve large territories. This allows the recycler to draw large throughputs to allow for economies of scale. Some recyclers require such large throughputs that, in many case, these facilities are national in scope, drawing material from all over the country. Step 10 - Manufacturers. The carpet recyclers (Step 9) produce resin, liberated fibers, and other materials that may be used for various purposes as described more fully in Section 2 and in Appendix B. In summary: Chemically-recycled resin (e.g., Evergreen's recycled nylon 6) is of virgin quality and can be used to make new carpet and other items where aesthetics are important. Recycled resins produced through physical recycling processes contain impurities, such as colorants used in manufacturing the original carpet. Recycled products made from these products are usually limited to products where aesthetics are of lesser importance, such as automobile trunk liners. Other low-value fibers and carpet components can be recycled into extruded lumber- like products, sod reinforcements, padding, soundproofing, floor tiles and construction grade plastic products. It should be noted that companies integrate up and down the manufacturing and recycling chain as described above, and a single company may perform several steps, particularly on the manufacturing end of the chain. EXAMINE OTHER CARPET RECOVERY PROGRAMS Before selecting a recovery program for implementation, R. W. Beck examined a few existing recycling programs for carpet that is replaced through retail flooring sales to learn from their experience. At the time this study was initiated there were less than 25 post-consumer carpet recovery programs in existence. Honeywell now reports that it has developed a network of over 80 suppliers. Table 3-1, Selected Carpet Recovery Programs, lists several selected carpet recovery programs, the materials they accept, and how they collect and sort material. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC R. W. Beck, Inc. Page 3-9 Section 3 - Carpet Recycling Program Design Table 3-1 Selected Carpet Recovery Programs Company Location What is Accepted How Collected and Sorted American Carpet Recycling Ft. Lauderdale, FL Nylon 6 and nylon 66 carpet; Drop-off and collection route; polyurethane pad; corrugated primarily centralized sorting containers Blue Ridge Recycling Charlotte, NC All carpet and polyurethane Collection route. Centralized pad; pallets; corrugated sorting containers Brian Barnard’s Carpet Max Tallahassee, FL Nylon 6 Installers return old carpet to Carpet Max retail store. Store sorts carpet and bales nylon 6 Carpet Recycling Services Tampa, FL Reusable commercial carpet Take-up crews remove old carpet as a service Nantex Carpet Recyclers Orlando, FL Nylon 6 carpet Collection route, with on-route sorting (only nylon 6 carpet is removed from retail stores' waste containers) Nationwide Carpet Recycling So. St. Paul, MN All carpet, polyurethane pad, Take-up service and drop-off; vinyl composite tile and sheet combination of job-site and vinyl (Linoleum) centralized sorting Waste Management Various locations Varies by location Roll-off service — centralized sorting at transfer stations, or commercial waste MRFs World Recycling Association Orange, CA Polyurethane pad and nylon Drop-off; centralized sorting 6 carpet As Table 3-1 shows, existing used carpet recovery programs do not fit into any one mold. The following is a list of various types of companies that recover and process carpet: Carpet retail stores; Flooring take-up service companies; Commercial waste haulers/processors; Polyurethane pad collectors/processors; and Companies for whom carpet recovery is their principal business. Table 3-1 also demonstrates that materials accepted and the location where carpet separation and sorting takes place varies from program-to-program. When R. W. Beck contacted certain of the companies listed above at the initiation of the project, many of the firms were in the start-up phase of their business plans and didn't feel that their business data represented the long-term profitability of their operations. Because of the lack of business data and the variation in existing carpet recovery programs, a total of Page 3-10 R. W. Beck, Inc. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC Section 3 - Carpet Recycling Program Design four recovery program options were tested to determine which would be best suited for Sarasota County. A general lesson that was gleaned from the initial conversations with the operators of these programs is that a carpet recycling program works best in combination with recycling one or more other materials (e.g., polyurethane pad) or some other business service (e.g., a take- up service, or waste hauling and disposal service). CARPET WASTE COMPOSITION STUDY Carpet retail stores commonly develop distributor relationships with only a few carpet mills. These mills, in turn, develop their own relationships with individual resin or fiber suppliers. As a result, mills generally produce one or two face fiber types of carpet (e.g., nylon 6 only, or nylon 66 only). Depending on who the major local carpet retailers were 5 to 10 years ago (when the used carpet available today for recycling was originally installed), and the mill relationships these retailers had in place at the time, carpet waste composition on the local level may vary from national averages. Certain face fiber types (such as nylon 6) may be more or less prevalent at a particular locality depending upon which mill had the most extensive distribution network historically. The composition of the used carpet stream significantly affects which carpet recovery option is best suited to a community based on this project’s findings and, as a result, influences what option may be best for a given locality. R. W. Beck conducted a composition study of waste taken from Sarasota County carpet retail stores to quantify the average percentage of each type of post-consumer carpeting (e.g., nylon 6, olefin, etc.) present in Sarasota County’s waste stream. The results of this carpet retailer waste composition study were used to evaluate the projected profitability and effectiveness of the various used carpet recovery program options evaluated. Because the results of the carpet flow path analysis indicated that the project should target the portion of the carpet discards from residences and small businesses (which is returned by installers to carpet retailers for disposal in commercial waste containers), R. W. Beck focused on analyzing waste discarded in carpet store roll-off containers. Both Waste Management, Inc. and Meyer and Gabbert, Inc. provided access to their respective facilities for conducting the waste sorts and handling residue. R.W. Beck staff sorted a total of eight roll-off containers of primarily post-consumer carpet and installation waste disposed at carpet retail stores (Figure 3-4). Materials were sorted into 12 categories. The sorts revealed that on average, only 54 percent of the material in carpet store roll-offs was carpet. The remainder, 46 percent by weight on average, was pad, old corrugated containers, carpet cores, ceramic tile, pallets, and other waste including store generated MSW. Carpet types were identified using the spectroscopic CarpID™ detector supplied by Evergreen. Based on this study, nylon 6 carpet and nylon 66 carpet, comprise approximately 13 percent and 17 percent respectively, of the waste stream discarded at carpet retail outlets. The sort found that 15 percent of the roll-offs contained “Unknown” carpet, meaning that detection of carpet fiber type was not determinable by the CarpID™ instrument at the time of the sort. Table 3-2, Carpet Store Waste Discards Composition, shows the results of the waste composition W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC R. W. Beck, Inc. Page 3-11 Section 3 - Carpet Recycling Program Design study. Figure 3-5, Composition of Sorted Carpet Discards, depicts the relative carpet percentages as found in the Sarasota carpet store waste sort. Figure 3-4 Typical “Carpet” Roll-Off (Venice, FL - Summer 1999) It should be noted that some stores as well as certain of the carpet installers (on their own initiative and for their own benefit) operate polyurethane pad recovery programs that divert polyurethane pad from disposal. The pad figures shown in Table 3-2 and depicted in Figures 3-5 and 3-6 represent the average amount of pad disposed at the eight stores sampled. Of the eight stores sampled, however, only three of the stores had significant amounts of pad present in the container. Thus, pad disposed at individual stores can vary significantly depending upon the level of pad recycling currently occurring at each location. Interpretation of the Waste Sort Results The waste sort provided important data that significantly impacted the economics and logistics planning process prior to pilot testing the four selected options. Observation #1 - Carpet waste was found to be just over half of the total waste in the roll- off container. This impacts the collection and processing elements of each option because of the large percentage of non-carpet materials that must be handled in addition to carpet waste. One hypothesis drawn from this data is that carpet recycling should be linked to a multi-material recycling facility to capture a larger portion of the waste (e.g., items such as Page 3-12 R. W. Beck, Inc. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC Section 3 - Carpet Recycling Program Design corrugated containers and film plastics found in the loads). A multi-material recycling strategy would also have a secondary benefit of diversifying potential revenue sources. Table 3-2 Figure 3-5 Carpet Store Waste Discards Composition of Sorted Carpet Discards Composition Material Type Percentage Carpet Unknown Nylon 6 13% Carpet Nylon 66 17% Nylon 6 29% Polyester 1% 24% Olefin 6% Wool 2% Unknown Carpet 15% Vinyl-backed Carpet 0% subtotal carpet 54% Non-Carpet Wool Pad 6% 3% OCC Net of Cores 1% Olefin Ceramic Tile 10% Nylon 66 12% Pallets 6% 30% Polylester All Other 23% 2% subtotal non-carpet 46% Total 100% Figure 3-6 Relative Proportions of Identified Carpet Discards Wool 4% Olefin 17% Nylon 6 34% Polylester 2% Nylon 66 43% W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC R. W. Beck, Inc. Page 3-13 Section 3 - Carpet Recycling Program Design Observation #2 - Nylon 6 carpet was found to be 24 percent of disposed carpet that was sorted as opposed to the 30 percent of carpet waste expected based on national averages. This impacts collection and processing programs because, at the time of the program, nylon 6 was the only carpet type that was marketable with positive revenue, freight loaded on board (FOB) a truck at the processor’s facility. Thus, lower than expected nylon 6 carpet resulted in lower diversion and lower program profitability. Observation #3 - Nearly 30 percent of the carpet store waste was of “unknown” fiber composition. This may have contributed somewhat to the lower than expected quantities of nylon 6 carpet found in the test loads. Figure 3-6 shows the relative proportions of carpet in Sarasota County if the carpet that registered as “unknown” using the carpet detector is excluded. As the figure shows, less polyester and more nylon carpet appears to be generated in the County when compared to national averages. The frequency of obtaining "unknown" readings also reduces the efficiency of carpet sorting if carpet must be tested in several spots before a “true” reading is obtained. This loss of productivity may have been a problem with the particular detector used in this sort or a reaction to the environmental conditions at the sort site. Whatever the reason for the unusual readings, R. W. Beck believes that dealing with false or variable readings adversely impacts the program economics and must be factored into program economic assumptions. An extensive discussion of challenges to carpet identification/detection is presented in Appendix A under the section, Advanced Recycling Technology. IDENTIFY AND REVIEW RECOVERY PROGRAM OPTIONS R. W. Beck identified four promising carpet recycling collection and processing program options after completing the steps described in the previous subsections, and evaluated the potential financial performance of those programs using pro forma spreadsheet models before field testing any of the program options. The four potential program options evaluated were: 1. A centralized drop-off location; 2. Site sorting at the carpet stores; 3. Recovery at a C&D recycling facility; and 4. Source-separated containerized collection. A summary of these programs and the perceived advantages and disadvantages of each (prepared prior to pilot implementation) is presented in Table 3-3, Description of Potential Collection and Processing Programs and described in further detail below. Page 3-14 R. W. Beck, Inc. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC Section 3 - Carpet Recycling Program Design Table 3-3 Description of Potential Collection and Processing Programs Diversion Program Description Pros Cons Estimated Cost Effectiveness 1. Drop-Off Installers deliver used ♦ Low entry costs ♦ Difficult to create incentive to Low Low carpet to a specific ♦ Easy to implement installer for participation location for scanning ♦ Collects pure stream ♦ Small amount of material of material recovered ♦ Requires altering routine of installers 2. Site Sort A crew drives to carpet ♦ Does not require ♦ Difficult to develop cost- Moderate Moderate stores and scans used altering routine of effective collection route carpet for removal and retailer or installer ♦ Some material will not be delivery to a processing ♦ Collects pure stream retrieved due to location in facility of material container or conflicts with pick- up schedule 3. C&D Recycling Facility Roll-offs containing used ♦ Greatest amount of ♦ Labor intensive Moderate High Recovery carpet, pad, ceramics, tile, recyclable carpet is ♦ Requires expense of disposing wood, and MSW are recovered non-recyclable materials delivered to a C&D ♦ Recovers additional recycling facility for recyclable materials sorting; recyclable ♦ Does not require materials are recovered, altering routine of and non-recyclable retailer or installer materials are disposed 4. Source-Separated All carpet is placed into ♦ Requires little ♦ High costs due to extra High High Containerized Collection covered recycling roll-offs altering of routine containers, extra disposal costs or front-load waste for installers or for non-recyclable carpet, containers and delivered to retailers dedicated labor/equipment a processing location ♦ Collects pure carpet required for stores with front- and no MSW load container service ♦ Requires extra space at retail facilities W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC R. W. Beck, Inc. Page 3-15 Section 3 - Carpet Recycling Program Design Drop-Off The drop-off program envisioned for this recovery option would require installers to deliver post-consumer carpet removed from a job site to an existing recycler for sorting and baling. The main assumptions underlying this option included: Materials would be accepted by the recycler with no fee assessed or scrap value paid; All carpet would be accepted by the recycler; Underlay pad must accompany the carpet; and Installers from ten retail stores would participate. The advantage to using an existing recycler as the drop-off site is that dropped-off materials do not incur the additional collection costs to transfer the material from the drop-off center to the processor. This is in addition to the collection savings from having the installer deliver the used carpet to the drop-off location. Furthermore, the processor already has a facility and equipment to accept, bale, stage, and load material for shipment to a final market, and can monitor dropped-off materials. An unmonitored drop-off for bulky carpet and polyurethane pad would undoubtedly attract illegal dumping of other bulky waste and scavenging of the valuable pad. Unfortunately, a single drop-off recycling site does not provide the convenience that multiple sites do for obtaining greater participation. If the recycler that sponsors the drop-off is an existing polyurethane pad recycler, some installers may already frequent the drop-off location to sell recovered pad. Under such a scenario, there would be little inconvenience to the installer to also recycle carpet removed from the job site (although some installers store pad at their homes from several installation jobs before they visit the pad recycler). Site Sort The Site Sort recovery program option was envisioned as a post-consumer carpet collection route among retail carpet stores. The main assumptions underlying this option included: The route would be serviced twice weekly by a two-person recycling collection crew; Installers would set aside carpet for possible recycling at each participating retail store. The collection crew would stop at participating stores, scan and identify carpet, load nylon 6 carpet into their collection vehicle, and load all other carpet into the retailers' waste containers; Polyurethane pad would not be collected because of existing pad recycling activities; and Processing (baling) would be performed by an existing recycler. The primary advantage of this method is that it does not significantly alter the existing routine of the retailer or installer. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC R. W. Beck, Inc. Page 3-16 Section 3 - Carpet Recycling Program Design C&D Recycler Recovery This option involved diverting roll-off loads of retail carpet store waste and commercial carpet installation waste from the Sarasota County landfill to a C&D debris recycler located adjacent to the County landfill. The main assumptions underlying this option included: A C&D recycling tip fee nearly $12 per ton less than the landfill disposal tip fee; and Nylon 6 carpet, polyurethane underlay pad, and corrugated containers are all baled and sold; all other processible C&D materials (e.g., pallets, ceramic tile, trash) are processed into ADC material for use at an adjoining landfill. Three main advantages were perceived for this option: 1. Retailers and installers would not need to alter their existing routines; 2. Other materials would also be recovered for recycling or processing into ADC; and 3. Carpet could also be recovered from the general C&D debris stream and commercial contract replacement jobs, rather than exclusively from carpet store waste. The main disadvantage to this option is that it does not target carpet disposed in front-load containers. A specialized front-end loading collection vehicle would need to be given a dedicated route of retail carpet stores with front-end loading dumpsters to allow for cost effective recovery from these stores. However, due to the relatively small number of retail carpet stores with front-loading dumpsters and the logistics associated with servicing these few outlets throughout the community, this option was considered uneconomical. Source Separated Containerized Collection This option involved converting a typical 30-cubic yard waste collection roll-off container to a source separated carpet recycling roll-off container and adding an 8-cubic yard front-load waste container for all other waste materials at each retail carpet store location (as space allowed). The main assumptions underlying this option included: Stores with front-load container waste collection service (i.e. no current roll-off service) would not be targeted; The number of roll-off pulls at each carpet store location would decline to two pulls per month (a 50 percent reduction); and The newly added front-loading waste container would be serviced twice-per-week. In general, this service schedule would provide the retailer with approximately the same amount of waste collection service on a cubic yard basis. The primary advantage of this option is that carpet is containerized so recycling collection is mechanized rather than requiring manual loading of carpet into a collection vehicle. The main disadvantage with this option was that some stores lacked the space necessary for an additional waste container, and therefore would not be able to participate in this option. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC R. W. Beck, Inc. Page 3-17 Section 3 - Carpet Recycling Program Design CONDUCT A PRO FORMA ANALYSIS OF OPTIONS A pro forma analysis was performed for each of the four potential program options as a guide to which option or options would be pilot tested. The spreadsheet model used to develop the pro forma analyses used the results of the carpet waste composition analysis and other actual and estimated cost, revenue, and productivity data as inputs. The results of the analyses based on conditions in Sarasota County during late 1998, are depicted in Figure 3- 7, Pro Forma Net Program Savings (Cost). Figure 3-7 Pro Forma Net Program Savings (Cost)1 $ 5 00 $401 $ 00 4 $ 3 00 $199 $202 $ 00 2 $ 00 1 $ (9 3 ) $- $ (1 0 0 ) $ (2 0 0 ) Site Sort Facility Containers Drop-Off Separated C&D Source 1 On a per month basis, per participating retail store. As Figure 3-7 shows, the Drop-Off program was expected to show the greatest savings, albeit at an expected lower diversion rate compared to other options. The Site Sort and C&D Facility options were projected to provide savings comparable to each other. Alternatively, the Source Separated Containerized Collection option was projected to be more costly than the disposal system that was in place. The four program options and underlying assumptions are described in further detail below. One assumption that was common to all was that only nylon 6 face fiber types of carpet could be marketed.1 1 One market offered to accept nylon 66 collected in Sarasota County even though it was closed to new accounts, if doing so would help improve the study outcome. The terms of this agreement would have been no value or fee charged, FOB Atlanta, for baled carpet. R. W. Beck and Sarasota County Government considered this opportunity but declined to take advantage of the market for two main reasons: (1) The project was intended to test recycling strategies replicable in other Florida communities. The market available to Sarasota County was not available to other Florida communities, thus Sarasota County's program would not provide a model for or results applicable to other Florida programs if it made use of that market. Furthermore, it would obscure the affect that lack of nylon 66 markets has. (2) This option would not contribute any revenue to the program and pilot project participants would incur collection, processing, and shipping expenses comparable to local disposal costs. Page 3-18 R. W. Beck, Inc. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC Section 3 - Carpet Recycling Program Design Drop-Off The pro forma for this option projected a $401 potential monthly net system savings (store and processor combined totals) per participating retail store per month. This amount does not take into account any incentive payment the retailer may need to provide to the installers to participate in the program by delivering the used carpet to the drop-off center. It is expected that the incentive would vary from store-to-store since some stores would be more convenient to the drop-off site than others. As a result, the $401 monthly net savings would be reduced by the incentive amount the retailer would provide the installer. Pro forma savings for this and the other options take into account the current average cost of disposal per store (based on a 30-cubic yard roll-off container serviced once per week), and the estimated savings on hauling and tip fees, less processing fees. Site Sort The pro forma for this option projected a $199 potential net system savings (store, collector, and processor combined totals) per participating retail store per month. This amount only includes recovering nylon 6 carpet from retail stores. Recovery of polyurethane pad from retail stores that do not currently recycle the material would produce additional system savings. C&D Recycling Facility Recovery The pro forma for this option projected a $202 potential net system savings (store and C&D debris recycler combined totals) per participating retail store per month. This assumes that the C&D recycling facility processes material to produce ADC. Source Separated Containerized Collection The pro forma for this option projected that recycling would incur a potential $93 net system cost (store and processor combined totals) per participating retail store per month. Because the other proposed options were projected to provide net system savings, Option 4 Source Separated Containerized Collection was rejected as a collection option in Sarasota County. This option may be feasible in areas where roll-off service costs are less expensive. RECOVERY OPTIONS SELECTED FOR IMPLEMENTATION An analysis and review of the four carpet recycling options identified in this report section did not identify any one option that was clearly superior to the rest. In fact, only one option, Source Separated Containerized Recovery, was eliminated from consideration because it was projected to incur a net system cost, as opposed to the system savings projected for the other options. Recycling program implementation requires selecting individual project partners who have specific attributes (such as facility location, existing equipment, company stability, management commitment level, etc.) that may favor one program over another given local conditions. Therefore, R. W. Beck met with several existing recyclable materials processors and evaluated their facilities. Further discussions were held with a few processors to solicit W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC R. W. Beck, Inc. Page 3-19 Section 3 - Carpet Recycling Program Design their input on specific program operational elements that would be acceptable to them if they were to implement a particular carpet recovery option. R. W. Beck and Sarasota County Government decided to implement all three remaining program options (Drop-Off, Site Sort, and C&D Recycling Facility Recovery) on a limited- duration sequential pilot basis to determine the actual cost-effectiveness of each option and identify which would prove best for Sarasota County. Furthermore, the Drop-Off option was pilot implemented twice (for a total of four pilot programs), once at a pad recycler and once at a material recovery facility (MRF.) The two Drop-Off pilot programs, however, were implemented in significantly different ways. The next section of this report, Section 4 Pilot Program Implementation and Results describes the pilot programs in detail and presents the results of each. Page 3-20 R. W. Beck, Inc. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC SECTION 4 - PILOT PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION AND RESULTS Four pilot carpet recycling programs were implemented for varying durations during the project to determine the actual cost-effectiveness of the various recovery options and identify which would prove best suited for Sarasota County. The four programs were: Drop-off of post-consumer carpet at an MRF located in North Sarasota County; Drop-off of post-consumer carpet at a pad recycler located in Middle-North Sarasota County; C&D recycling facility recovery of post-consumer carpet from carpet store MSW roll-off containers at a C&D recycler located at Sarasota County’s Central Landfill; and Site sorting of post-consumer carpet at North Sarasota County retail carpet stores. Figure 4-1, Project Participant Locations, shows carpet retail store locations, the two drop-offs locations, and the location of the C&D recycling facility involved in the pilot programs. For each pilot program, this Figure 4-1 report section: Project Participant Locations Provides an overview of the pilot option as implemented; Discusses fees charged; Describes education and awareness efforts implemented; Describes day-to-day program operation; Provides recovery quantities; Discusses program economics for project stakeholders and the system as a whole; and Presents conclusions. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC R. W. Beck, Inc. Page 4-1 Section 4 - Pilot Program Implementation and Results MRF DROP-OFF Location: Recycle America, Inc. 3100 North Washington Boulevard Sarasota, Florida 34234 Project Participants: Recycle America, Inc. Carpet retailers Carpet installers Pilot Test Period: 6 weeks - May 25, 1999 through June 30, 1999 Materials Accepted: Nylon 6 carpet Nylon 66 carpet Polyurethane foam pad All other carpet replacement waste materials OVERVIEW Section 3 discussed the merits of a drop-off center as a potentially cost-effective method for recovering post-consumer carpet. Section 3 also mentioned that siting such a drop-off center at a location frequented by carpet installers (such as at a polyurethane pad recycler) or at a facility with existing processing equipment (such as at a MRF) would likely result in higher program participation and/or improved program cost-effectiveness. To this end, Recycle America, with its MRF located in close proximity to the County’s population center as well to several carpet retail stores, and its existing recyclables processing equipment (including a horizontal baler – the baler of choice for baling carpet), was selected as a pilot drop-off location for this project. The Recycle America drop-off accepted all waste typically generated while replacing carpet, including underlay pad, plastic film, paperboard roll cores, and used carpet (“Carpet Replacement Waste”). Carpet installers, typically independent contractors to the carpet retailers, were asked by the carpet retailers to deliver the Carpet Replacement Waste materials to the drop-off center instead of returning the materials to the retail store for disposal (the installers’ normal practice prior to the pilot). These materials were collected at the drop-off location for a period of approximately six weeks. During the pilot program, Recycle America staff recorded the following program performance data: Number of loads dropped off daily; Retail store the load came from; and Daily weight of nylon 6 and nylon 66 carpet, polyurethane pad, and other waste delivered to the drop-off location. This data was subsequently used to estimate average recovery levels, pilot program effectiveness, and determine the area from which the drop-off was drawing materials. Page 4-2 R. W. Beck, Inc. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC Section 4 - Pilot Program Implementation and Results FEES CHARGED TO PROJECT PARTICIPANTS No drop-off fee was charged to installers or carpet stores during the pilot test period for use of the drop-off site. However, no scrap value was paid for the polyurethane pad delivered to the drop-off location either. Carpet store managers were instructed that polyurethane pad (when generated) was to accompany carpet replacement waste to the drop-off. R. W. Beck did recommend to carpet store managers at the pilot’s inception to consider compensating the installers for the extra time spent delivering the materials to the drop-off site. It was assumed, based on the pro forma calculation discussed in the previous chapter, that a portion of the disposal savings experienced by the carpet retailer could be used to compensate the installer for the additional time to deliver the Carpet Replacement Waste to the drop-off location. EDUCATION PROGRAM Implementation of the pilot program required educating and appealing to three parties: Managers of carpet stores, who were responsible for the disposal of Carpet Replacement Waste returned by installers. Store managers were instructed in the operation of the program and the disposal cost saving benefits to the store, and were asked to ensure their installers participated in the drop-off program. R.W. Beck developed a brochure for carpet store managers to distribute to their installers, a copy of which is included in Appendix D. Installers, who were independent contractors to the carpet stores. The installers were to be provided a copy of the recycling program brochure by the carpet store manager and asked to drop off the Carpet Replacement Waste they generated each day to the Recycle America drop-off location. Recycle America staff, who were the operators of the drop-off program. R. W. Beck instructed the Recycle America staff in the operation of the program, including accepting, weighing, and recording data on incoming loads of Carpet Replacement Waste materials. In addition to the initial education efforts, R. W. Beck also contacted store managers on two occasions as the pilot drop-off program progressed to provide feedback on participation by their installers and to encourage those managers to try to obtain greater installer participation. OPERATION Operation of the drop-off pilot program consisted of the following steps: A drop-off area was located at the front of the Recycle America MRF where four self- dumping hoppers were placed. Hoppers were designated for nylon 6 carpet, nylon 66 carpet, polyurethane underlay pad, and all other waste materials (unmarketable carpet, rubber underlay pad, and other waste materials). When an installer brought a load of carpet replacement waste to the Recycle America drop-off, a Recycle America staff member met the installer and identified the carpet face fiber type with a CarpID™ scanner. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC R. W. Beck, Inc. Page 4-3 Section 4 - Pilot Program Implementation and Results Staff then directed the installer to load carpet, polyurethane pad, and all other materials into the appropriate hopper for each designated material. As a result, collection costs and some sorting costs were internalized by the installers who dropped off the materials. After the installer unloaded the Carpet Figure 4-2 Replacement Waste materials into the Drop-Off Participation Receipt designated hoppers, the Recycle Date: America staff person provided the installer with a business card-sized Name: receipt, which is shown in Figure 4-2. Carpet Store: The purpose of the receipt was serve as a means of providing a financial incentive Carpet to the installers for going out of their Pad way to recycle the carpet. The carpet Sarasota County Carpet Recycling Program retailer was encouraged to provide the installer a small financial incentive for each receipt the installer presented to the carpet retailer. The retailer, alternatively, would set the incentive based upon the savings the store experienced as a result of lower solid waste disposal fees and pull charges. Recycle America baled nylon 6 carpet and polyurethane pad using a high-capacity horizontal baler, shown in Figure 4-3, that produced slightly more than 7 bales per hour. Each carpet bale weighed from 1,300-1,500 pounds. Figure 4-3 Because markets were Carpet Baled at Recycle America only willing to pay positive scrap value for baled poly-urethane foam pad and nylon 6 carpet, Recycle America chose to dispose of the other grades of carpet, rubber pad, and other materials. The weight of the nylon 66 carpet delivered to the facility was recorded for analysis and future use (should markets later develop for the material). PILOT PROGRAM RESULTS Eighty-one loads of carpet replacement waste were delivered to the Recycle America drop- off location during the six-week pilot period. On average, 3.1 loads of Carpet Replacement Waste were delivered by installers to the MRF drop-off each day, although daily totals ranged from 1 to 7 loads. Figure 4-4, entitled Daily Loads of Carpet Delivered to the Recycle Page 4-4 R. W. Beck, Inc. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC Section 4 - Pilot Program Implementation and Results America Drop-Off, depicts the number of loads delivered on a daily basis during the pilot program. Figure 4-4 Daily Loads of Carpet Delivered to the Recycle America Drop-Off 7 6 5 Daily Loads Delivered 4 3 2 1 - 99 99 99 99 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 /9 /9 /9 /9 /9 /9 /9 /9 /9 /9 /9 /9 /9 /9 /9 2/ 4/ 6/ 8/ 25 27 29 31 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 6/ 6/ 6/ 6/ 5/ 5/ 5/ 5/ 6/ 6/ 6/ 6/ 6/ 6/ 6/ 6/ 6/ 6/ 6/ The average load delivered to the drop-off location weighed 564 pounds. Total daily weights delivered ranged from a low of 240 pounds per day to a high of 4,630 pounds per day, or approximately 1,758 pounds per day on average. Overall, installers dropped off a total of 45,705 pounds of Carpet Replacement Waste, which was separated into four material streams: nylon 6 carpet, nylon 66 carpet, polyurethane pad, and “other” waste materials (e.g., other unmarketable carpet, rubber pad, and other waste products). The program captured 12,280 pounds of nylon 6 carpet, 15,360 pounds of nylon 66 carpet, and 4,140 pounds of polyurethane foam pad. Nylon 6 carpet, nylon 66 carpet, and polyurethane pad accounted for 27 percent, 34 percent, and 9 percent, respectively, of the Carpet Replacement Waste dropped off at the MRF. “Other” waste materials accounted for the remaining 30 percent. Figure 4-5, Composition of Material Delivered to Recycle America Drop-Off, illustrates the relative proportions of the dropped-off materials. The percentage of nylon 6 carpet, nylon 66 carpet, and polyurethane pad delivered to the drop-off was significantly higher than that found in the carpet retailer waste composition W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC R. W. Beck, Inc. Page 4-5 Section 4 - Pilot Program Implementation and Results analysis performed prior to implementation of the pilot program (See Figure 4-5 and 4-6 below). The reason for the difference is that a significant amount of non-Carpet Replacement Waste (e.g., ceramic tile, wood flooring, etc.) was present in the carpet stores’ waste container during the waste composition analysis. Carpet retail stores commonly sell and arrange for installation of vinyl, wood, and ceramic tile flooring in addition to carpet. Waste from those installation jobs (typically performed by different crews) as well as office and warehouse waste generated by the stores themselves were also placed in the same waste containers used for disposing of Carpet Replacement Waste. Tile waste — consisting of ceramic and stone tiles — is very heavy. Only Carpet Replacement Waste was accepted at the Recycle America drop-off location. Figure 4-5 Figure 4-6 Composition of Material Composition of Material Delivered to the Recycle America Drop-Off Disposed in Retail Store Waste Containers Nylon 6 Non- carpet Carpet Other Nylon 6 27% Related 30% carpet 36% 13% Other 28% Nylon 66 Polyurethane Polyurethane Nylon 66 carpet pad pad carpet 17% 9% 6% 34% Nylon 6 carpet and polyurethane pad composed a total of 36 percent of the Carpet Replacement Waste delivered to Recycle America by the installers. Because only those two materials were recycled as part of the pilot, the overall recycling rate for material delivered to the drop-off was 36 percent. Had nylon 66 carpet had a positive market value at the time of the pilot and been recycled, the percentage of material recycled would have increased to approximately 70 percent. PILOT PROGRAM ECONOMICS Carpet Retailer Economic Analysis - Based on data collected during the course of this project, it was found that the "average" carpet store in Sarasota County, Florida paid $1,208 per month for the collection and disposal of waste. This figure was based on filling one 30- cubic yard roll-off container each week. This waste disposal cost estimate was based on the contents of the roll-off container weighing approximately 4,400 pounds when pulled by the solid waste hauler. Over 60 percent of waste placed in the roll-off container was Carpet Replacement Waste. Other waste placed in the container included materials disposed from Page 4-6 R. W. Beck, Inc. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC Section 4 - Pilot Program Implementation and Results the office and warehouse areas of the retail store, and ceramic tile and vinyl flooring returned to the store by installation crews. Offsetting the collection and disposal cost was revenue generated by the sale of the polyurethane pad removed from job sites by the installers and returned to the retailers for recycling. Although not all stores required the installers to return the pad to the store, it is important to note that certain stores considered the pad revenue a predictable revenue stream and, as such, needed to have the pad’s value factored into the overall program economics. The carpet stores marketing the polyurethane pad generated, on average, $126 per month from the sale of the pad based on a market price of $0.08 per pound. It was estimated that if a typical carpet store was able to convince its carpet installers to drop their Carpet Replacement Waste materials at the MRF drop-off center, the store would be able to replace the 30-cubic yard roll-off waste container with a single smaller 8-cubic yard waste dumpster emptied twice-per-week (at a cost of approximately $332 a month). No revenue from the sale of polyurethane pad was generated by the retailer under this scenario. The pad was sold by the MRF operator to defray certain costs of operating the drop-off and preparing the materials for marketing (e.g., sorting, baling). Because the Recycle America MRF drop-off was only pilot tested for a six week period, retail stores did not actually change their waste disposal arrangements. The program as tested, however, demonstrated the potential to produce savings that averaged $750 per store per month (before incentive payments, if any, to installers to drop off the Carpet Replacement Waste at the drop-off center, or recycling fees paid to the processor). Table 4-1 shows the summary economic analysis for an average carpet retailer delivering all Carpet Replacement Waste to the MRF drop-off location. Table 4-1 MRF Drop-Off Pilot Program Economic Impact on Carpet Retailer1 Before recycling program implementation Waste disposal cost $ 1,208 Recycling revenues (polyurethane pad)2 126 Net cost $ 1,082 After recycling program implementation Waste disposal cost $ 332 Recycling revenues (polyurethane pad)3 0 Net cost $ 332 Net store savings $ 750 1 Analysis is based on a typical carpet retail location generating one 30-yard roll-off of waste weekly. 2 Estimated average revenues for polyurethane pad based on a market value of $0.08 per pound. 3 No revenue was paid to the retailer for the polyurethane pad delivered to the Recycle America drop-off with other Carpet Replacement Waste. Revenues generated from the pad were used to offset the operating costs of the drop-off. Installer Economic Analysis – Installers from four stores delivered Carpet Replacement Waste to the MRF drop-off site (with the bulk of participation coming from installers working for only two stores). As originally envisioned, installers were expected to be compensated for their efforts by the carpet retailer during the pilot drop-off program. As W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC R. W. Beck, Inc. Page 4-7 Section 4 - Pilot Program Implementation and Results mentioned previously, installers utilizing the drop-off site were provided with a drop-off receipt acknowledging that Carpet Replacement Waste had been dropped off. The carpet retailer was asked to provide the installer a financial incentive payment for dropping off the material. The funding for this financial incentive was to come out of the waste disposal savings the carpet retailer was expected to experience. However, installers reported that the carpet stores did not provide any compensation for turning in the drop-off receipts. This may have been due to the temporary nature of the pilot program. Actual savings to the carpet retailers only occur when the roll-off container is pulled less frequently. Due to the limited duration of the test period, the carpet retailers may have been waiting to ensure that significant savings were occurring before providing a financial incentive to the installers. Alternatively, the carpet retailers may have felt that no incentive payment was required to ensure that the installers utilized the drop-off location, particularly for stores located close to Recycle America. MRF Operator Economic Analysis - Table 4-2 summarizes the economic impact to the MRF operating the carpet drop-off location. The figures shown in Table 4-2 were calculated based on an average cost carpet store per month basis. Table 4-2 MRF Drop-Off Pilot Program Economic Impact on MRF Operator (all figures are calculated on an average cost per carpet store per month basis) Direct Costs Sorting $ 61 Baling 23 Residue disposal 480 Net cost $ 564 Revenues Nylon 6 carpet $ 149 Polyurethane pad1 192 Recycling tip or service fee2 0 Net revenues $ 341 Net Revenues (Cost) ($ 224 ) 1 Assumes all used polyurethane pad generated by the carpet retailer is delivered to the MRF drop-off location. 2 None assessed during the pilot period. Recycle America retained revenues for the sale of polyurethane pad and nylon 6 carpet and internalized the costs for operating the drop-off site and disposing of the unmarketable carpet and other Carpet Replacement Waste for the six-week duration of the pilot program. The revenues from the nylon 6 carpet and pad sales were estimated to be $341 per month on average for each store that delivered Carpet Replacement Waste to the drop-off. However, Recycle America’s processing costs averaged $564 per month per participating store. Thus, the pilot as tested resulted in a net loss of $224 per store per month to the MRF. Based on this finding, it became obvious that a MRF drop-off accepting all Carpet Replacement Waste (as opposed to only the marketable nylon 6 carpet and pad underlay) Page 4-8 R. W. Beck, Inc. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC Section 4 - Pilot Program Implementation and Results would need to charge a recycling tip or service fee for long-term implementation of a used carpet drop-off operation. Less polyurethane pad was delivered to the Recycle America drop-off than was anticipated. A review of drop-off records revealed that one third of the time installers did not bring any pad with them when they visited the drop-off, which would seem to indicate that either the installers or the stores may have been retaining the polyurethane pad for the recycling revenues. The economic results for the processor significantly improve as more polyurethane pad is received by the drop-off. Overall Program Economics - Using a single carpet store as the basis for analyzing the program economics allowed for an overall program economic analysis to be developed. The overall program economics for the MRF Drop-Off resulted in total savings of $526 per carpet store per month ($750 carpet store savings minus $224 MRF operator cost), before carpet stores provide any incentives to installers for their participation. An incentive payment to the installers for delivering the Carpet Replacement Waste to the drop-off location is needed. Retailer total cost savings and the overall program economic savings would be reduced by the amount of the incentive stores would need to pay to installers to obtain their participation in the drop-off. Also, a recycling tip fee or service charge would need to be paid by the carpet store to offset the MRF operator’s operating loss shown in Table 4-2 and provide for a reasonable operating profit to the MRF. The carpet retailer’s net savings after payment of a monthly recycling tip fee to the MRF drop-off operator would be reduced by the amount of the tip fee. The carpet retailer has the financial latitude (based on the avoided collection and disposal cost savings that accrue to the retailer) to provide the MRF operator a recycling processing fee and the installers a financial incentive to deliver Carpet Replacement Waste to the drop- off location. CONCLUSIONS The overall program economics for the MRF Drop-Off resulted in total savings of $526 per carpet store per month ($750 carpet store savings minus $224 MRF operator cost), before carpet stores provide any incentives to installers for their participation. The overall program economic savings would be reduced by the amount of the incentive stores would need to pay to installers to obtain their participation in the drop-off. The program as tested has the potential to cost-effectively divert post-consumer nylon 6 carpeting and polyurethane pad for recycling. However, the actual level of recovery will be limited unless participation is increased significantly. As mentioned above, the revenue from the sale of the nylon 6 carpet and polyurethane pad was not sufficient to cover the MRF’s costs to operate the drop-off and process the material. Clearly, the processor must receive a recycling processing fee to allow for the program, as designed, to operate on a long-term basis. Without compensation, installers are not likely to participate in the program, reducing overall recovery levels. Ultimately, installers will need an incentive to participate. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC R. W. Beck, Inc. Page 4-9 Section 4 - Pilot Program Implementation and Results Therefore, the disposal savings generated by the carpet retailers’ needs to be shared with the installers in some way for permanent implementation of this recovery option. The carpet retailer does have the financial latitude (based on the avoided collection and disposal cost savings that accrue to the retailer) to provide the MRF operator a recycling processing fee and the installers a financial incentive to deliver Carpet Replacement Waste to the drop-off location. Additional participation is necessary. Of the 21 carpet dealers in the Mid-to-North Sarasota County area, installers from only 4 stores participated in the program. While the store managers understood the potential savings, they failed to ensure their installers followed through with participation. The project team attributes part of this problem to the fact that the program was viewed only as a “pilot”. As a result, managers were unwilling to strongly encourage their installers to make major changes in their daily procedure to ensure nylon 6 carpet was diverted. It is difficult to enforce the requirement that pad be dropped off with the other Carpet Removal Waste due to its recognized positive economic value. A better option may be for MRF drop-off program operators to charge a higher processing fee to the retailer and pay the installer a fair market scrap value for polyurethane pad. An on-the-spot cash payment for the polyurethane pad could serve as enough of an incentive to installers to deliver the Carpet Replacement Waste to the carpet drop-off. This may limit the size of or eliminate the need for the retailer to provide a financial incentive payment to the installer. However, those carpet replacement jobs where waste polyurethane pad is not generated would lack an incentive for installers to bring Carpet Replacement Waste to the drop-off. The lack of markets for the nylon 66 carpet had a significant adverse effect on the program economics. As noted in Table 4-2, the cost of disposing of the non-marketable Carpet Replacement Waste was by far the greatest program cost to the MFR operator. More importantly, over half of the non-marketable Carpet Replacement Waste disposed consisted of nylon 66 post-consumer carpet. To the extent that a market for nylon 66 carpet can be identified (even with a market value sufficient to cover transportation costs to the end-user), the overall program economics would improve significantly. PAD RECYCLER DROP-OFF Drop-off Location: The Pad Place, Inc. 4646 Ashton Road Sarasota, Florida 34233 Project Participants: The Pad Place, Inc . Carpet stores Carpet installers Pilot Test Period: 3 months — August 9, 1999 to October 8, 1999 Materials Accepted: Nylon 6 carpet Polyurethane foam pad Page 4-10 R. W. Beck, Inc. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC Section 4 - Pilot Program Implementation and Results OVERVIEW The Pad Place, Inc. is a polyurethane pad processor operating in the County. The Pad Place accepted pad for installers, baled the material, and marketed the material to end users of the post-consumer pad. A regular set of installers frequented the Pad Place to sell polyurethane pad recovered from job sites. During the course of the project, the Pad Place was paying $0.10 per pound for loose polyurethane pad delivered to their door. The Pad Place also sold carpet installation supplies, allowing installers to “drop and shop.” A drop-off pilot program for post-consumer carpet was established at the Pad Place given that some installers in Sarasota County already frequented the establishment. The carpet drop-off was operated for a period of three months. The Pad Place drop-off differed from the MRF drop-off in that the Pad Place only accepted nylon 6 carpet and polyurethane pad (as opposed to all Carpet Replacement Waste) from the installers. In addition, the Pad Place paid installers a market price for the polyurethane pad delivered to the their facility (as opposed to no scrap value paid). Because most Carpet Replacement Waste was still returned by installers to carpet stores for disposal, the disposal cost savings realized by the carpet retailers was significantly less than that experienced in the MRF drop-off pilot. As a result, the carpet retailers where not able to reduce the number of waste roll-off pulls to the same extent as in the case of the MRF drop-off pilot. FEES CHARGED TO PROJECT PARTICIPANTS No fee was charged to the installers or carpet stores for participating in the drop-off during the pilot test period. The Pad Place paid a market value to installers for polyurethane pad the installers delivered. No scrap value was paid to installers for nylon 6 carpet. EDUCATION PROGRAM Implementing the drop-off program at the Pad Place required education of carpet store managers and installers (some of who had already frequented the Pad Place for the purchase of supplies or to drop-off polyurethane pad). R. W. Beck developed and provided a flyer to carpet store managers that described the materials accepted at the Pad Place, operating hours, and location of the drop-off. Carpet store managers were asked to distribute the flyers to their installers and encourage their installers to participate. The flyer was similar to the one used for the MRF drop-off program, and is included in Appendix D. OPERATION Operation of the Pad Place drop-off pilot program consisted of the following steps: When an installer arrived, staff from the Pad Place used a CarpID™ scanner to identify if the carpet in the installer's vehicle was nylon 6. If the material was identified as being nylon 6 carpet, the installer unloaded the carpet and placed it into a covered container. The installer also unloaded polyurethane pad and was paid the market value of the pad. Other Carpet Replacement Waste was returned by the installers to the carpet store for disposal. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC R. W. Beck, Inc. Page 4-11 Section 4 - Pilot Program Implementation and Results Recycle America collected carpet from the Pad Place for baling. The Pad Place owns and uses a downstroke baler for pad; however, its baler was fully utilized for baling pad and was not available for processing carpet. Furthermore, the Pad Place did not have sufficient space to store baled carpet awaiting shipment to market. PILOT PROGRAM RESULTS The Pad Place recovered 12,020 pounds of nylon 6 carpet during three months of the pilot program. Although all used carpet delivered to the Pad Place was scanned (i.e., nylon 66 carpet), these materials were not unloaded from the installers' vehicles or weighed by Pad Place staff. Therefore, the recovery rate of materials from the carpet replacement waste stream could not be calculated. The Pad Place staff reported very few “unknown” readings when operating the scanner. The reliability of the scanner was probably improved by the controlled environment at the Pad Place. This may have resulted in properly identifying and recovering more nylon 6 carpet than otherwise might have occurred in a different setting. However, participation in the program continued to be somewhat of a problem even with the financial incentive of payment for the polyurethane pad. More specifically, even installers who considered themselves participants in the pilot did not always deliver their used carpet loads to the Pad Place for the following reasons: A carpet replacement job had unmarketable rubber pad (instead of polyurethane pad) under the carpet; A carpet replacement job had no pad under the carpet, which is common in many non- residential carpet replacement jobs; or It was not convenient to stop every day. Some installers prefer to store polyurethane pad from several replacement jobs at their homes and bring in a large quantity of pad all at once. However, they were unwilling to store the used carpeting at their home when no financial incentive would accrue to them directly as a result. PILOT PROGRAM ECONOMICS Carpet Retailer Economic Analysis - Table 4-3 shows a summary economic analysis for an average carpet retailer who participated in the Pad Place drop-off pilot program. The table shows that the average carpet retailer would experience a net $80 per month savings in this program because waste disposal savings exceed the amount of polyurethane pad recycling revenues lost. Page 4-12 R. W. Beck, Inc. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC Section 4 - Pilot Program Implementation and Results Table 4-3 Carpet Retailer Economic Analysis for Pad Recycler Drop-Off Before recycling program implementation Waste disposal cost $ 1,208 Recycling revenues (polyurethane pad)1 126 Net cost $ 1,082 After recycling program implementation Waste disposal cost $ 1,002 Recycling revenues (polyurethane pad)2 0 Net cost $ 1,002 Net store savings (cost) $ 80 1 Estimated average revenues. 2 Polyurethane pad dropped-off at the Pad Place with nylon 6 carpet. Carpet Installer Economic Analysis - R. W. Beck encouraged carpet stores to promote the Pad Place pilot drop-off program by allowing installers to retain the polyurethane pad recycling revenues collected at the Pad Place as an incentive for stopping at the Pad Place to recycle the used nylon 6 carpet. As mentioned in Section 3, some (but not all) stores and installers in Sarasota County recovered polyurethane pad for recycling prior to implementing this carpet recycling project. Nearly all installers who participated in the Pad Place drop-off pilot were existing customers of the Pad Place who worked for stores that did not require them to return the polyurethane pad generated from job sites back to the carpet retailer. As a result, a large segment of installers did not participate in the Pad Place pilot program due to a lack of financial incentive to do otherwise. Pad Recycler Economic Analysis - Table 4-4 shows that the Pad Place pilot program produced an estimated net revenue stream (net of direct costs) of $50 per participating store per month. Table 4-4 is intended to present results that represent what a typical polyurethane pad recycler would experience. For that reason, the cost to transport recovered nylon 6 carpet to Recycle America (who baled the carpet on a toll basis for the Pad Place) was not included in the economic analysis shown in Table 4-4. Unlike the Pad Place, typical polyurethane pad collectors/processors are assumed to have available baler time and storage space for processing carpet at their facilities. Under such circumstances, these pad processors would not incur additional local transportation expenses. Had transportation to Recycle America been included in the analysis (equal to $74 per participating store per month), the results of the analysis would have shown the Pad Place realizing a net loss of $24 per store per month as a result of operating the pilot carpet recovery program. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC R. W. Beck, Inc. Page 4-13 Section 4 - Pilot Program Implementation and Results Table 4-4 Processor Economic Analysis For Pad Recycler Drop-Off (all figures are on an average store per month basis) Direct Costs Sorting 1 $ 61 Baling2 37 Residue disposal 0 Net cost $ 99 Revenues Nylon 6 carpet $ 149 Polyurethane pad3 0 Recycling tip or service fee 0 Net revenues $ 149 Net Revenues (Cost) $ 50 1 Includes processor carpet sorting costs only, including an allocated portion (assuming ten participating stores) of the $200 per month detector rental cost. 2 Baling costs are for nylon 6 carpet only and were estimated based on what the Pad Place would have incurred (additional baler purchase, labor, and other expenses) upon permanent implementation of this program. 3 Assumes all pad buyback costs, baling costs, and revenues accrue to the existing pad recycling portion of the business, so that the economics presented in this table reflect the economics of carpet recycling and not the economics of the polyurethane pad recycling. Because polyurethane pad diversion was part of the Pad Place’s existing operations, the revenues and expenses associated with processing the pad were excluded from the analysis in order to show the economics of carpet recycling and not the economics of a pad recycling business. This treatment is different than was used for the MRF drop-off pilot because the MRF did not previously recover polyurethane pad and the revenues and expenses associated with pad recovery were incremental to Recycle America’s existing operation. CONCLUSIONS The Pad Recycler Drop-Off option is not effective in locations where a large number of retail carpet stores operate polyurethane pad recycling collection programs on site (which is the case for many of Sarasota County's larger retail stores). Stores that operate a pad recycling program retain the proceeds from the sale of the pad and remove the financial incentive for the installer to deliver the pad (and more importantly, the nylon 6 carpet) to the pad recycler drop-off location. Additional participation is necessary. The program lacked sufficient participation to make a significant impact on carpet diversion in the County. Approximately six tons of nylon 6 carpet were diverted in a three-month period, an amount nearly equal to the amount of nylon 6 carpet recovered by the MRF drop-off program in a six-week period. Furthermore, low participation and throughput hurt profitability, as fixed costs (e.g., the monthly cost of detector rental) consume a relatively larger proportion of gross revenues. Page 4-14 R. W. Beck, Inc. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC Section 4 - Pilot Program Implementation and Results The Pad Recycler Drop-Off fails to capture nylon 6 carpet from those carpet replacement jobs where polyurethane pad is not also generated, or when installers stockpile several days worth of polyurethane pad (but not carpet) at their home before visiting the pad recycler. The results of the project did not provide data on the actual percentage of carpet replacement jobs that do not have polyurethane pad as underlay, but the numbers are significant based on anecdotal information. CONSTRUCTION & DEMOLITION DEBRIS RECYCLER RECOVERY Drop-Off Location: Meyer & Gabbert Excavating Contractors, Inc. C&D Debris Recycling Facility 4000 Knights Trail Rd, Nokomis, Florida 34275 Project Participants: Meyer & Gabbert Excavating Contractors, Inc. Carpet Stores (indirect participation – redirection of roll-off containers) Waste haulers Pilot Test Period: October 22-23, 1999 and November 5-6, 1999 Materials Accepted: Carpet commingled with solid waste OVERVIEW Roll-off loads of solid waste from retail carpet stores (typically disposed of at the County landfill at a tipping fee of $63.77 per ton) were diverted to Meyer & Gabbert (M&G), a C&D debris recycler who holds a long-term contract to recycle C&D for Sarasota County on the grounds of the County's landfill complex. The loads were sorted to remove nylon 6 carpet, polyurethane pad, and scrap metal for recycling. Materials processible by M&G's existing C&D recovery operation (e.g., wood, tile, corrugated containers, and other materials that are easily shredded, hereinafter referred to as "Processible Material") were also separated and shredded by M&G for use as ADC at the landfill. The residue that remained (primarily non-nylon 6 carpet, rubber pad, and small pieces of various materials) was disposed. FEES CHARGED TO PROJECT PARTICIPANTS Due to the short duration of the project, the County continued to charge $63.77 per ton for carpet store waste delivered to M&G instead of the $42 per ton typically charged for C&D waste delivered to M&G. Therefore, the pilot program was transparent to carpet stores who experienced no change from their normal waste disposal bills. M&G did not charge the County its typical C&D processing fee of $42 per ton, again due to the short duration of the pilot program. In turn, the County allowed M&G to dispose of all residue from the pilot program in the landfill at no cost to M&G (who normally must pay for disposal of all C&D residue). W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC R. W. Beck, Inc. Page 4-15 Section 4 - Pilot Program Implementation and Results EDUCATION PROGRAM Education for the program included coordinating with and informing waste hauler managers of the specific dates the pilot program was in operation. Those managers, in turn, directed their roll-off drivers to tip roll-off loads of carpet store waste at M&G's facility instead of the landfill. OPERATION The pilot program functioned as follows: Roll-off containers of retail carpet store waste were tipped at M&G rather than the landfill when the carpet stores’ waste containers were pulled and emptied. R. W. Beck provided labor to remove polyurethane pad, scrap metal, large processible materials, and nylon 6 carpet (identified using a CarpID™) from each tipped pile of carpet store waste and segregated those materials into separate piles. After each load was sorted, M&G staff used a bucket loader to place sorted nylon 6 carpet and residue into separate roll-off containers designated for each material. M&G also used the bucket loader to feed the Processible Material into its hammermill grinder where the material was processed into ADC for use at the County landfill. Because only a small amount of scrap metal was recovered from the carpet store waste, R. W. Beck staff manually loaded the metal into a roll-off container M&G kept for scrap metal recovered from its daily C&D recycling operations. At the conclusion of the study period, the nylon 6 carpet was collected by an Orlando- based carpet recycler who arranged for baling and marketing of the material. M&G baled the polyurethane pad recovered during the pilot with an existing down-stroke baler it used for polyurethane pad it already recovered from C&D loads. M&G weighed the residue in roll-off containers (using a truck scale) and disposed of the material at the adjoining County landfill. The weights of all other diverted recyclables were estimated. PILOT PROGRAM RESULTS The program received 26,900 pounds of waste from carpet stores in eight roll-off containers. Nylon 6 carpet recovery was estimated at 3,100 pounds, polyurethane pad recovery was estimated at 3,060 pounds, and ADC material produced from Processible Material was estimated at 2,540 pounds. Residue that was landfilled accounted for 18,200 pounds, or 68 percent of the material delivered. A greater quantity of incoming carpet store waste could have been separated for processing into ADC. However, it was economically unattractive to do so due to the relatively low value of the ADC (the County pays M&G $0.001 per pound for the material) and the significant time that would have been required to sort the Processible Material from the remaining residue. Figure 4-7, C&D Recycler Material Recovery Percentages, depicts the relative proportion of each material stream produced from the delivered roll-off loads of carpet retail store waste. It is interesting to note that the percentage of nylon 6 carpet recovered was nearly the same percentage as the carpet retail store waste composition study discussed in Section 3 of this report. Furthermore, the CarpID™ used at M&G produced very few "unknown" carpet Page 4-16 R. W. Beck, Inc. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC Section 4 - Pilot Program Implementation and Results readings that could potentially obscure the relative percentage of nylon 6 carpet in the retail store waste stream. Alternatively, polyurethane pad composed a much greater quantity found in the waste composition study (nearly double). This suggested that an inordinate percentage of the loads of carpet store waste received were from carpet stores without polyurethane pad recycling programs. Figure 4-7 C&D Recycler Material Recovery Percentages Residue 68% ADC Pad 9% N6 Carpet 11% 12% PILOT PROGRAM ECONOMICS Carpet Retailer Economic Analysis – Table 4-5 shows the economic analysis for the carpet retailer. Table 4-5 Carpet Retailer Economic Analysis For C&D Recycler Diversion Before recycling program implementation Waste disposal cost $ 1,208 Recycling revenues (polyurethane pad)1 126 Net cost $ 1,082 After recycling program implementation Waste disposal cost2 $ 1,000 Recycling revenues (polyurethane pad)1 126 Net cost $ 874 Net store savings (cost) $ 208 1 Estimated average revenues. 2 Reduced tipping fee of $42.00 per ton at M&G compared to $63.77 at the landfill. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC R. W. Beck, Inc. Page 4-17 Section 4 - Pilot Program Implementation and Results Based on an economic analysis of the pilot, it was estimated that the average retail carpet store would have realized savings of approximately $208 per month had the program been continued beyond the pilot period. The savings would have resulted primarily from the reduced tip fee ($42 per ton vs. $63.77 per ton at the landfill) that would have been charged on carpet waste loads processed at M&G. Because tipping fees on roll-off container loads of waste are normally billed at cost by waste haulers, the savings would have accrued to the carpet retailer. The analysis shown in Table 4-5 also assumed that the carpet store had an existing polyurethane pad recycling program. C&D Recycler Economic Analysis - As shown in Table 4-6, the C&D recycler (M&G) would have achieved net revenues of $227 per average store per month. This analysis is based on operating costs of $703 per store per month for sorting and baling recyclables and shredding Processible Material into ADC. The operating cost analysis also included a $454 per store per month cost for disposal of residue at the County landfill at $63.77 per ton. On the revenue side, the analysis assumed revenue from the sale of nylon 6 carpet, polyurethane pad (disposed by stores that do not recover the material for recycling), and a small amount of revenue from the sale of ADC for use at the County landfill. Table 4-6 Processor Economic Analysis For C&D Recycler Recovery (all figures are on an average store per month basis) Direct Costs Sorting $ 122 Baling & ADC shredding 127 Residue disposal1 454 Net cost $ 703 Revenues Nylon 6 carpet $ 149 Polyurethane pad 378 Alternative daily cover 2 Recycling tip or service fee2 401 Net revenues $ 930 Net Revenues (Cost) $ 227 1 Based on $63.77 per ton Sarasota County landfill tip fee. 2 Based on $42.00 per ton Sarasota County C&D tip fee. CONCLUSIONS It is estimated that the C&D Recycler Recovery option achieved net system savings of $435 per participating retail store per month ($208 retail store savings and $227 C&D recycler net revenues). Thirty two percent of the carpet retail store waste stream was diverted during the pilot. Page 4-18 R. W. Beck, Inc. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC Section 4 - Pilot Program Implementation and Results From the carpet stores’ perspective, the C&D Recycling Facility program represents the easiest way to implement a carpet recycling program since no change to existing practices is required in the way retailers or installers currently manage their carpet replacement waste. The C&D Recycler Recovery approach allows diversion of Carpet Replacement Waste from contract flooring jobs in addition to recovery from carpet retail stores (an option not readily available in a drop-off program). This greatly increases the potential quantity of carpet that could be recovered. However, this approach does not target recovery of carpet from stores that use front-load waste containers instead of roll-off containers unless the hauler sets up a dedicated collection route from those stores.1 If carpet retail store waste cannot be classified as C&D debris, permitting issues will need to be resolved prior to permanent implementation of this recovery option at a C&D recovery facility. SITE SORT Site Sort Location: Northern part of Sarasota County Project Participants: Nantex Carpet Recyclers, Inc. 11 carpet stores Carpet installers Pilot Test Period: 3 weeks — November 8, 1999 to December 2, 1999 Materials Recovered: Nylon 6 carpet OVERVIEW The Site Sort pilot recovery program was implemented at 11 carpet retail stores in the north part of Sarasota County. The 11 stores involved in the pilot produced 70 percent of all Carpet Replacement Waste generated in the County. The Site Sort program consisted of operating a collection route for nylon 6 carpet from the 11 participating stores. The stores were grouped closely together, which resulted in an efficient collection route. The pilot program evaluated two methods of conducting a Site Sort program. Depending on the store, installers returning carpet replacement waste either: Continued their normal practice of disposing of all materials in the store's waste container (Method 1); or 1 Only a few carpet stores in Sarasota County (not enough for a collection route) — representing ten percent of carpet replacement waste generated in the County — used front-loading waste containers. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC R. W. Beck, Inc. Page 4-19 Section 4 - Pilot Program Implementation and Results Separated carpet from other waste and deposited the material in a carpet recycling receptacle at the store, and disposed of all remaining waste in the store's existing waste container (Method 2). Nantex Recycling, LLC (Orlando, FL), a company involved in the collection of used carpet in other Florida counties as well as a supplier to Evergreen, provided two collection staff that drove the collection route twice per week, stopping at each store on the route. The crew used a CarpID™ to identify carpet by face fiber type at each store. They loaded nylon 6 carpet into the collection vehicle (a box truck) and disposed all other materials in the stores’ waste containers. At the end of the route, Nantex's staff unloaded collected nylon 6 carpet at a processing facility for baling. FEES CHARGED TO PROJECT PARTICIPANTS No fee was charged to the carpet stores during the pilot test period. Nantex paid a baling fee to the processor in lieu of incurring the baling expense itself. EDUCATION PROGRAM No education was provided to stores that were involved in the pilot, but not requested to separate the used carpet from the other waste (Method 1). Alternatively, a flyer developed by R. W. Beck and provided to carpet store managers requested that installers segregate the used carpet and place it in a recycling container provided as part of the pilot (Method 2). Store managers were asked to distribute the flyers to their installers and encourage the installers to separate the carpet for recycling. The flyer also instructed the installers to load all other waste materials into the store’s waste container. A copy of the flyer is provided in Appendix D. Nantex’s collection crew also required education. R. W. Beck provided them with instructions concerning: The route to follow; How to record time and estimated nylon 6 carpet weight data for the route; and The procedure for collecting separated carpet, including transferring unmarketable materials to the store’s waste container. OPERATION The site sort program involved collecting only nylon 6 carpet from carpet store locations. Two collection strategies were used depending on store preferences: Eight stores made no change to the operating procedures. The installers continued their normal practice of placing all Carpet Replacement Waste in the stores' waste containers. Twice per week, Nantex’s collection crew would stop at each store and “dumpster dive” in the waste container to obtain the carpet. This practice consisted of searching through the waste in the container using a CarpID™, pulling out the nylon 6 carpet, and leaving the other unmarketable carpet and waste in the container. Because waste in the Page 4-20 R. W. Beck, Inc. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC Section 4 - Pilot Program Implementation and Results containers was bulky and heavy, Nantex crewmembers would normally only check carpet that was easily removed from the waste container (i.e., near the top). Three stores asked their installers to modify their daily operating procedures. Two of the stores asked installers to load the used carpet into an additional waste container delivered to each store as part of the project and labeled as a carpet recycling container. The third store asked its installers to load only used carpet onto a temporary custom- built platform R. W. Beck made from two scrap pallets that were laid side-by-side and nailed together (carpet laid on the pallets was covered with a tarp to keep it dry). Installers were asked to load all remaining waste into each store's existing waste container. Twice per week, Nantex’s collection crew would stop at the stores and sort through the carpet that was set aside for recycling using a CarpID™. Nylon 6 carpet was loaded onto the truck. All other waste carpet was transferred into the stores’ waste containers (which greatly exceeded the amount of nylon 6 carpet recovered). The stores that selected not to continue placing the carpet in the stores’ waste containers did so for one of two reasons: They had no additional space for a recycling container (in addition to existing waste and in some cases polyurethane pad recycling containers); or They were afraid the temporary pallet-receptacle would be unsightly or lack the holding capacity needed for the large quantities of carpet returned to some stores. After completing the collection route, Nantex’s collection crew unloaded the collected nylon 6 carpet at a recycler who baled the material. Because carpet was not weighed until the completion of the route, Nantex’s crew estimated the amount of nylon 6 carpet recovered at each store based on visual observations of the amount collected. PILOT PROGRAM RESULTS Nantex crewmembers completed the 11-store collection route in a little more than two hours each collection day (a total of four hours per week), collecting on average of 1,055 pounds of nylon 6 carpet from the route (worth approximately $63 once the material was baled). This level of diversion did not provide enough revenue to support the collection and processing effort. Diversion of nylon 6 carpet was lower than anticipated in this program. Nantex collected, on average, 832 pounds of nylon 6 carpet per store on a monthly basis. This compares to an estimated generation of 2,477 pounds of nylon 6 carpet per store per month, for a recovery rate of 34 percent. Figure 4-8 shows the estimated weekly amount of nylon 6 recovered by Nantex at each location as well as the amount of other carpeting disposed. Interior Floors, Inc., Factory Direct Interiors, Inc., and Carpet Inn of Sarasota, Inc., were the three stores that asked installers to separate carpet from other waste and set it aside for recycling. Those stores diverted twice as much nylon 6 carpet on average than the stores that selected the dumpster-dive approach. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC R. W. Beck, Inc. Page 4-21 Section 4 - Pilot Program Implementation and Results Figure 4-8 Site Sort Recovery Results By Participating Store Carpet Inn Of Sarasota, Inc. Carpet Direct Outlet, Inc. Classic Floors G Fried Carpet Factory Direct Interiors, Inc. Home Carpet Co, Inc. Bobs Carpet Mart Carpet Mill Direct Sales Interior Floors, Inc. Manasota Carpet, Inc. Edwards Floor Covering, Inc. 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 Estimated Amount Per Week (lbs.) Nylon 6 carpet recovered Other carpet disposed Even so, recovery of nylon 6 carpet at stores that separated the carpet was less than expected. A possible cause may have been that installers may not have always separated the carpet, but instead placed it in the waste container. This is not known for certain due to the fact that the carpet stores’ waste containers were not checked for nylon 6 carpet. However, the practice of transferring carpet identified as not being nylon 6 from the recycling collection container to the carpet store's waste container for disposal by Nantex’s collection crew may have disheartened some installers, who may have decided that the extra separation step on their part, though minimal, was not worthwhile. R. W. Beck also observed significant amounts of non-carpet waste material in the collection containers provided for the segregated carpeting. A contributing factor may have been that converted waste collection containers were used as recycling collection containers. Those containers were labeled with fluorescent orange 8.5"x11" signs to identify them as carpet recycling containers. Waste containers tend to attract waste, even if they are labeled for recycling. It is likely that this problem could have been reduced over time with additional installer education. It is important to note that this problem did not occur with the custom- fabricated pallet-receptacle R. W. Beck placed at the third store that chose to use a separated carpet approach. The fact that the site sort dumpster-dive approach didn't capture most nylon 6 carpet generated wasn't overly surprising, because: Page 4-22 R. W. Beck, Inc. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC Section 4 - Pilot Program Implementation and Results Significant amounts of nylon 6 carpet buried under other waste was probably left unrecovered; and Collection crews occasionally arrived at the retail store only to find that the container had been emptied by the waste hauler (because the waste container had filled and the retail store had asked that it be emptied). PILOT PROGRAM ECONOMICS Two approaches —dumpster dive and separated carpet — were investigated as part of the Site Sort option. An advantage to the dumpster-dive approach was that less time was spent at stores using that approach compared to the time spent at stores with the separated carpet approach, since only nylon 6 carpet (located near the top of waste containers) was physically handled. On a per pound of nylon 6 carpet recovered basis, the dumpster-dive approach appeared to be somewhat less costly then the separated carpet approach. However, additional research is required to confirm this premise since diversion quantities for each approach were estimated based on visual observations. The economic analysis in this section is based on the following assumptions: The average carpet retail store used the separated carpet site sort approach (because of its potential to divert significantly more material than the dumpster-dive approach); Only nylon 6 carpet was removed from the carpet retailer's waste stream; and Virtually all nylon 6 carpet generated was recovered (i.e., stores monitor installer participation to ensure all their installers participate in setting aside all carpet for potential recycling). Carpet Retailer Economic Analysis - Table 4-7 shows the economic analysis for the average carpet retailer. As the table demonstrates, savings averaged $141 per store per month, primarily due to reduced disposal costs resulting from the removal of the nylon 6 carpet from the waste stream. Table 4-7 Carpet Retailer Economic Analysis For Site Sort Recovery Before recycling program implementation Waste disposal cost $ 1,208 Recycling revenues (polyurethane pad) 1 126 Net cost $ 1,082 After recycling program implementation Waste disposal cost $ 1,067 Recycling revenues (polyurethane pad)1 126 Net cost $ 941 Net store savings (cost) $ 141 1 Estimated average revenues. Collector Economic Analysis - Table 4-8 provides the economic analysis for the site sort collection program operator. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC R. W. Beck, Inc. Page 4-23 Section 4 - Pilot Program Implementation and Results Table 4-8 Collector Economic Analysis For Site Sort Recovery (all figures are on an average store per month basis) Direct Costs Collection and sorting $ 90 Baling1 37 Residue disposal 0 Net cost $ 127 Revenues Nylon 6 carpet $ 149 Polyurethane pad 0 Recycling tip or service fee 0 Net revenues $ 149 Net Revenues (Cost) $ 22 1 Based on a toll-baling fee of 1.5 cents per pound. As Table 4-8 shows, the site sort collection program operator achieves net revenues of $22 per participating store per month. This net revenue result assumes that greater amounts of nylon 6 carpet can be recovered from stores upon long-term implementation of the program than was actually experienced by Nantex during the pilot (because retail stores have more time to ensure all their installers separate all their carpet for recycling). CONCLUSIONS The site sort recovery option produced overall system savings of $163 on average per store per month (consisting of $141 in monthly retailer savings plus $22 per month in collector net revenues). Site-sort recycling collection containers should not resemble waste collection containers. If the recycling container looks like a waste container, it may attract waste instead of only carpet. Co-collecting polyurethane pad with the nylon 6 carpet could add revenues and allow vehicle costs and labor expense to be allocated across more materials. Page 4-24 R. W. Beck, Inc. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC SECTION 5 - COMPARISON OF RESULTS AND PROGRAM POTENTIAL This section provides a summary comparison of the results from the four carpet recycling pilot programs discussed in Section 4 — Pilot Program Implementation and Results and the factors that are challenging cost effective carpet recovery. This section also addresses what impact a positive scrap value for baled nylon 66 would have on the economic analyses for each option piloted. All four pilot programs yielded system-wide cost savings when nylon 6 carpet was recycled, though individual pilot program results varied widely. The programs also significantly differed in the amount of materials diverted from the solid waste stream. This report section compares the cost-savings and overall effectiveness of the options that were pilot tested. COST-SAVINGS COMPARISON The economic results shown in this subsection are based on market and program operating conditions in Sarasota County at the time of this report’s publication, and assume a market for only nylon 6 carpet. The data also assumes a minimum participation of 10 stores in each program. Changes in market conditions, including the value of used carpet and expanded markets for carpet types other than nylon 6 would significantly effect these results. Each pilot program demonstrated cost savings accruing to the carpet stores. These savings resulted almost exclusively from the avoided disposal fees resulting from the removal of nylon 6 carpet from the waste stream. Furthermore, the MRF Drop-Off option allowed carpet stores to replace roll-off containers with smaller front-loading waste collection containers that were less expensive on a per cubic yard of waste collected basis. Table 5-1 summarizes the results for participants (retailers, installers, and processors) and the system as a whole for each recovery option. Regardless of the party considered (retailer, installer, processor, or end-market), there must be sufficient financial incentive to justify involvement in a carpet recycling program. The total system savings shown in the last column of Table 5-1 represents the total savings available to be split among the participants after implementing carpet recycling. If this system savings total is not large enough to meet the total of the individual needs of each participant, the recovery option lacks the necessary financial drivers for private industry implementation of that option (external of governmental intervention). W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC R. W. Beck, Inc. Page 5-1 Section 5 - Comparison of Results and Program Potential Table 5-1 System Economic Analysis Comparison (all figures are on an average store per month basis) Retailer Installer Processor Net Net Recovery Option Savings Compensation Revenues Savings MRF Drop-Off $ 7501 2 ($ 224)3 $ 5264 Pad Recycler Drop-Off 80 $ 158 50 130 5 C&D Recycler Recovery 208 n/a 227 435 Site Sort Collection 141 n/a5 22 163 1 Before any fees paid to installers for delivering material or before payments to the MRF for processing. 2 Amount subject to negotiation between retailer and installer. 3 Figure as shown is before the effect of a recycling tip fee, which would be negotiated between the MRF and retailers. 4 Actual net savings will be less after installers are compensated for delivering material to the MRF. If installers are given the scrap value of the pad as their compensation ($126 revenue loss to the retailer and $158 paid to the installer by the MRF, the difference being picked-up verses delivered scrap pricing), net system savings would total $400. 5 Does not apply due to little or no change to current installer practices. Because of the low net revenues the collector/processor receive for the Site Sort option, permanent implementation of that option would likely require charging retailers a recycling service fee for the collector/processor to achieve a satisfactory return. The service fee cannot be very large, or else the retailer savings will not be great enough to interest them in the program. The MRF Drop-Off option also requires a processor recycling service fee. However, the retailer savings are much greater for that option and could be shared with the processor, thereby making the option profitable for all parties involved. As Table 5-1 demonstrates, the MRF Drop-Off and C&D Recycler Recovery options provide the greatest system savings to drive the recovery of carpet. However, consideration must be given to the relative levels of carpet recovery experienced under each option. OVERALL PROGRAM EFFECTIVENESS COMPARISON Table 5-2 shows the relative effectiveness of each recovery program based on several important factors. A sustainable carpet recycling program can succeed if a private processor is able to make a reasonable profit or a local government can justify recovery program economics. In Table 5-2 “potential diversion” relates to the quantities of carpet generated in Sarasota County that each processing method could potentially capture at full implementation. “Potential participation” characterizes how much education and maintenance is necessary to keep the program running smoothly. “Quality of Carpet” relates to the affect of the processing method on commodity quality. For example, wet carpet is not marketable. The programs in which installers hand deliver carpet to a processor are able to keep the carpet in better condition than programs where the used carpet is stored outside. Finally, “Capture Page 5-2 R. W. Beck, Inc. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC Section 5 - Comparison of Results and Program Potential Cost Avoidance” shows if the program has a natural way of reallocating costs and benefits through savings resulting from diversion. Programs that require new procedures are ranked lower. Table 5-2 Program Effectiveness Matrix Recycling Method Potential Potential Quality of Capture Cost Diversion Participation Carpet Avoidance Pad Recycler Drop-Off + + ++ -- C&D Processor +++ +++ - ++ Site Sort Collection ++ ++ 0 -- MRF Drop-Off ++ ++ ++ + Key: +++ = greatest 0 = average - - - = least Two programs, the C&D Processor program and the MRF Drop-Off program emerge as having the best overall potential for recovering used carpet in Sarasota County. The C&D recycler program is the only program that can offer countywide carpet recycling. Furthermore, it can be implemented without any modification to the carpet store or installers’ routines, thus high participation can be expected. The MRF drop-off program also rates highly as a carpet recycling solution for Sarasota, although its impact would likely be limited to the 20 or so stores located in close proximity to the MRF. The major drawback to this approach is developing a system to distribute the costs and benefits equitably among the stakeholders. This project was unable to demonstrate adequate profit potential to participating processors, therefore, most processors that participated in the project expressed little interest in continuing the program. However, a change in market conditions or local government support (in the form of government recycling funds) could significantly change the viability of carpet recycling programs in Sarasota County and elsewhere. FACTORS CHALLENGING CARPET RECOVERY IN SARASOTA COUNTY Though the previous discussion has shown that carpet recycling can be economically feasible under the proper conditions, several factors challenge carpet recovery in Sarasota County to the point that no private processors have attempted to implement a long-term program. These limiting factors primarily include: 1. Lack of nylon 66 carpet markets; 2. Less than expected nylon 6 carpet in the carpet replacement waste stream; 3. Minimum volume requirements in the local area. These challenges are discussed below. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC R. W. Beck, Inc. Page 5-3 Section 5 - Comparison of Results and Program Potential LACK OF N66 MARKETS The single most significant factor that influenced the economic performance of each program was the lack of markets for nylon 66 carpet. When the project began, markets paid a minimal value for nylon 66 carpet. However, the startup of new collection programs in the months that followed quickly resulted in collections of nylon 66 carpet that exceeded market demand. As a result, most markets purchased the material only from existing suppliers, at little-to-no value. This subsection examines the impact that paying markets for nylon 66 carpet would have on the recovery programs pilot implemented in Sarasota County. The data presented in this report subsection assumes the existence of markets for nylon 66 carpet that pay $0.02 per pound, FOB the processor’s dock. Otherwise, no changes to the assumptions that each option is based on (as discussed in Section 4) were made. Table 5-3, Economic Analysis of Adding Nylon 66 Carpet Recycling, provides a summary of net impact - savings or (cost) - to carpet retailers and recycling processors with and without processing and marketing of nylon 66 carpet, and lists the net system savings that occur under each scenario. As shown, the net system savings significantly increase for all recovery program options. Table 5-3 Economic Analysis of Adding Nylon 66 Carpet Recycling ($ per store per month) Nylon 6 Carpet Markets Only Nylon 6 and Nylon 66 Carpet Markets Retailer Processor Net System Retailer Processor Net System Cost Net Savings Cost Net Savings Savings Revenue Savings Revenue Recovery Option (cost) (cost) MRF Drop-Off1 $750 $(224) $5262 $750 $(6) $7442 Pad Recycler Drop-Off3 $80 $50 $130 $256 $66 $322 C&D Recycler Recovery4 $208 $227 $435 $208 $373 $581 Site Sort $141 $22 $163 $316 62 $378 1 Assumes payment of $9.00 per load accepted to processor and $5.00 per load delivered payment to installer and MRF operator markets recovered polyurethane pad. 2 Before any fees are paid to installers for delivering material to the MRF for processing. 3 Assumes self-baling on site; note: polyurethane pad value is not included in analysis. 4 Assumes $42.00 per ton tip fee paid to processor on gross tonnage and C&D operator markets recovered polyurethane pad. The estimates in Table 5-3 are based on hypothetical market conditions; however, the results help to demonstrate the significant impact that carpet markets have on net system cost savings. Both the MRF Drop-Off and C&D Recycler Recovery options provide significant increases in net system savings. The marginal cost to bale the extra material is more than compensated by revenues and residue disposal cost avoidance. Both programs need to continue to charge a processing fee, however. The Pad Recycler Drop-Off benefits with an increase in net system savings. The pad recycler program does not recoup any of its processing costs through user fees, and instead derives all its revenue from the sale of material. So in this scenario, the carpet stores increase Page 5-4 R. W. Beck, Inc. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC Section 5 - Comparison of Results and Program Potential their savings through cost avoidance but do not pass the savings on to the processor. Polyurethane pad revenues are not included in this program’s economic analysis because carpet is an “add-on” operation from the polyurethane pad recycler’s perspective. This analysis is based on the assumption that if the polyurethane pad recycler adds N66 to their program, they will bale their own carpet. If the polyurethane pad recycler does not bale on site, as the Pad Place did not in Sarasota, adding N66 to the recycling program results in a net cost because local transportation costs exceed the additional revenues received. The Site Sort option economics improved substantially with the ability to market nylon 66 carpet, because the marginal amount of time required to load nylon 66 carpet onto the collection vehicle as opposed to loading it into the carpet store's waste containers was not significant. The retailer cost savings also increased significantly, so that a recycling service fee could be assessed, if needed, to provide greater net revenues for the program collector/processor. LOWER NYLON 6 RECOVERY AS A PERCENT OF TOTAL CARPET AND CARPET STORE WASTE Waste sorts conducted for this project revealed that 24 percent of carpet in Sarasota County was found to be nylon 6, as opposed to the 30 percent that was expected based on the national average. Lower percentages of nylon 6 carpet, which is a valuable and marketable material, resulted in lower cost effectiveness. Some of the difference in percentages may reflect problems experienced with the CarpID™ fiber type detector, which proved to be sensitive to environmental factors including heat, moisture (wet carpet, and perhaps humidity), and carpet soil, and which would provide excessive readings of "unknown" carpet type in certain environments. These environmental factors are common environmental conditions in Florida. However, even when the detector seemed to be functioning well, nylon 6 carpet still was significantly less than expected. A price increase in scrap value of nylon 6 carpet would help to make up for reduced recovery levels of nylon 6 carpet. Alternatively, carpet stores could segregate nylon 6 carpet themselves if market competition results in a lower cost detector, or if Evergreen would lower the monthly rental fee of the CarpID™. LACK OF NECESSARY MATERIAL VOLUMES Sarasota County has a population of 300,000. The project revealed that the Sarasota County carpet waste stream is not large enough to support a stand-alone carpet recycling facility, and may not provide enough net revenues for recyclers of other materials to want to add carpet recycling to their existing business activities. Because the overhead expense for carpet recycling is high for a single material stream, it makes economic sense to cover or share overhead costs by handling other recyclables or conducting other business activities at the same location that handles carpet. Three of the four options that were pilot implemented utilized this strategy, as follows: 1. MRF Drop-Off 2. C&D Recycler Recovery W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC R. W. Beck, Inc. Page 5-5 Section 5 - Comparison of Results and Program Potential 3. Pad Recycler Drop-Off In each of these programs, carpet recycling is an “add on” allowing the facility to handle carpet at marginal increased cost. The project team estimates Sarasota County’s used carpet generation rate to be 1,160 tons per year. Based on the data generated by the pilot programs, we estimate that a maximum of 280 tons of nylon 6 carpet (assuming 100 percent nylon 6 carpet recovery) could be recovered from Sarasota’s waste stream. At Evergreen’s current price of $0.06 per pound there is a maximum of approximately $33,000 potential gross revenue in the county’s carpet stream before paying program costs (e.g., baling costs, operating costs, detector lease at $200 per month, or benefits of cost avoidance). As was discussed previously in this report section, the effectiveness of individual recovery options in recovering nylon 6 carpet vary. Drop- offs, in particular, are significantly less effective in capturing all material than is the C&D Recycler Recovery option, for example. With the exception of the Pad Place, all the recyclers who participated in pilot implementation of program options felt that the amount of revenue produced by recovering nylon 6 carpet in Sarasota County was insufficient for them to consider continuing carpet recovery, given the current lack of markets for nylon 66 carpet. A dynamic also exists between the absolute quantities of materials handled, and the relative proportion of those materials that can be successfully diverted. Currently, carpet recycling is not favored in either arena. Successful diversion of unmarketable carpet will improve both profitability and tons diverted and spur renewed interest in carpet recycling. Because throughput plays an important role for processors, Sarasota and other Florida counties may consider partnering with neighboring counties to encourage carpet recycling infrastructure development in their regions. The logistics of such an arrangement needs to be explored before drawing conclusions about potential profitability and the quantity of materials that can be diverted. However, the data from this project (for the options that were evaluated in Sarasota County) seems to indicate that a metropolitan area about double the size of Sarasota County (i.e., with a population of approximately 600,000) would be better able to support a local carpet recycling infrastructure under current market conditions. Page 5-6 R. W. Beck, Inc. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC SECTION 6 - CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONCLUSIONS The following conclusions resulted from the performance of this project: Recycling post-consumer carpet is challenging based on current market conditions. Certain of the options analyzed as part of this project showed promise even though markets are lacking for up to 70 percent of waste carpet. The lack of a consistent viable market for nylon 66 carpet adversely affected the economic results of the program. Had a market been available for nylon 66 carpet, the financial results of the options analyzed would have been significantly better. Participation from carpet retailers and their installers is critical to the success of certain carpet recycling programs, particularly where carpeting must be delivered to a drop-off location. The ability to convince carpet stores to participate in a post-consumer carpet recycling program is heavily influenced by program economics (i.e., financial benefit to the retailer and their installers). However, concern for the environment was also sited by several store owners as their impetus for participating in the program. Local conditions (including local disposal practices; tipping fees; waste container rental, pull, and service fees; labor cost; existing recycling programs for polyurethane pad; and community size) are key factors in determining the success or failure of a carpet recycling program. Sorting of mixed carpet store waste at a C&D processing facility capable of recovering materials in addition to carpet (e.g., wood, ceramics, corrugated cardboard, metals) can be a cost effective method for recovering carpet with minimal disruption to waste handling activities at the retailer. RECOMMENDATIONS Although most of the lessons learned in Sarasota County apply to other communities as well, each community is unique, and what works in one community may not apply to another. Conditions vary between locations. Therefore, it is recommended that the feasibility of carpet recycling be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Potential carpet recyclers need to research and consider other local factors that may or may not be favorable to carpet recycling cost-effectiveness. Four primary recommendations were derived from the research conducted as a result of this grant project: Keep the program simple; Provide incentives; W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC R. W. Beck, Inc. Page 6-1 Section 6 - Conclusions and Recommendations Piggyback with other operations; and Take a flexible program approach. These recommendations are discussed as follows. KEEP THE PROGRAM SIMPLE The first principle is to keep the program simple for participants to achieve greatest participation. Generators (carpet stores and installers) are more open to programs that do not require training or implementing new processes. As the “hassle” factor increases, participation will decrease. Wherever possible, the program should use existing recycling infrastructure and recycling methods already in place. PROVIDE INCENTIVES The next principle is to provide incentives for all participants. This involves allocating revenues/benefits fairly among all the stakeholders. When a program benefits one stakeholder at another’s expense, the program’s success is likely to falter without a reallocation of the benefits resulting from the program (e.g., disposal fee savings). The processor must be compensated as well as the generator. If installers have a role in the recovery effort (by delivering the carpet to a drop-off for example), they must be compensated as well. Generally, a program that diverts significant quantities of carpet will result in significant savings to the carpet store generator. Thus, the savings on tip fees and hauling charges can be shared as recycling fees to processors or incentives to installers. PIGGYBACK WITH OTHER OPERATIONS The third principle is to “piggyback” with other operations to capitalize on existing fixed overhead expenses that are already covered. A carpet program has a greater likelihood of success and profitability if co-located with or operated as a sideline at a polyurethane pad buy-back shop, a MRF, or a C&D recycler than if operated as a stand-alone business. By “piggybacking” the cost of labor, land, buildings, equipment, and overhead is shared in part by other activities. TAKE A FLEXIBLE PROGRAM APPROACH The fourth principle is to take a flexible program approach in designing a program. Local conditions will greatly influence the type of program that is appropriate for an individual community. Program operators must carefully evaluate the resources available before establishing a program. Carpet recycling is in its infancy and flexible programs will be able to incorporate best management practices for operating a carpet recycling program as they continue to emerge. The lessons learned from this project should be factored into any start- up carpet recovery program rather than “reinventing the wheel.” Page 6-2 R. W. Beck, Inc. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC APPENDIX A - MEETING THE OBJECTIVES OF THE INNOVATIVE GRANT PROGRAM The FDEP requires final reports produced for projects funded through its Innovative Recycling Grant Program to address several specific items. This appendix addresses those items not discussed elsewhere in this report. EQUIPMENT AND SERVICES UTILIZED Sarasota County purchased no equipment to complete this program. All equipment utilized was either leased for the relevant duration of the project period, or a subcontractor was compensated for the use of their equipment. Due to staffing limitations within the Resource Management Section of Sarasota County Government, the majority of the labor associated with the project was performed by R. W. Beck, Inc. (Orlando, FL). The following equipment was either leased or otherwise contracted for use during the project period: Carpet fiber type identification devices; Baling equipment and/or services; Dumpsters and collection equipment; and Loaders and heavy equipment. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Sarasota County Government and R. W. Beck, Inc. would like to acknowledge and thank the following businesses for their cooperation in this project. Without their cooperation, and in most cases donation of staff time and/or equipment, this project would not have been possible. Carpet Recycling Market Honeywell International/Evergreen Nylon Recycling LLC. Honeywell, joint venture partner in Evergreen (the largest carpet recycler in the United States), provided data and information on carpet generation and collection efforts that supported this project. Honeywell also provided CarpID™ spectroscopic scanners for evaluation use by R. W. Beck. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC R. W. Beck, Inc. Page A-1 Appendix A - Meeting the Objectives of the Innovative Grant Program Processors Waste Management, Inc., Recycle America, and Englewood Disposal. Waste Management and its subsidiaries Recycle America and Englewood Disposal significantly participated in this program. Their staff were extremely cooperative in supporting the project. They provided space, labor, and equipment for the waste composition analysis conducted at the beginning of this study. Furthermore, they provided transportation, handling, storage, and processing of recovered materials. Meyer & Gabbert Excavating Contractors, Inc. Meyer and Gabbert, Inc. staff accommodated multiple test periods, schedule changes, and temporary tip floor flow pattern changes to allow for carpet recovery at the company's C&D recycling facility. They also provided materials handling equipment for use during project test periods. Collectors The Pad Place, Inc. The Pad Place had very little spare room for new materials, yet its owners happily participated in the drop-off program. They educated installers about the program and dutifully collected data for the project. Nantex, Inc. Nantex staff modified their traditional collection practices to field test processes as specified by R. W. Beck. Staff also performed data collection to support the project. Retailers and Installers Twenty carpet stores were included in one or more of the pilot programs. A minimum of ten installers participated in the pilot drop-off program. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COOPERATION Many of the carpet retailers located in Sarasota County also accept jobs in Manatee County to the north and Charlotte County to the south. As a result, this project processed incidental amounts of used carpets from Manatee County and Charlotte counties. However, no formal intergovernmental arrangements were made for the project. Sarasota County is eager to share its results with other counties to facilitate transfer of knowledge gained from this project. ADVANCED RECYCLING TECHNOLOGY This project utilized two advanced technologies: Portable, hand held spectroscopic scanners to identify carpet face fiber types; and Depolymerization of nylon 6 carpet face fibers, which enables nylon to be recycled back into recycled resin with the qualities of virgin resin. Page A-2 R. W. Beck, Inc. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC Appendix A - Meeting the Objectives of the Innovative Grant Program DETECTOR TECHNOLOGY There are several technologies that enable individuals involved with carpet recycling to identify the face fibers of recovered carpet. Table A-1, Comparison of Available Detector Technologies, summarizes the identification systems that were considered for the project. Table A-1 Comparison of Available Detector Technologies Identification System Pros Cons Spectroscopy (battery operated) portable field conditions may yield false readings of “unknown” very fast detection material battery life Spectroscopy (a/c power) accurate readings not intended for field use not dependent on battery higher cost than battery operated units Melt point indicator (a/c power) accurate readings for some 5-10 times longer to identify materials sample (than spectroscopy) cannot distinguish between nylon 66 and polyester (i.e. not useful if n66 is to be marketed) Because this project required field identification of carpet types, R. W. Beck chose to use a battery operated hand-held unit to allow for portability. The CarpID™ (Carpet IDentifier) is a portable instrument for the fast and safe identification of carpets according to their face fiber type. The instrument was developed by DSM Research (Geleen, Netherlands), the Institute for Chemo- and Biosensors (ICB, Münster, Germany), and Polytec (Waldbronn, Germany)/IKS Optoelektronik Meßgeräte GmbH (Duisburg, Germany). The unit is designed to positively identify the following carpet face fiber materials: Nylon 6; Nylon 66; Polyethylene terephthalate (PET, or polyester); , Polypropylene (PP or olefin); and Wool (W). Any material that cannot be identified as one of these five face fiber materials results in an unknown ("UNK") reading by the CarpID™. A correct identification of blends is not W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC R. W. Beck, Inc. Page A-3 Appendix A - Meeting the Objectives of the Innovative Grant Program guaranteed and a reading for the most prevalent material will be displayed. The unit includes reference material samples for calibrating the unit. Unfavorable conditions that may affect readings or damage the device include: Excessive moisture or humidity; Dust or fogging on the lens; Inflammable gases, steam, solvents, or gasoline; Extreme internal instrument temperatures (below 32°F or above 113°F); Strong vibrations and impacts; and Strong electromagnetic (motors or transformers) or electrostatic fields (charges). The CarpID™ is currently available exclusively from Allied Signal under a $200.00 per month lease agreement. As part of this agreement, the leasee agrees to sell all recovered nylon 6 carpet exclusively to Allied Signal. Alternatives to Portable Spectroscopy Alternatives to Portable Spectroscopy include a/c power dependent spectroscopy and melt point indicator technology. Each of these technologies are discussed below. A/C Power Dependent Spectroscopy Other available spectroscopy units were “night-stand” sized units that require standard wall a/c power to function. The units include a wand that is used to read the face fibers of the sample. These units could be wheeled around an office or warehouse, as long as the extension cord would allow. These units provide relatively high reliability in terms of detecting and classifying face fiber. These units are not intended for field use. Melt Point Indicator Technology Melt point indicator technology operates in the following fashion: The unit is plugged into a wall outlet; Indicator prongs are allowed to heats up (each to a different temperature); The prongs are pressed into the face fiber of the carpet; and The operator counts the number of indentations that were melted into the carpet (low melting fibers, such as olefin fibers, will have the most molten indentations; higher melting fibers, such as nylon 6, will have the least. Melt point indicators cannot distinguish between nylon 66 and polyester (PET) because they melt at the same temperature. Operators generally report that this testing method is not convenient and is slower than spectroscopy. This technology is not easily used in the field. EVALUATION OF THE PORTABLE SPECTROSCOPY AS AN ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY. Page A-4 R. W. Beck, Inc. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC Appendix A - Meeting the Objectives of the Innovative Grant Program The CarpID™, shown in Figure A-1, is an advanced technology Figure A-1 because it allows the user to identify several carpet types while still CarpID™ in the field. Alternate systems require a/c power and are sized too large for safe and efficient field use. Without this advance in technology, all carpet materials would need to be processed in warehouse conditions, limiting innovation in carpet recycling process development. Compared with the alternatives, the CarpID™ is rugged and durable, and allows identification of carpet types in the field. However, the CarpID™ is sensitive to a number of environmental factors that may decrease its effectiveness. Under some field conditions, especially heat, humidity, and dust, the unit may identify recoverable carpet types as “unknown.” R. W. Beck experienced a large percentage of “unknown” readings while working in the field and fewer such readings when working in warehouse conditions. Therefore, the CarpID™ must be handled with care, calibrated and maintained, especially when working in conditions known to cause problematic readings. DEPOLYMERIZATION TECHNOLOGY Depolymerization breaks down plastics to their basic building blocks. The raw materials, when purified, are manufactured back into recycled plastic resins of virgin quality. Companies such as DuPont, Honeywell, and DSM Chemicals North America, have developed new carpet depolymerization technologies that are protected by patent. The Evergreen plant in Augusta, GA has a demand of 200 million pounds per year of nylon 6 carpet. This plant uses a depolymerization process for recycling nylon 6 from carpet. With this demand, Evergreen is the largest carpet recycler in the country, the primary market for recovered nylon 6 carpet, and an integral part of carpet recovery programs nationwide. Even though depolymerization of post-consumer carpet is new, the technology of depolymerization is not unfamiliar to Honeywell the recycling joint venture between, which has been depolymerizing internal nylon 6 waste for 35 years. It has taken significant technological advancements to achieve a depolymerization process that can accept the highly-contaminated nylon in post-consumer carpet, as opposed to relatively pure manufacturing scrap nylon 6 fibers. As a result of this innovative chemical process, Evergreen can produce highly-refined caprolactam (the building block chemical used to manufacture nylon 6), which when repolymerized will produce virgin-equivalent nylon 6 that can be used in any nylon plastics application, including those with stringent aesthetic requirements. This innovative depolymerization process used to recycle nylon 6 is the driving force for carpet recycling, allowing the diversion of post-consumer carpet from local disposal facilities. The depolymerization process allows recovery of nylon carpet as a premium W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC R. W. Beck, Inc. Page A-5 Appendix A - Meeting the Objectives of the Innovative Grant Program recycled grade equivalent to and as valuable as virgin nylon. Because of this value, recyclers can pay more for the collection, sorting, separation, and compounding of post-consumer carpet. PRESENTATION OF PROGRAM RESULTS R. W. Beck prepared an article that was published in the technical journal Resource Recycling. This journal’s audience includes a broad spectrum of readers affiliated with the recycling and composting industry, including local government agencies that operate recycling programs, waste haulers, and private recycling processors. The article, “What is under the rug” appeared in the January 2000 issue of the magazine. R. W. Beck also presented a summary of preliminary results at the RecycleFlorida Today Issues Forum, in January 1999. R. W. Beck will also pursue sharing the results at both the National Recycling Coalition's Annual Conference and Exposition and the RecycleFlorida Today Annual Conference in 2000. Furthermore, the report will be posted by the FDEP on its Internet web site. Page A-6 R. W. Beck, Inc. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC APPENDIX B - MARKET DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES At the time the Sarasota Carpet Recycling Program was proposed, markets for nylon 66 carpet were accepting new supplies of material. However, as discussed in Section 2 and depicted in Table 2-1, Potential Markets for Recovered Carpet, most markets are currently closed to new suppliers (including Sarasota carpet collectors and processors). This scenario is consistent with the national picture, where carpet recycling has been challenged by both the opportunity to recover nylon 6 carpet, and the pressure to find markets for the remaining carpet types. R. W. Beck identified five end-use market classifications to evaluate market development opportunities for recovered carpet. The market categories are based on the level of technology required for processing: 1. Recycled resin production (which is high-technology) 2. Individualized fiber production (which is medium-technology) 3. Shredded carpet, less than 1” (which is low-technology) 4. Shredded carpet, less than 6” (which is low-technology) 5. Reuse (which is low-technology) Each market category has advantages and limitations that are summarized in Table B-1, Spectrum of Existing and Potential Carpet Markets. The table was prepared so that high-value market categories (which require higher-cost high-technology recycling processes) are shown on the left of the table; alternatively, low-value market categories are shown to the right of the table. The discussion that follows describes market development focus areas for each category, describes existing market development efforts that are underway, and provides general estimates of the level of capital required for various processing options. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC R. W. Beck, Inc. Page B-1 Appendix B - Market Development Opportunities Table B-1 Spectrum of Existing and Potential Carpet Markets Recycled Resin Individualized Fibers Shredded Carpet Shredded Carpet Whole Carpet (less than 1” shreds) (less than 6” shreds) Recycling Processes 1. Depolymerization 1. Mechanical removal and 1. Finely-shredding carpet 1. Coarsely-shredding 1. Local reuse separation of face and backing fibers carpet 2. Mechanical reclamation 2. Remanufacturing (removal, purification, and pelletizing of face fibers) 3. Whole-carpet reprocessing into lumber-like products Potential Recycled Products 1. Any plastics products made 1a. needle-punch nonwovens, batting 1a. Absorbents, animal 1. Refuse derived fuel 1. Carpet re-installed from nylon 1b. Reinforcing material (fiber bedding locally or exported reinforced plastics and concrete) 1b. Sound-deadening 1c. Insulation applications 1c. Road stabilizer 2. Non-cosmetic plastics 2. Alternative daily cover 2. Milliken commercial products made from nylon carpet (e.g., under-the-hood auto parts) 3. Plastic lumber Competing Materials 1. Virgin resin 1a. Recycled textiles 1a. Hay, straw, newspaper 1. Other combustible 1. New "budget" carpet 1b. Fiberglass 1b. Recycled textiles, low wastes 1c. Cellulose, fiberglass, recycled grade natural and textiles, low grade natural and synthetic fibers synthetic fibers 1c. Local dirt, clay, shell 2. Post-industrial recycled 2. Soil, other alternative 2. New commercial plastic daily cover materials carpet 3. Post-consumer recycled plastic Page B-2 R. W. Beck, Inc. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC Appendix B - Market Development Opportunities RECYCLED RESIN PRODUCTION Nylon resins command premium pricing compared to other plastics. Depending on the grade, virgin nylon can sell from $0.90 to $3.00 per pound.1 Virgin polyester sells for approximately $0.55 per pound, and virgin polypropylene resin sells for approximately $0.35 per pound. Material pricing and availability for both virgin and competing recycled resins limit the scrap value that can be paid for recovered material, and the reclamation expense that can be incurred in producing a recycled resin. Because recycled resin production is costly, the best opportunities for this market category are carpets made from more valuable materials (i.e., nylon). Processing approaches to produce recycled resin from recovered carpet include: Depolymerization; Mechanical reclamation; and Whole-carpet reprocessing. DEPOLYMERIZATION Depolymerization breaks down plastics to their basic building blocks and purifies the raw materials so that virgin-equivalent recycled plastic resin is produced. Because of its virgin equivalency, it has a value equal to that of virgin nylon resin, which may allow depolymerization markets to pay more for recovered material compared to alternative markets. Depolymerization plants are extremely expensive — $80 million in the case of the Evergreen plant — and require substantial material throughputs in order to operate profitably. Because of their size, depolymerization plants serve as national markets for recovered material. Investments in these plants are made by major plastics and textile industry corporations. Even though depolymerization of post-consumer carpet is new, the technology of depolymerization is familiar to Honeywell, which has been de-polymerizing internal nylon 6 waste for 35 years. It has taken significant technological advancements to achieve a depolymerization process that can accept the highly contaminated nylon in post-consumer carpet. Other companies have also worked to develop depolymerization technologies for post-consumer carpet, such as BASF for nylon 6 carpet and DuPont for nylon 66 carpet. Each has pilot-scale depolymerization plants in Canada. DuPont is working to perfect a depolymerization process for carpet made with nylon 66 face fiber. According to Evergreen's Internet web site: 2 Nylon 66 is much more difficult to depolymerize [than nylon 6], requiring higher temperatures, pressures and expensive catalysts…this process remains expensive and relatively low yields are achieved. This process has not been expanded to a commercial scale, however. 1 Source: Honeywell International, 1999. 2 www.n6recycling.com W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC R. W. Beck, Inc. Page B-3 Appendix B - Market Development Opportunities DuPont currently uses mechanical reclamation processes to recycle nylon 66 carpet it collects into resins used to make automobile engine parts. Depolymerization of polyester carpet is not feasible at this time because of the lower value of polyester resin. Polypropylene, by nature of the way it is made, cannot be depolymerized. MECHANICAL RECLAMATION AND PURIFICATION Materials from carpet can also be recycled through mechanical means. Face fibers (and polypropylene backing fibers) can be mechanically separated from other materials and each other in sufficient purity to be pelletized for use as a recycled resin. Mechanical reclamation plants can be built for less than $10 million, and would normally be sized to produce a minimum of 15 million pounds of recycled resin per year. This method produces resin that is not as pure as the resin that can be produced in the depolymerization process, and the resulting material generally contains contaminants (including carpet colorants). It therefore has less value. By utilizing a series of shredders, grinders, screens, and in some cases wash systems recyclers are able to produce recycled resin that is 95 percent pure. This recycled material can be used plastics applications that do not require 100 percent virgin equivalent material. Recycled material value, when compared to mechanical reclamation costs, only supports mechanical recycling of nylon. This is good news for nylon 66 carpet recycling market potential, where the limiting factor is end-use demand. Use of recycled nylon 66 from carpet to manufacture automobile engine parts is very significant, currently utilizing 30-40 million pounds per year of the material. Ford Motor Company's "Carpet to Car Parts" project diverts 27 million square feet of nylon 66 carpet from landfills each year and recycles the materials into air cleaner housing for nearly 3 million Ford and Lincoln-Mercury vehicles, as reported by the National Recycling Coalition. Further market development efforts are needed to encourage manufacturers to incorporate recycled nylon 66 into their products. WHOLE CARPET REPROCESSING Whole carpet can be ground, blended, and melted to manufacture plastic products. Companies have successfully produced carpet installation tack strips, plastic lumber, and other similar products from the material. Studies are also underway to produce pallets from carpet. The challenge of using carpet material in this process includes the extra wear and tear on machinery resulting from the high grit (i.e., sand, dirt, and calcium carbonate filler) content of post-consumer carpet. Whole carpet reprocessing can be done regionally for a capital investment of around $1 million or less, which may allow non-nylon carpet to be recycled within the local region. Additional research is needed for this option to determine how optimal product properties can be obtained with minimal processing expense. For example, if significant fiber aspect ratio (fiber length/thickness) of nylon 66 face fibers can be maintained through low- temperature processing that is still high enough to melt the polypropylene backing, the nylon fibers could reinforce the product and make it stronger. Page B-4 R. W. Beck, Inc. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC Appendix B - Market Development Opportunities R. W. Beck researched and developed a recipe for plastic lumber made only from recovered carpet. Table B-2, Mix Ratios For Plastic Lumber Test Recipe, depicts the relative proportions of carpet recommended and composition of the plastic lumber that would be made. The recipe calls for blending 2 parts nylon 66 carpet with 8 parts olefin (polypropylene) carpet. Because the polypropylene will melt at a lower temperature Table B-2 than the nylon, R. W. Beck Mix Ratios for Plastic Lumber Test Recipe hypothesized that the nylon Carpet Weighted Proportions Lumber fibers might retain their aspect Components 20% nylon 66 80% polypropylene Mix Total ratio and provide a fiber Face Fiber reinforcing quality for the polypropylene 0.45 46% lumber, adding strength to the nylon 66 0.45 9% formed lumber. An alternative Backing plastic lumber mix could SBR 0.10 0.10 10% include blending a small polypropylene 0.10 0.10 CaCO3 0.35 0.35 35% amount of ground nylon 66 carpet with ground HDPE Source: R. W. Beck bottles (the material commonly used for producing plastic lumber). INDIVIDUALIZED FIBER PRODUCTION Producing fibers that are liberated from carpet is a market option, primarily for non-nylon carpet (nylon carpet should go preferentially into recycled resins because they are higher- value markets). In order to produce individualized fibers from carpet, the carpet must be shredded and then processed by a machine that tears and rips the carpet (or other textiles) apart. This equipment is costly and requires processing a significant volume of material to justify the capital expense. A plant of this type would require a capital investment of as much as $1 million, depending on the processing conducted and products made. There is some question of whether markets would be interested in individualized fibers. According to the Council for Textile Recycling: [The textile recycling industry] recycles the cloth cutting waste from apparel manufacturing to produce a fiber raw material for padding and stuffing applications. While in excess of 50,000 tons of this material is recycled annually, probably an equal amount is deposited into landfills due to limited [end use] markets. Some post- consumer waste is now used for the same purpose, but due to economics, the majority of the material used in this market area is pre-consumer. Despite competition from pre-consumer textile waste materials, there are market development opportunities for individualized carpet fibers to be used in the following applications: Needle-punch nonwovens and batting; Reinforcing material (plastic and concrete products); W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC R. W. Beck, Inc. Page B-5 Appendix B - Market Development Opportunities Insulation. Both needle-punch non-wovens and batting support commercial carpet recycling on a small scale. These applications value fiber sources based on thread length. Longer fibers are better, because they allow the machinery to needle-punch the material so that it will hold together. The market has remained small because most carpet face fibers tend to be too small and/or too dirty for expanded use by this niche market. Polypropylene fibers from the carpet backing would be more usable. Although polypropylene from backing is of very low value, several manufacturers are experimenting on end uses for it and other non-nylon face fibers. DuPont has produced an alternative daily cover geotextile for use at landfills from fiber residue it has received from its contract commercial carpet recycling program. Also, a Georgia company has produced a silt-control device, called geobale, for use at construction projects. Silt control devices normally used on construction sites are either hay bales, or a woven polypropylene textile. Their purpose is to filter silt and sediment from surface runoff so that water quality is maintained. Although geobale is currently manufactured from pre-consumer scrap materials, the company is interested in using materials from post-consumer carpet in its manufacture. Shaw Industries, Inc., a carpet manufacturer, used concrete reinforced with recycled-carpet fibers in constructing a new carpet manufacturing facility. The fiber reinforced concrete was used for interior floors and walls, as well as sidewalks and curbs around the building. The 850,000 square foot building contains approximately 250,000 pounds of recycled polypropylene fiber. Shaw believes that the technology could eventually be used for large scale operations, such as roadways. If so, Georgia Institute of Technology estimates that one mile of a four lane highway could use approximately 100,000 pounds of carpet fiber for reinforcement. GARCO, a company that is developing carpet recycling technologies, reports that concrete roofing tiles made with recovered carpet fiber are stronger than and are 1/3 the weight of regular concrete tiles. The use of recovered carpet fiber in concrete products and pavements offers one of the most promising applications for the material. Asphalt pavement, asphalt roofing shingles, and other fibrous construction products (including insulation) are also possibilities for recycled carpet fiber commercial use. Carpet fibers would compete against other virgin or recycled fibers (e.g. cellulose, fiberglass) for each of these markets. These end users also need a partnership with a fiber recycler who can produce the individualized fibers for their use. SHREDDED CARPET, LESS THAN 1” Shredding carpet to finger sized lengths can be done locally with an investment of as little as $50,000 for a shear shredder. Shredding opens up four local markets, as follows: Absorbents and animal bedding; Sound deadening applications; and Road stabilizer. Page B-6 R. W. Beck, Inc. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC Appendix B - Market Development Opportunities The shredding process is discussed in the following section. Larger strips are easier to make than smaller pieces, therefore 1” shreds are considered higher technology than 6” shreds. ABSORBENTS AND ANIMAL BEDDING Shredded carpet can be used as an absorbent material for cleaning up spills of petroleum or other liquids. The material can also be used as animal bedding because of its absorbent qualities. However, carpet may harbor eggs of undesirable vectors, such as fleas and lice. In order to use shredded carpet as animal bedding, the carpet would likely need to be treated for pathogenic vectors, potentially limiting economic and environmental benefits. SOUND DEADENING APPLICATIONS Sound deadening applications offer additional market development opportunities that could potentially divert significant quantities of material. Odor and vector issues would need to be addressed. ROAD STABILIZER The Georgia Institute of Technology, the Georgia State Department of Transportation, Synthetic Industries, and Shaw Industries, Inc. worked on a joint project to mix shredded post-consumer carpet with soil to produce a more durable “dirt” road than the traditional soil and gravel mixes. Shaw calls these roads "Geofiber" roads. Current mixes are using 15 pounds of shredded carpet per cubic yard of soil. At this rate, a 20 foot wide dirt road requires 70,400 pounds of fiber per linear mile. Shaw reports encouraging results: a Geofiber road in Habersham County Georgia has now been through nine months with only three gradings (once every 12 weeks on average). Before, the County graded the road every four weeks. The potential for this use is very large. For example, the National Forest Service has approximately 326,000 miles of unpaved roads. SHREDDED CARPET, LESS THAN 6” Shredding carpet can be done locally with an investment of as little as $50,000 for a shear shredder. Coarsely-shredded carpet (shreds of 6” square, or less) can be used with soil as an alternative daily cover (ADC) at landfills, or blended with other combustibles as a refuse derived fuel (RDF), or process boiler fuel, for waste-to-energy recovery. Many Florida construction and demolition debris recyclers have shredding equipment at their facilities. However, their shredders are typically hammermills, which use a beating method to break brittle materials such as wood and brick. For carpet, a shear-shredding action is necessary, so additional equipment would likely be needed for local processing. With proper equipment, carpet processing for ADC or RDF should be relatively simple, compared to other recycling technologies that require exacting control of contaminants. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC R. W. Beck, Inc. Page B-7 Appendix B - Market Development Opportunities REUSE Reuse is at the top of the U.S. EPA recommended solid waste hierarchy, as it normally requires very minimal new energy investments and normally avoids pollutants and waste material generated by manufacturing activities. Reuse is also implemented at the local level without dependence on large transportation or processing networks. Reuse is the “local” option. When carpet is in very good condition, it may be cleaned and reused. Establishing networks to resell and reinstall used carpet, however, is challenging. Opportunities lie in working with existing companies that may clean, dye, or remove old carpet as a take-up service for large commercial carpet replacement jobs. For example, Carpet Recycling Services (Tampa, FL) removes old commercial carpet at no cost to businesses that are having their carpet replaced. Carpet Recycling Services then re-installs the carpet in residential rental units at a discount to landlords. The program saves the commercial businesses on the cost of “take- up” of old carpet, and saves the landlords on the cost of new carpet installation. The Milliken Company practices carpet reuse on a national level. Milliken crews remove commercial vinyl-backed carpet tiles and ship them to Milliken's carpet mill for refurbishment. The tiles undergo a patented restoration process that includes color treatments. Milliken does not accept broadloom carpet in its program, which is the type of carpet most often collected in community recycling collection programs. Reuse is preferable to recycling or other processing, although there are practical limitations. Worn, stained, or damaged carpet is not likely to be reused. Also, carpet must fit the style and aesthetic of its new application to be reused. Most carpet that is removed by installers is not reused because it fails to meet these criteria; therefore, recycling markets are required. Page B-8 R. W. Beck, Inc. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC APPENDIX C - FACTORS THAT AFFECT RECOVERED CARPET MARKET PRICES AND DEMAND Plastic resin production requires energy and chemical building blocks. Energy has value, as we are reminded every time we pay our power bill or fuel our automobiles. Some plastics require more energy to make than others. As the amount of energy (and expense) required to make a particular virgin plastic material increases, so does the scrap value associated with recycling the material. Higher scrap values for some types of plastics make them more attractive to recyclers than other types of plastics. Nylon resin production consumes greater amounts of energy than olefin or polyester resin production. As a result, nylon resins tend to be more costly and virgin resin prices range from $0.90 to $3.00 per pound, depending on grade. 1 Alternatively, virgin polypropylene resin (from which olefin carpet fibers and virtually all broadloom carpet backing is made) sells for approximately $0.35 per pound. The intrinsic value of virgin and recycled nylon resins is thought to be a significant factor driving resin producers to develop processes to recover nylon 6 and nylon 66 from used carpet made from those face fibers (approximately 70 percent of post-consumer carpet types). Thus, reclaiming carpet’s nylon resin has become the focus of carpet recycling. Obviously, other factors also come into play. Technology may not be available to process and reclaim the specific resin, even if the material presents otherwise promising attributes. Also, in the carpet composite structure nylon (face fiber) accounts for only 46 percent of the carpet’s weight. Other materials, including polypropylene backing and calcium carbonate- filled latex, account for over half of carpet’s weight and are commonly disposed. So a scrap value of 6 cents per pound for the whole carpet translates into paying 13 cents per pound for the nylon portion. Furthermore, all of other materials must be disposed at a cost if they are not recycled. Utilizing low value by-products of carpet recycling (e.g., backing material and/or highly contaminated calcium carbonate) will improve the recovery potential and scrap value of carpet. There are opportunities in this area, as calcium carbonate is a mineral used by many industries, some of which may be able to tolerate contaminants (sand, latex, backing fibers) found calcium carbonate from carpet recycling operations. Competing recycled materials also affect market demand and scrap prices for carpet and its components. For example, baled soft drink bottles can be purchased for approximately 8 cents per pound. The polyester recycling yield from these bottles is normally 85 percent. These bottles are relatively clean (when compared to carpet) and typically come in only clear or green colors. The absence of color in the clear bottles enables them to be used in higher-priced aesthetic applications. Given the availability of this low-priced, high-yield, 1 Source: Honeywell International, 1999. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC R. W. Beck, Inc. Page C-1 Appendix C - Factors That Affect Recovered Carpet Market Prices and Demand clean, competing material, the outlook for recycling markets for polyester carpet remain weak. Competing post-consumer and pre-consumer polypropylene resin, and fiber scrap from the carpet and textile industries, also make it unlikely that market prices for non-nylon carpet will significantly increase in the immediate future. Page C-2 R. W. Beck, Inc. W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC APPENDIX D - EDUCATIONAL MATERIALS W:\005501\032105\REPORT\REPORT MASTER.DOC R. W. Beck, Inc. Page D-1 SARASOTA COUNTY "Dedicated to Quality Service" Dear Carpet Retailer: As you know, old carpet takes up a lot of room in your trash containers, and it’s expensive to dispose. If you could cut your monthly garbage bill significantly by finding a better alternative for used carpets, would you be interested? Sarasota County received funding from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to investigate the feasibility of carpet and pad recycling in the County. Recycle America, a division of Waste Management, Inc., is partnering with us to test this exciting program. The program is simple. Instead of bringing old carpet and padding to your roll-off or dumpster, you simply ask installers to take these materials to the Recycle America facility during its normal business hours. Old carpets and pad will be accepted there free of charge, provided that your installers follow some simple guidelines: 1. Carpets or pad with water or fire damage cannot be recycled. These materials should be disposed as usual. 2. Trash, including wood strips, razor blades, or food containers, must be kept separate from the carpet and pad and disposed properly. 3. Installers should make best efforts to ensure that the rolls of carpet and pad are kept dry before delivering them to the Recycle America facility. It’s that easy. If your carpet installers participate in this program, you could expect to see a significant drop in the weight and volume of waste that you dispose. You may be able to reduce the container size or the frequency of solid waste collection. This reduction in service will save you money. At the same time, you’ll be helping the County to achieve even higher levels of recycling, which has long-term environmental benefits for us all. To motivate carpet installers to take advantage of this program, you might want to offer a “recycling bonus.” If the installer demonstrates that carpet and pad have been diverted to the Recycle America facility, you could offer to share some of the disposal savings. This partnership will provide a powerful financial incentive for the installer and will help to ensure that you’ll see the even more economic benefit from the program. Thank you for participating in this program. For more information, please call Tim Buwalda or Ray Randall, two of the County’s recycling advisors, at (407) 422-4911. They will be happy to help you! ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES, Resource Conservation • 1660 Ringling Boulevard, Fourth Floor, Sarasota FL 34236 Tel 941-364-4663 • Fax 941-364-4377 It’s Easy to Recycle Sarasota County is testing a program with Recycle America (a division of Waste Management, Inc.) to promote carpet and pad recycling. Why fill up trash containers and the landfill with carpet and pad that could be re-made into new products? Want Here’s How: 1 Check the Condition: Is the carpet or pad wet, moldy, or damaged by water or fire? If it is, dispose of it as usual. Carpet with water or fire damage can’t be recycled in this program. 2 Keep it Clean: When you roll up the carpet and pad, make sure you dispose of wood, nails, razor blades, and other trash separately. 3 Keep it Dry: Only dry loads can be recycled in this program. 4 Drop it Off: Instead of taking used carpet and pad back to the carpet retailer, drop these prod- ucts off at the Recycle America facility: University Parkway Location:Recycle America 3100 North Washington Blvd. (301) De Soto Road Sarasota, Florida 34234 4 blocks North of 27th Street and N Washington Blvd 2 miles South of University Blvd. Recycle America T a m ia mi Tra 3100 N Washington Blvd Hours: The facility is open: il 7:00 am to 4:30 pm Monday — Friday 27th Street 8:00 am to Noon Saturday 17th Street Closed Sunday 301 Fruitville Road When you get to the Recycle America facility, you’ll be directed to the carpet recycling area. You won’t have to cross the scales or wait in line. It’s Easy! It Makes Sense! Please Participate! Check with your carpet retailer to see if recycling bonuses are available! It’s Easy to Recycle Sarasota County is working with The Pad Place to promote carpet and pad recy- cling. Why fill up trash containers and the landfill with carpet and pad that could be re-made into new products? Want to help? Here’s How: 1 Check the Condition: Is the carpet or pad wet, moldy, or dam- aged by water or fire? If it is, dispose of it as usual. Carpet with water or fire damage can’t be recycled in this program. 2 Keep it Dry and Clean: Only dry and clean loads can be recycled in this program. When you roll up the carpet and pad, make sure you dispose of wood, nails, razor blades, and other trash separately. 3 Drop it Off: Instead of taking used carpet and pad back to the carpet retailer, deliver these products to The Pad Place. They will accept all Nylon 6 car- pet, and pay a competitive cash rate for all rebond and foam pad. The Pad Place is conveniently located at: Location:The Pad Place 4646 Ashton Road Sarasota, Florida 34233 1/4 mile west of I-75 Exit 37 1 block north of Clark Road between Honore Avenue and McIntosh Road Hours: The facility is open: 8:00 am to 4:30 pm Monday — Friday 8:00 am to Noon Saturday Closed Sunday The Pad Place also carries a complete line of carpet supplies and installation tools competitively priced for your con- venience. It’s Easy! It Makes Sense! Please Participate! Attention Installers We are participating in a three week test of a carpet recycling program for Sarasota County. Beginning immediately, please place all carpet rolls (new and used) onto the pallets located adjacent to the dumpster, and cover the rolls with the tarp. All other items (scrap carpet and pad, glue buckets, trash, etc.) should continue to be placed in our normal trash container. Thank you for your assistance.
Pages to are hidden for
"Carpet Recycling"Please download to view full document