Transcript Developing Re-Use Applications and Improving the Economic
Developing Re-Use Applications and Improving the Economic Benefits of Florida’s Waste Materials
By Paul J. Cosentino, Ph.D., P.E.
Howell H. Heck, III, Ph.D., P.E.
Background
Florida stockpiles large volumes of waste or recyclable materials – Examples: Waste Glass RAP Concrete Rubble and Dust Waste-to-Energy Ash – Engineering characteristics of these materials may be improved by adding common fill
Background (Cont.)
Proper re-use would produce savings for Florida’s construction and landfill industries Florida’s construction boom has caused a large demand for quality fill Engineering properties of RAP improved by adding sand Blending is common practice and often economical
Objective
Evaluate Florida’s candidate waste materials and improve their engineering behavior by adding conventional fill to make them economically attractive
Approach
Two year project Nine Tasks to Accomplish Objectives
Flow Chart
Identify Re-Usable Waste Streams Sample Waste Materials Identify Engineering Environmental and Economic Conditions Accept Dry Rodded Unit Weight Evaluation
g
Accept Mix % Fundamental Geotechnical Testing and Analysis of Blends Consistency and Economic Impact
Reject
Accept Applications
Reject Reject Reject Landfill
Explanation of Tasks
1 – Identify Candidate Waste Materials 2 – Sampling 3 – Fundamental Geotechnical Testing 4 – Analysis of Testing 5 – Waste-Soil Mixing Program 6 – Waste-Soil Geotechnical Testing 7 – Analysis of Mixing Results 8 – Economic Impact of Re-Usable Materials 9 – Reporting, TAG Meetings & Specifications
Major Tasks
Year 1 – Select candidate materials from facilities statewide – Perform fundamental geotechnical testing – Choose materials with minimal environmental concerns RAP, waste glass and concrete rubble and dust Year 2 – Perform Mixing Analysis – Evaluate Economics – Complete specifications describing proper use
Proposed Schedule
Expected Technical Results
Geotechnical engineering data base Summary of economic impact for re-using these materials Specifications
Anticipated Benefits
Two end users groups will benefit: – Contractors who use soils and borrow materials in highway construction – Landfill operators at solid waste or construction and demolition landfills Suitable fill is becoming costly. Providing more choices, will control costs and save money. Re-use of waste materials diverts them from the waste stream, and reduces landfilling costs & increases landfill space.
Related Work
A significant database of information exists to expedite the proposed work Waste products have engineering properties that fall short of those needed for re-use in highways – Waste-to-energy ash – Waste-glass – RAP
Follow-up
FDOT has funded over a decade work in this area without concentrating on economics.
A $261,000 24-month proposal
has been funded
continue work on RAP and RAP-soil mixes. to The funding request to the FCSHWM is considered a supplement to the FDOT work.
SALARIES & WAGES
Year 1 Budget
Paul J. Cosentino PI Howell H. Heck Co-PI Laboratory Technician Graduate Student Undergraduate Students
FRINGE BENEFITS (Rate = 23.5 % of Base = $16,240) PERMANENT EQUIPMENT EXPENDABLE SUPPLIES TRAVEL OTHER COSTS
Tuition
TOTAL PROJECT DIRECT COSTS INDIRECT COSTS
ON CAMPUS (Rate = 50% of Base = $ 22,806) OFF CAMPUS (Rate = ___% of Base = $ _______)
TOTAL YEAR 1 COSTS PER SOURSE GRAND TOTAL COST PER YEAR 1 PERSON-MONTHS FCSHWM GRANTEE + EXTERNAL FCSHWM FUNDING GRANTEE + EXTERNAL
1.6
0.4
0.25
10 9 2.5
0.75
11 8 $ 12,600 $ 3,040 $ 600 $ 12,100 $ 6,800 $ 3,816 $ $ 1,000 1,750 $ 20,000 $ $ $ 31,680 12,800 $ 1,800 7,896 $ 4,000 $ 3,250 $ 7,500 $ 10,950
$ 52,656
$ 22,365
$ 123,091 $11,403+ $6,155 $ 52,626 $ 129,246 $64,059+$129,246=$193,305
Year 2 Budget
SALARIES & WAGES
Paul J. Cosentino PI Howell H. Heck Co-PI Laboratory Technician Graduate Student Undergraduate Students
FRINGE BENEFITS (Rate = 23.5 % of Base = $16,240) PERMANENT EQUIPMENT EXPENDABLE SUPPLIES TRAVEL OTHER COSTS
Tuition
TOTAL PROJECT DIRECT COSTS INDIRECT COSTS
ON CAMPUS (Rate = 50% of Base = $ 22,806) OFF CAMPUS (Rate = ___% of Base = $ _______)
TOTAL YEAR 2 COSTS PER SOURSE GRAND TOTAL COST PER YEAR 2 PERSON-MONTHS FCSHWM GRANTEE + EXTERNAL FCSHWM FUNDING GRANTEE + EXTERNAL
1.6
0.4
0.25
10 9 3 1.5
11 8 $ 12,600 $ 3,040 $ 600 $ 12,650 $ 6,800 $ 3,816 $ $ 1,000 1,750 $ 24,720 $ $ $ $ 3,600 31,680 12,800 10,759 $ $ 2,000 $ 4,500 $
$ $
10,950
53,206 53,206
$
$ $
18,000
125,521
$11,403+ $6,276
131,797 $64,609+$131,797=$196,406
Technical Awareness Group & Peer Reviewers
David Horhota, Ph.D., P.E. State Geotechnical Materials Engineer, FDOT, [email protected]
John Shoucair Geotechnical Materials Engineer, FDOT, [email protected]
David Westcott, Technical Service Manager Florida Region, CEMEX Corp., [email protected]
Chris Brunais, Area Manager, APAC-Florida Melbourne Div. [email protected]
Suzanne Boroff FDEP [email protected]
Jim Langenbach, P.E. Senior Engineer, GeoSyntec Consultants, [email protected]
Summary
Waste Materials can be re-used in Highways Economic Benefits to Construction Industry Economic Benefits to the Solid Waste Industry Environmental Benefits to the Public