Headline News

C&D materials are recycled at an impressive rate. Now if only America knew about it.

C&D materials are recycled at an impressive rate. Now if only America knew about it.

Publicity-wise, C&D recycling is a poor stepchild to the more famous recovery and reuse of paper, plastics, aluminum cans, etc. That is because John Q. Public puts those materials in the blue bin by the curb and thus tends to think those are the biggest recycling industries out there.

But by weight and volume, C&D recycling is the biggest recycling industry in North America. According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 215 million tons per year of municipal solid waste (MSW) is generated in the U.S. C&D, which is made up primarily of concrete, asphalt, wood, gypsum, demolition metals and asphalt shingles, is estimated by industry observers to reach more than 300 million tons annually. It is generated from roadbuilding and highway maintenance, plus from building renovation, demolition and construction.

Another reason C&D recycling is bigger is because most often it is a profitable enterprise. Much has been made about the fluctuations in price in the general metals, cardboard, plastics and paper markets, and the effects these fluctuations have on recycling rates.

While wide swings in prices and marketability sometimes affect its sectors, overall the recycling of construction waste and demolition debris is a steady business that makes money while employing people and paying taxes in an environmentally friendly industry. C&D recycling has a great story to tell.

The story to be told here is about the current state of the industry, and some of the factors affecting its success and progress. These factors can change from region to region, although many times they are also the same.

Concrete/Asphalt Recycling

Probably the most recycled material in North America is concrete. The Construction Materials Recycling Association (CMRA), Lisle, Ill., estimates that more than 105 million tons of concrete are recycled every year.

Asphalt is probably the second most, although some have estimated that even more asphalt than concrete is recycled. Numbers from organizations such as the National Asphalt Pavement Association put the annual recycling tonnage for asphalt at around 86 million tons. Unlike many consumer recyclables, it is tough to verify these figures, as the U.S. EPA does not collect data on concrete and asphalt generation or recycling rates.

The overwhelming market for recycled concrete remains base product, either for buildings or roads. Demand overall is steady, with local markets obviously depending on the local construction and roadbuilding markets. Compared to most other materials in the C&D waste stream, market barriers to recycled concrete are relatively minimal.

That is not to say they are not there, nor do they go unrecognized. For example, Southern California has arguably the busiest and most competitive recycled concrete market in the country. A lack of nearby natural aggregate sources, cost effectiveness and a desire by local entities to recycle all help to drive the market. Most local government agencies there use recycled base in their roadwork projects, plus the state department of transportation (CalTrans), has a specification for it and uses it in roadbuilding. Yet some municipalities still hold out and require the use of oftentimes more expensive natural aggregate as a base.

Under the auspices of the Southern California Chapter of the CMRA, a group of concrete recyclers have banded together to fund an effort to develop a presentation showing the engineering characteristics of recycled aggregates. (For details on this and other CMRA efforts to boost concrete markets, see the item on page six of this issue.)

More troubling to concrete recycling have been some recent moves by local regulatory officials to stop the crushing of concrete. In at least three reported instances, concrete recycling has been stymied or stopped by officials concerned about lead-based paint being part of the concrete stream. In one case, the road stripes on a street renovation were blamed. Two other times the concrete was from barracks at a military base.

Tests in all three instances showed the level of lead present to be below allowable EPA standards. The CMRA notes that common dust control techniques have been able to manage fugitive emissions so no dust, hazardous or not, escapes. But officials have rejected permits and curtailed opportunities to recycle the material, even when the tonnage involved gets into the six-figure range. The officials would rather see it go to a landfill, even if the lead level is below EPA tolerances. The CMRA is investigating how to respond to these situations.

Another situation to watch is more regulation and even perhaps banning of onsite crushing. While recognizing the environmental friendliness of the tactic, some concrete recyclers are up in arms about mis-uses of the practice of a portable plant being set up at a demolition site to process the concrete there and use the product made on the same site. Permits are rarely required for this practice and certainly are much easier to get than those for a permanent recycling yard.

But what sometimes happens is that a plant will be set up at an active demolition site, and the operators will begin accepting material from off-site and then start selling product from the site as well. Six months later the crushing operation is still ongoing and is an unpermitted competitor to the legitimately permitted concrete recycler down the street.

Asphalt recycling may be the most stable recycling market around. Recycled asphalt pavement (RAP) remains the most accepted recycled material in roadwork. Offsite or onsite, the economics of recycling asphalt usually make sense. And the same equipment that processes concrete handles RAP, usually at a higher rate of production.

Asphalt Shingles

One observer of the paving industry said recently that the use of recycled asphalt shingles in the hot mix asphalt industry is at the same stage now as RAP was 30 years ago when it was first being used.

There are some complaints about asphalt shingles engineering characteristics and whether they should be used, but hot-mix plant operators using recycled shingles in some of their mixes are making excellent profits. Few of these contractors will talk specifically about what they are doing, being reluctant to share their processing secrets with their competitors.

Questions do remain over contaminants in g the waste shingles, especially post consumer shingles. At one time shingle manufacturers used trace amounts of asbestos in a few of their products. That practice stopped in the 1970s, and the overwhelming majority of waste shingles, and all current manufacturer waste, has no asbestos present. The CMRA’s Web site, www.shinglerecycling.org, notes that the results of more than 6,000 tests of incoming post-consumer shingles showed only a few "hits" for the hazardous (but largely non-friable) substance.

Mixed C&D

One segment of C&D recycling that has grown rapidly in recent years, and the one surrounded by the most controversy, is the recycling of commingled debris from construction and demolition sites. This waste can have many components, but in large part it consists of wood, gypsum, concrete, metals and shingles.

Indeed, wood is by far the biggest component here, and one of the bigger recycling challenges. Supply of recycled wood outstrips demand for it in most regions of the country. And things recently got worse in New England, where a major buyer of recycled C&D wood for boiler fuel cut back on all its contracts and cut by half what it will pay for the material.

C&D recyclers there are hurting from the move, but have few choices but to stay in that market. However, with Massachusetts’ much-ballyhooed move to ban unprocessed C&D from landfills in 2003, the lack of markets for the material could just drive it over the state’s borders into Rhode Island and New Hampshire.

Reportedly, wood fuel markets in Florida are also down, while in the Pacific Northwest they remain steady.

Burn fuel, mulch, alternative daily cover (ADC) at landfills and animal bedding applications are the main markets for recycled C&D wood. Use in more added-value products, such as medium-density fiberboard (MDF), remains mostly a lofty goal. However, progress is being made in the field of laminating clean recycled C&D wood with plastic to make a decking type of product. The developer of the product is awaiting more test results before releasing detailed information about the product, which could open more markets for wood.

To get the wood out of the C&D waste stream requires some type of sorting, either at the point of generation or at a recycling center. C&D recyclers have prided themselves on being professional sorters, able to pick out the valuables in the piles. But now regulators in some areas are questioning the method of sorting at a recycling center and are pushing for source separation of materials.

For example, in Clark County in Nevada, which includes Las Vegas, all mixed C&D must be sent to the local landfill, and recyclers may only handle source-separated materials with "insubstantial amounts" of waste mixed in. While recyclers say politics and the power of the local landfill company had a lot to do with the development of those regulations, source separation of C&D is a concept being pushed at all levels of government and a concept that regulators will continue to expand.

Many owners of the landfills may also be supporting this. The growth of environmental recycling movements in the 1970s focused attention on diversion from landfills. Many solid waste hauling and landfill companies have responded by becoming major processors of consumer recyclables.

But C&D materials remained largely unrecycled for a long time, and the landfills kept expecting the materials (and the revenue). With only a few exceptions, the solid waste companies have not entered the C&D recycling market.

Most C&D recycling is done by smaller, entrepreneurial companies, often not part of the traditional waste industry. Because of the activities of these entrepreneurs, some solid waste companies have seen a drop off in incoming C&D material (and a corresponding drop in revenue) as the debris heads over to the recycling centers they don’t control.

Recyclers fear that solid waste companies looking for a way to get C&D debris back in their control are using their lobbying might and political muscle to do it. Tactics include ordinances requiring source separation of materials for a recycling to happen, asking for increased permitting requirements for recyclers, and making franchise agreements with local governments that provide flow control for the waste to their solid waste facilities. In some cases, local government entities are offered a "host fee" for every ton dumped into the landfill.

In some cases stricter oversight of mixed C&D recycling centers is called for. Too many times the industry has shot itself in the foot when a company sets up a site, says it is going to recycle there, takes in mountains of materials and then closes, pocketing the tipping fees gained and leaving government the clean-up problem and the bill. The CMRA feels that any such regulation needs to be applied evenly, which can be a difficult task for regulators.

Probably the most daunting task facing C&D recyclers is finding markets for their processed materials. For mixed C&D operators in particular, this is an everyday priority.

The author is associate publisher of C&D Recycler and executive director of the Construction Materials Recycling Association. He can be contacted at turley@cdrecycling.org.

Get curated news on YOUR industry.

Enter your email to receive our newsletters.

Loading...
December 2002
Explore the December 2002 Issue

Check out more from this issue and find your next story to read.