Five years ago, recycled asphalt shingles (RAS) found their place in the market.

In 2014, the paving industry utilized nearly 2 million tons of RAS to supplement mixes and lay down new roads, signaling a strong, growing customer base for a material often sent to landfill.

But as asphalt cement prices dropped, RAS use spiraled. The paving industry turned to cheaper raw materials instead, and by 2017, the amount of RAS used in roads declined by more than half.

Though the numbers are bleak, Asphalt Shingle Recycling Systems (ASR), based in Barrington, Rhode Island, remains unfazed. Since its founding in 2009, the company’s main goal has been to work alongside the roofing industry in North America to increase the sustainability of its businesses by finding end markets for RAS. Through the sudden downturn, the company has remained vigilant in realizing its goal.

“We want to see shingle recycling come back to its full potential,” says Alan Clarke, a partner at ASR Systems. “We’ve seen good times and we’ve been through bad times, but we believe things will come back around. But we, and others, need to be innovative in how we do that.”

Paving innovation

Asphalt shingles, the roofing industry’s main source of waste, heads to landfills at a rate of nearly 90 percent nationally, according to ASR Systems.

Dan Horton aimed to minimize that rate when he left his executive position at IKO Industries, a roofing manufacturer, to establish ASR Systems in 2009.

The company has since processed more than 150,000 tons of RAS between its three facilities—two in Tennessee and one in Connecticut. There, roofers drop off their recycled shingles, and like most shingle recyclers, ASR runs them through reduction equipment to gnash the pieces into bits smaller than 3 /8 inches.

Processing, however, takes on other forms at ASR—and it’s just the beginning of the company’s involvement in recycling asphalt shingles.

Horton has been busy over the past decade developing new techniques for mechanical processing, separation and extraction of asphalt from shingles. He’s developed a “secret sauce” for processing, he says, and has written six patents over the past 10 years.

Two of the six patents relate to a new container design for collecting shingles from roofers in a way that is both convenient and cheaper than traditional methods. Three of the patents establish effective ways of extracting raw asphalt from the shingle mechanically to produce alternative roofing granules, asphalt coated limestone, limestone, recycled asphalt and recycled fiberglass strand powders.

“Asphalt itself is the most expensive part of the shingle. Because of that, the industry is focused on the use of that product,” Horton says. “I would never say that the asphalt paving industry is not the place to go with the product. I’m saying with better processing methods of a shingle, you may be able to sell more product to the asphalt paving industry.”

In addition, ASR offers its system for license to asphalt shingle recyclers, although Horton cautions that ample end markets still need to be established before the technology can be used to its fullest potential.

Now that ASR has established new collection and processing methods, though, developing end markets has become a focal point of Horton’s latest patent.

Rocky road

ASR Systems, like many asphalt shingle recyclers, saw initial success selling its end product to the paving industry. However, success quickly faded when problems began to arise.

Late in 2014, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) issued a memorandum noting that an increasing number of state departments of transportation reported premature cracking in relatively new asphalt pavements. The agency found the common factor among the cracked roads was a relatively high use of RAS.

Mixing RAS back into paving asphalt can be complex. Shingles are made of six raw ingredients, the most valuable of which is asphalt. When that asphalt is recovered, it’s nearly 20 percent harder than its original form. “In a word, the chemistry’s changed,” Horton says. “The change in chemistry is not a problem for pavement if you only use 3-5 percent of recycled material. If you use more than 5 percent, you may have to change the virgin asphalt portion of your design to compensate for the hardness of the recycled asphalt.”

Studies since then, including one from Iowa State University, have shown that pavement using RAS alone or in combination with other materials and technologies can be successful and meet state agency quality assurance requirements if used in the right proportions.

The FHWA recommends state transportation departments follow the 5 percent maximum guideline so contractors can prevent cracking without drastically altering the composition of their existing mixes. Some local agencies have additional guidelines of their own regarding the use of RAS. In some states, for example, the local agencies require hot mix asphalt producers to use performance-grade blending charts to properly design the mix.

A case study by the Illinois State Toll Highway Authority found the price savings with RAS varies depending on the asphalt mix but can be anywhere between $5 and $15 per ton. But around the same time cracking concerns arose, asphalt cement prices began to sink, making the cost differential negligible for some.

And, contrary to RAS, asphalt pavement is the most recycled product in the country, according to the National Asphalt Pavement Association. The ease of recovering recycled asphalt pavement (RAP) contributed to additional stress on the RAS market.

Between cracking concerns and more attractive alternatives, contractors began ditching recycled shingles in favor of virgin cement asphalt, and many haven’t looked back.

New markets

Heading into 2019, asphalt cement prices and education efforts around proper hot asphalt mix concentrations have both been on the rise, spurring a new bout of optimism for weary shingle recyclers.

Horton and Clarke have managed to retain their optimism, though, through their work developing new end markets. Horton’s latest patent, currently pending approval, establishes a way to manufacture briquettes, pellets and shapes through densification of recycled asphaltic limestone powder, which can be extracted from shingles through his patented processing methods.

The end products have several potential uses. Stand-alone asphaltic pellets can be introduced to paving manufacturers’ design mixes and roofing manufacturers’ coating mixes, or they can be used as binders for the biomass market. The pellets and briquettes can also be used as waterproof energy sources either on their own or combined with other sources.

While the energy put out by asphaltic limestone is not nearly as much as coal, “it competes well with wood and it’s a decent product for cement plants,” Horton says.

“Paving was the predominant use once upon a time, but we believe there are other markets out there that can use our product and can rebirth the industry,” Clarke says.

Horton’s dream when he started ASR Systems a decade ago was to develop a shingle-to-shingle market, creating the first circular economy for asphalt.

That dream is still distant, though not abandoned. Horton says recycling shingles to create new ones poses significant challenges that ASR is still working on tackling. “The solution for shingles to shingles is an initiative that has not been fruitful over the past 10 years that we’ve been in business … but that doesn’t stop the drive to find a solution,” Horton says.

In the meantime, ASR is pursuing new end markets, honing its processing capabilities and working to create an upturn in the industry instead of waiting for it to happen.

“I see a significant industry change on the horizon,” Horton says. “When you have a downturn in one part of the industry, the industry is forced to find new solutions. What else do you do?”

The author is the assistant editor of Construction & Demolition Recycling magazine and can be contacted at tcottom@gie.net.

In the foggy mid-morning of a late August day in 2017, Daniel Campkin and a crew of five loaded up a boat and set sail for the uninhabited Hope Island off the coast of Ontario, Canada.

Through brisk air and choppy waters of the Georgian Bay, the Priestly Demolition crew headed off for a site visit to plot how they would restore the island to its natural state. Twenty minutes in, the fog grew thick.

“Halfway there, a storm rolls in, and we couldn’t see where the island was. We ended up having to turn around and come back to shore,” says Campkin, who served as project manager for Priestly on the job. “That was our first impression that this could be a challenging project.”

The Canadian government tasked Priestly Demolition of King, Ontario, with removing a lighthouse, four smaller auxiliary buildings and a wharf on the island to turn its ownership back to the Beausoleil First Nation.

Though a straightforward demolition job once on-site, the complexities of working on a remote island required careful planning to transport more than 1,400 tons of material safely back to land through unpredictable weather and rough waters.

Barging in

Located off the northeast side of Lake Huron, Hope Island was one of three islands that belonged to the Beausoleil Nation, a band of Chippewa people, centuries ago.

In 2017, the Canadian government wanted to advance reconciliation efforts and demolish the island’s structures, which were past their useful lifecycles, as part of an environmental remediation project.

Priestly submitted the lowest bid to secure the $562,627 project, while the Montreal-based WSP Global acted as project consultant. Along with an inoperative 57-foot-tall lighthouse built in 1884, crews had to demolish two residences, a generator building, a fog house and a 130-foot concrete wharf jetting into the bay.

While the work required several pieces of heavy-duty equipment, one in particular was key to the entire operation: a 50-by-90 custom-built modular barge used to transport all the equipment and materials across 7 miles of open water.

The unassembled barge arrived to Ontario in eight truckloads in late August of that year. Priestly crews worked with Galcon Marine Ltd., the marine construction company that provided the barge, to bolt the segments together with a 90-ton crane over the course of a week.

Meanwhile, a crew of five from Priestly dispatched to the island for asbestos abatement and preparation. In addition to abatement, the crews also needed to clear overgrown brush and construct a wildlife barrier to deter animals from visiting.

Once Priestly assembled the barge and abated the site, the real work began.

Setting sail

The full crew arrived for a first day of work in early September with a barge full of equipment, including a site trailer; three excavators; grapple, hammer and bucket attachments; a rotary mower; and eight 40-yard roll-off containers. When crews reached the shore, they used two hydraulic towers to anchor the barge to the bottom of the bay.

Once crews cleared the brush and assembled a barrier, their first demolition target was the wharf, “which was unfortunate because it was our main access” to the island, Campkin says. However, Priestly needed to schedule around the mating seasons of different fish in the bay, leaving them with just one week to work in the water before moving inland.

The barge wasn’t just used for transporting equipment. A crew member operated a 20-ton excavator from the barge to break and lift boulders and concrete from the wharf while others stood nearby to help him maneuver the machine.

The crew worked long days to finish the job within the given timeframe. Working from a floating surface presented its own set of challenges, but crew members kept environmental concerns at the forefront of their minds as they worked carefully not to drop the more than 1,100 tons of concrete coming from the wharf into the bay.

“Some concrete did go in the water, which we had to pick back out. On a calm day, it was easier to see what you were working on. If it was slightly windy or the water wasn’t calm, it was difficult to see,” Campkin says. “We had to have a few spotters working with radios to tell [the operator] how to maneuver. It definitely took a lot of coordination and was a lot more hands-on.”

Logistic challenges

Weather became a main driver of when and how much work could be done.

On good days, the crew could reach the island in about 20 minutes, while a tugboat pulled the barge along in a 2½-hour trip one way.

Weather, however, interceded at times. Winds on the island could reach nearly 60 mph, and waves could rise as high as 12 feet, creating challenging and sometimes impossible conditions for the barge to cross. The Priestly crew lost 20 days of work to weather alone.

“The largest challenge of the job was the schedule, and that was because you didn’t know what the weather was going to be like, and if there were high winds, it would delay the project a day,” Campkin says. “We definitely pushed really hard and the guys worked longer shifts to ensure we could finish on time.”

And while the barge was a crucial piece of equipment for the job, it presented its own set of challenges. The crew needed the barge to transport all material on and off the island, but the slow-moving craft limited the amount that could be transported each day.

Priestly developed a plan to leave eight of the roll-off containers on the mainland and bring eight with them to the island.

After each day of demolition, whether they had mechanically picked apart the wooden buildings or crushed the concrete, crews sorted the material, loaded the eight containers on a truck that carried them to the barge.

Then, the barge made its near-three-hour trek back to Ontario, where more crew members unloaded the bins and loaded the barge back up with empties. From there, the craft was loaded and ready to move through the same cycle the next workday.

“Between logistical challenges with getting the barge and the equipment there and then getting the material off-site in a timely manner, it all affected the schedule. So if you didn’t get material out and get fresh bins in, you couldn’t fill the bins to get them back out,” Campkin says. “There were a lot of moving pieces and everything kind of had to come together like clockwork to ensure success.”

Priestly dealt with numerous other challenges besides scheduling while on the job.

With no means of accessing the uninhabited island once the wharf was gone, crews had to build their own makeshift bridge to get equipment on and off the island and finish demolishing the buildings.

Even the snakes on Hope Island, which are so bountiful that its nickname is “Snake Island,” made some crew members uneasy. However, Campkin says many snakes receded once the work began.

A greater cause

Despite weather complications, the Priestly crew still finished ahead of schedule and recycled nearly 80 percent of the material from the job.

Much of the wood could not be recovered, as high winds and harsh waters wore it down significantly over the years. All the concrete was crushed and sent to a nearby recycling facility, while the stone and rip-rap recovered from the building foundations and wharf were reintroduced back to the natural land around the island.

Once they graded the island, the Priestly crew of 10 packed up their equipment and made their final trip across the bay in November.

Though the job took place on a remote island, the work was no vacation. The crew’s challenges earned Priestly second place in its category for the 2019 National Demolition Association’s Excellence in Demolition awards.

Despite the accolades, though, Campkin and the crew say working to restore land to hand back over to its original owners made the job even more fulfilling.

“Before we started the project, out team went out to the Christian Island and met with the Beausoleil First Nation and introduced ourselves. They assisted us with access to the island, and they were definitely happy to see the work being completed,” Campkin says. “It was really cool being able to work with them.”

The author is the assistant editor of Construction & Demolition Recycling and can be reached at tcottom@gie.net.

Whether you are a hauler, contractor or working in construction and demolition (C&D) recycling, roll-off containers are indispensable for managing waste and recyclables. While the importance of finding the right container is undeniable, doing so can sometimes be overwhelming.

Determining the type, size and brand of container that best suits a user’s needs requires asking the right questions, knowing what’s out there and being willing to challenge preconceived notions.

Standard, heavy or ultra-heavy-duty?

Is standard enough?

Because of the volume and type of materials collected, finding the right container for C&D applications is often straightforward. Most haulers and contractors avoid standard- and heavy-duty containers in favor of ultra-heavy-duty models. However, standard dumpsters or containers may be appropriate for some lighter-duty applications. For example, professionals tasked with clearing household items or using a walk-in container where items can be placed by hand may be best suited with standard-duty options because of the cost. For applications where materials are heavy or machine-loaded, containers typically require more reinforcement.

What type of material will go into the containers?

The primary driver of container choice is the type of material that will be put into it. Heavy-duty containers will typically work well for shingles, wood or light debris. However, heavier materials like concrete, brick and dirt will likely require an ultra-heavy-duty model. While many may not realize it, dirt weighs 1.4 tons per yard, while concrete weighs 1 ton per yard. Therefore, many haulers will not use or provide any container larger than 20 yards for these materials for fear of exceeding weight limits.

How much material is generated?

It’s obvious that the amount of material generated is a key consideration in choosing a container. However, haulers should weigh volume against frequency of pickup to ensure their own profitability. They should think about not just how much material will be generated, but also how long it takes to accumulate and how that affects pickup schedules to select the best fit.

How is it loaded?

In general, containers that are hand-loaded tend to have a more evenly distributed load. This reduces strain on the unit. Anything that will be machine-loaded will have a more concentrated and rougher loading. Therefore, these types of containers require more reinforcement, especially in areas that come into contact with the machinery. More reinforcement may also be needed on the bottoms, where concentrated weight and quick dumping can be a major issue.

How often (and how) is it moved?

Simply stated, repeated movement and loading/unloading causes wear. The more often a large container is moved—whether by roll-off truck, crane or bulldozer—the more reinforcement it needs. While standard duty may be fine for items that are less frequently moved or moved more gently, operators should consider heavier duty options for those that face more contact with machines.

Style and size

Which style is best?

This choice often comes down to personal preference, but standard containers offer different advantages and disadvantages based on their shape. Given the fact that material is more easily unloaded from a container with curved sides, bathtub styles are often used for dirt that might accumulate in the channels and at 90-degree angles of a rectangular container. However, because they can be much more easily reinforced, rectangular containers have historically been favored for heavy-duty and ultra-heavy-duty applications.

How big?

Contrary to popular notion, bigger is not always better. The size of a container should be dictated by volume of waste, how often and how it’s moved, and how much space is available on-site. C&D containers generally come in 10-, 15-, 20-, 30- or even 40-yard sizes to accommodate a range of needs and jobs. However, larger containers do not just have a larger base footprint. They vary in height and configuration, which are other variables users have to think about prior to investment.

Regulatory constraints are also of paramount importance, with many states setting over-the-road weight limits. If these apply in a user’s area, it should be remembered that the extra weight of a container takes away from the amount of waste that can be hauled at one time, so smaller options may be more attractive and profitable.

Customizing containers for specific needs

As evidenced by the breadth of choices, containers are certainly not one-size-fits-all. Top manufacturers offer myriad options that will help users meet specific needs and operating challenges.

Steel upgrades

Increasing the gauge of steel used or adding reinforcements in key areas is one of the primary ways to customize a container. For extra-heavy loads, those loaded with machines, those exposed to the elements and those frequently moved, users should consider adding more steel in several places, including the floor sheet, side sheets, cross members, main rails and top rails.

Configuration options

There are also many different configurations that will help increase service life, ease of use, safety and efficiency. Some of the most common include:

• Ground rollers: While two ground rollers are standard if the container is to be moved around while on-site, having four ground rollers is a must.
• Dirt shedders: Dirt shedders can be added to the exterior sidewalls of rectangular containers to keep dirt and other loose material from collecting and possibly blowing off the container while in transit.
• Inverted angles: Adding these to the top rails will reinforce them and reduce the beating taken from machine loading.
• Push plates: Also known as crash plates, these are extra steel added to the end of the container where it is being picked up or pushed to take the brunt of the impact and reduce wear.
• Crane eyes: Crane eyes can be added where the container is picked up by a crane, which is a critical point of wear.
• Tarping systems: As tarps or lids are required in an ever-greater number of applications, users should consider tarp and lid compatibility, tarp quality and ease of operation.

Recent market changes

Up until recently, there were few changes in the C&D container market. However, several technological innovations in the past couple years have changed the game.

High-tensile steel

Chief among these changes are monitoring technology and the use of high-tensile steel to create strength and durability at a lower weight. While high-tensile steel has been used widely in Europe for several years, new roll-off containers have recently been introduced in the U.S. that offer greater strength than ordinary mild steel grades while weighing less and lasting longer than traditional heavy-duty roll-off containers.

Monitoring

Monitoring technology allows haulers to view the container at all times to determine when additional pickups might be necessary and plays a role in security and loss prevention. Haulers who monitor their containers can keep an eye on their assets at all times and protect against the theft of high-value loads.

Environmental considerations

The Environmental Protection Agency continues to strengthen its regulatory requirements for things like container weight and water table runoff. There is also growing awareness of sustainability issues and an increasing focus on reducing carbon footprint and enhancing possible fuel savings from lighter weight containers.

Cost vs. value

In the hauling business, time and capacity are money. While it may seem more cost-effective to have on-staff repair teams who can spot-weld and fix damaged containers, smart haulers think of their containers as assets that should be making them money at all times. In fact, one week in the repair yard can cost a hauler $500-$700 on average in lost revenue. Focusing on value and total cost of ownership by purchasing the right container will ensure that a business’s roll-offs stay out of the repair yard.

Rather than initial cost alone, users looking for the right container should weigh their needs, establish a set of standards and specifications that works for them, and focus on total cost of ownership. The good news is that there are more options than ever before, and help is available. Users should choose a vendor that will work closely with them to help assess their unique operation and deliver the optimal container solutions for that business’s needs.

Kirk Warren is the director of product management for the steel division of Wastequip. He can be reached at kwarren@wastequip.com.

A lot has changed in the construction and demolition (C&D) recycling industry since Construction & Demolition Recycling’s predecessor publication, C&D Recycler, debuted in 1999. We talked with a panel of industry experts about how the industry has shifted over the years and what new changes might be on the horizon.

Construction & Demolition Recycling (C&DR): How have you seen the emphasis on—and mentality pertaining to—C&D recycling change over the last couple of decades?

Troy Lautenbach, president of Lautenbach Industries, Mount Vernon, Washington: Governments and the building industry we serve are asking for, and pushing to see, more C&D recycling. They understand the value both from an environmental and economic perspective. What are the differences in how these materials are handled and processed now versus in the past? Many companies originating before the 2000s started with the “ground sort and pick methods” and then graduated to a sort line. We are now seeing the effects of technology through the years of research and development, which has resulted in better screening methods, robots and automation, as well as more efficient and higher yield operations.

Paul Kuhar, vice president of Champion Waste & Recycling Services, Dallas: I have been involved in the waste and recycling business since 1995, and back then, the only construction recycling that we really dealt with was concrete, metal or wood separation, which was very limited on job sites. Everything back then was treated like waste and loaded into one container and taken to the landfill. Materials that were separated had to be exceptionally clean or they would be rejected, so contractors would not want to waste the time to perform the separation. For Champion, it really started to change in 2007 when contractors starting inquiring if there was a better way to manage LEED jobs with commingled construction programs. At the time, we were only doing source separation for very few select contractors who had to separate due to LEED and had no options to perform a commingled program. In the early years, it was all source separation with materials that were very easy to capture and separate. However, as building requirements changed, LEED building became more prevalent and commingled containers were the future—technology really helped that become reality.

Leonard Cherry, president of Cherry Cos., Houston: We have seen the general public’s mindset shift from expressing the desire of a consumer society to that of a sustainable society. As a result, government attention has continually increased to focus on accomplishing that goal of sustainability. Unfortunately, we have also seen an increase in regulation that ultimately hampers the progress of achieving that goal.

Steve Hosier, vice president of demolition at Veit, Rogers, Minnesota: In the last 28 years, I personally have not seen a significant change in the style of recycling on building demolition projects. I believe demolition contractors are unrecognized pioneers and the recycling industry was competitive by nature well before recycling itself became such a dominant industry. I do not believe this to be true on the construction side of the industry with regards to C&D collection, as there were very few transfer and recycling stations 25 years ago compared to today.

Mark Ramun, director of demolition and decommissioning for Wood, Aberdeen, Scotland: From the contractor’s perspective, little has changed, as they have always emphasized recycling as much as possible to reduce costs. But over the past two decades, owners have become more understanding, often characterizing materials prior to recycling to save money and reduce liabilities associated with potential contaminants that may be at their facility. We see more clients spending time and money upfront to identify materials before recycling begins to avoid risks and publicity that follows if a contaminant is left on-site or improperly handled. Also, due to advancements in equipment and machinery technologies, it’s more cost-effective to recycle material on-site these days, saving money and time when compared to transporting materials off-site.

James Milburn, owner of Milburn LLC, Bellwood, Illinois: In commercial demolition, there have been significant strides made in the last 10 years regarding C&D recycling and diversion from landfill. The ability for our waste hauler and separator companies to segregate and sort materials in order to combine materials and recycle accordingly has allowed them to keep costs down. There have also been many owners and architects requiring certain percentages of recycling by weight on projects. This requires contractors like us to make more of an effort to recycle, even if it comes at an additional cost.

C&DR: What factors do you think have been most impactful in instigating change and making C&D recycling more prevalent?

TL: When I started my company in the 1990s, recycling was demanded by only a few businesses that were willing to pay more to have the materials recycled. The only way I could compete was to have a service that was less expensive than the landfill—a practice still in place today. When fuel went to $5 a gallon for gas and we experienced the Great Recession, businesses started to pay much more attention on how to handle their waste. Other global issues that are now factors that weren’t when I started my business are climate change and plastic pollution problems that have elevated the importance of recycling in the mind of the public.

PK: Education, education, education! We make it a point to explain to clients that recycling costs more money due to the technology and processes involved in operating a recycling facility today. Volume is great, but the need for a facility to be financially sustainable year over year is the main driving force that helps support the industry. We always encourage facility tours and workshops at our plants to help educate our clients, municipalities and LEED consultants on how our process works and why the cost structure is the way it is. Markets can be broken down regionally and even more locally, so costs are always going to vary depending on where you are located in the country.

LC: The most impactful factors are, in no particular order, government support, cost savings and the public’s mindset. The government and pertaining agencies recognize and support both the C&D recycling market and the changes that go with it. The nature of recycling and its market impact reduce costs. For this market to flourish, the public mindset must be one of a desire to consume materials in a more sustainable way.

SH: I believe the LEED requirements pertaining to new building construction have been the most impactful, as they are required on many of the new projects.

MR: Cost is the biggest driver of change. Technological advancements in mobile recycling equipment now allow more materials to either be reused on-site or somewhere close to the project, which has reduced transportation and/or disposal costs significantly.

JM: Cost of recycling, cost of segregation of materials, one-stop sorting facilities and, of course, state and owner requirements for landfill diversion have been the things that have helped spur recycling more than anything.

C&DR: What advancements in technology or equipment do you think have been most impactful in this sector? How so?

PK: I am most excited about the new screening technology that is coming online in C&D recycling plants. The use of vibratory screening and density separation makes processing C&D material more feasible if the volume is there. Present-day technology in the C&D recycling world has become so much more advanced with screening technology, robotic sorting and the ability to process large volumes of material—it’s a game-changer for those that are processors. The ability to separate by type (2D/3D) within a C&D recycling plant is huge because it allows you to introduce material to your sorters or robotic line in a more uniform way, making the sorting process that much more efficient. This efficiency allows an operator to process more material at a much higher recovery rate. Screening fines has also become more important within the sorting facility, and the ability to take these down to a very small size mechanically has been extremely beneficial.

LC: The continued advancement of multiple lines of processing equipment seems to be the most impactful in this particular sector. The most intriguing facet of this is the robotics that are continually being developed to aid us in this industry.

SH: As recycling and transfer stations have evolved, equipment and technology as far as tipping floor logistics and pick-line systems have advanced and become more efficient, which has led to great material quality.

JM: As a demolition contractor, the technological advances we see are not necessarily helping the process of recycling and diverting material. The technology of end-user recycling will help lower costs and allow us to segregate more materials in the field without driving our price up to the point of not being competitive. For example, carpet manufacturers will take carpet tiles if stacked properly on skids, but if they had technology to handle these materials loaded loosely in dumpster or trailer, we would be able to more effectively segregate and direct ship. This is similar with ceiling tile recycling as well.

C&DR: What do you believe are the biggest issues the industry faces today? What more needs to be done to increase the amount or types of C&D materials that typically get recycled?

TL: End markets, cost of labor, lack of available labor and cost of healthcare are all issues that still have to be sorted out. In order to increase the amount getting recycled, there needs to be a greater demand for our products. Governments need to specify our products in their bid demands, and product manufacturers need to consider end-of-life solutions for the products they manufacture by taking this into account during the manufacturing process. If they don’t make that shift, you will continue to see “forced” responsibility through product stewardship programs like you see in electronics, paint and some other markets.

PK: The two most obvious ones that come to mind are end markets and regulatory issues. Operators make the investment to recycle as much material as possible within their market; however, if certain markets do not exist, that material has no place to go but to the landfill. Transportation and economics play a huge role when end markets do exist but simply are too far away for an operator to deliver to. A very sensible approach for any operator is to sort and process the materials that they can market and move consistently with the foresight to always be looking for market opportunities. I believe that more education needs to be done in regard to how we sort and process the materials that come into our plants so that stakeholders that write recycling programs or make decisions on recycling goals can fully understand what it takes to divert this material. We need to come together and look at all the viable options in creating end markets—not simply have these stakeholders write a program that they do not understand and just walk away and leave it up to the operators. We all need to be invested in the process to achieve the overall recycling goal.

LC: One of the biggest issues currently facing this industry is what to do with these recyclable materials once they have been sorted. There is a considerable lack of end markets available. Additionally, we would like to see more people get into the business of recycling. However, at this point, it is largely deemed unprofitable—again, due to the lack of end markets. Until better alternatives are established, finding ways to dispose or reuse materials in an environmentally conscious way that also has financial incentives to drive the free market within the continental U.S. (such as through clean incineration for fuel) is the immediate best answer.

SH: A couple of the most significant issues we face today are finding qualified labor who want to work in the industry and increasing what we’re recycling. Keeping the labor force safe also has a significant impact on the bottom line, and more importantly, the impact on lives of the labor force. I believe we can increase the amount being recycled by using a commonsense approach while regulating certain contaminants—lead paint being one of them.

MR: One of the biggest challenges our clients face is simply knowing what materials they have and whether they can safely be recycled or reused without issues arising later. There are plenty of ways to cost effectively characterize a site with a high degree of accuracy. Unfortunately, we still see hazardous materials that go unidentified and find their way into recycled material streams, raising concerns about liabilities, health and safety, and environmental impacts. The best way to increase the amount or types of C&D materials that get recycled is to have an accurate understanding of what types of materials you have and keep the clean materials from becoming contaminated by hazardous ones during the demolition, deconstruction or handling process.

JM: There is one major enemy to recycling, and that’s always cost. The best way to get past this is for owners to include higher recycling standards in their bid specs in order to have all contractors bid on an “apples to apples” basis. Other ways include governmental mandates on recycling and technology/sorting upgrades. As long as the demolition business stays competitive, I am all in favor of improvements that will increase recycling opportunities.

C&DR: Where are the biggest opportunities in this sector?

TL: We have an opportunity to work with government entities striving to increase diversion and who are interested in alternatives to traditional methods given the National Sword crisis that has impacted curbside recycling. Our industry is domestic and regional in nature. With what we have seen in China, we need to continue to develop our domestic demand for our products and control where we go with our C&D debris. This creates jobs and helps our economy in every region across our nation.

LC: One of the biggest opportunities in this sector would be partnering with the federal government to accomplish the public sector’s goal of sustainability. For example, with clean incineration of used plastics for fuel, there is an open market for a new fuel source.

MR: There have been an increasing number of privately owned nuclear power plants shuttered in recent years. Historically, nuclear sites haven’t generated a great deal of recycled materials. But with new techniques and technologies, materials at these sites can quickly be identified, segregated and safely recycled, minimizing disposal costs and shortening project schedules dramatically.

JM: I believe the biggest opportunities are projects where owners and contractors connect during preconstruction to talk through the feasibility and costs associated with a variety of options. This can lead to improved project planning requirements and the ability to evaluate the cost versus recycling percentage prior to creation of bid specs and awarding contracts. Upfront collaboration is crucial for our business.

C&DR: Where do you see the C&D recycling industry heading in the coming years?

TL: Technology-driven efficiencies, along with end market development, are going to be key in the future. I also would like to see mandates that all C&D debris go through a sort/recycle process before it can go to a landfill if there is capacity within 50 miles of where it was generated.

PK: I see continued advancements in technology and overall program designs to help achieve higher recycling rates within our plants. As we challenge ourselves to recover more material at higher throughput rates, the manufacturers will continue to challenge themselves and adapt to what operators will see in the future. Champion sees a direct connection to C&D recycling and commercial recycling in that the waste streams are very similar and can be processed the same way utilizing the same type of equipment. The future will bring us more hybrid recycling plants that deploy robotic and screening technology that can handle multiple streams of material within a single system to recover high rates of material. In the end, as we focus on more innovative technology, industry stakeholders must also step up in the same way to create end markets within our country that will benefit us and actually close the loop.

LC: We see the future of C&D recycling as a bright one. We believe that sustainability is generational, and we are hopeful that end markets can be established for these materials.

SH: I have seen the C&D recycling industry maintain its current path for quite a few years. It seems there is always a beneficial avenue for reuse, but I believe most of the time, price will always dictate what gets recycled. As a demolition contractor, what I would like to see is for the architects and engineers to not only design for LEED standards and/or order efficiency, but also consider how their designs affect future recycling efforts when the building is being demolished or remodeled.

MR: I think manufacturers will continue to develop products out of safe, clean and environmentally friendly materials and keep finding ways to incorporate recycled materials into their products, making recycled goods an even more valuable commodity.

JM: I believe the C&D recycling industry is headed for major technological advances in the next 10 years. I envision a time where raw materials cost so much that government and manufacturers will drive the need to recycle as much as physically possible and that we will be able to do so in single-source sorting facilities. In this scenario, materials such as drywall, carpet, insulation and ceiling tiles will be able to be easily sorted and recycled off-site to avoid increased cost of demolition activities.

The author is the editor for Construction & Demolition Recycling magazine and can be contacted at aredling@gie.net.