Portland, Oregon-based Urban Gypsum has announced the opening of a 75,000-square-foot drywall processing and recycling plant in that city.
The company’s new facility can separate the paper backing from the gypsum material and create a fine gypsum powder. The material produced is expected to be used as an agricultural soil amendment and plant nutrient.
“We’re excited to be bringing specialized recycling technology to the Pacific Northwest,” says Casey Lane, Urban Gypsum’s president.
Urban Gypsum is a partner of Portland-based Willamette Construction Services Inc. Lane says Willamette’s experience in the area prompted the company to explore drywall recycling options.
“Our organization has been in the construction industry for more than 40 years,” says Lane. He adds, “Over that time, we’ve seen an excessive amount of gypsum going to landfills and believed it was time to invest in an environmentally beneficial solution. Our high-quality gypsum will go a long way toward supporting farmers and the agricultural industry.”
Construction employment grows in majority of metros in 2018
Construction employment grew in 273 out of 358 U.S. metro areas between December 2017 and December 2018, according to an analysis of federal employment data recently released by the Associated General Contractors of America (AGC). Industry employment declined in 37 metro areas and remained stagnant in 48.
Association officials say the job gains came amid strong demand throughout 2018 for construction projects but noted that tight labor market conditions likely prevented additional job gains last year.
“Construction employment continued to expand in most parts of the country in 2018 as demand for many types of construction projects grew,” says Ken Simonson, the association’s chief economist. “As welcome as the job gains were, many firms would likely have added even more workers if labor market conditions were not so tight.”
The Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, Texas, metro area added the most construction jobs during the past year (19,400 jobs, 9 percent). Other metro areas adding a large amount of construction jobs over the past 12 months include Dallas-Plano-Irving, Texas; Phoenix-Mesa-Scottsdale, Arizona; and Orlando-Kissimmee-Sanford, Florida. The largest percentage gain of 28 percent occurred in the Weirton-Steubenville, West Virginia/Ohio area.
The largest job losses in that time period occurred in Anaheim-Santa Ana-Irvine, California (-2,800 jobs, -3 percent), followed by San Diego-Carlsbad in California and Honolulu. The largest percentage decrease occurred in Lawrence-Methuen Town-Salem, Massachusetts/New Hampshire (-9 percent, -300 jobs), followed by Abilene, Texas; Wichita Falls, Texas; and Elmira, New York.
Association officials say workforce shortages are limiting the full economic benefits of robust demand for construction. They urged federal officials to increase technical education funding and enact immigration reform to allow more people to legally work in construction.
The U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC) has released its annual list of Top 10 States for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED), the world’s most widely used green building rating system. Illinois topped the list, which ranks states based on the number of LEED-certified square feet per person. The top 10 states for LEED are home to 128 million Americans and together include more than 468 million gross square feet of LEED-certified space.
USGBC says buildings that are LEED-certified create healthier spaces for people, use less energy and water, reduce carbon emissions and save money for taxpayers, families and businesses.
*Included in 2017 Top 10 States for LEED list; **Washington, D.C., is not ranked as it is a federal district, not a state
“These top 10 states are examples of how we can create lasting, measurable change and improve the quality of life for everyone in our communities. A better future requires a universal living standard that leaves no one behind—and that future would simply not be possible without the extraordinary work being done in these states,” Mahesh Ramanujam, the president and CEO of USGBC, says in a press release.
As the No. 1 state for LEED certification in 2018, Illinois certified 172 green building projects, representing 5.31 square feet of LEED-certified space per resident. This is the first time Illinois has taken the top spot since 2015. Washington and Texas returned to the top 10 this year, securing the highest rankings in each state’s history. In addition, Colorado made notable strides in its LEED activity, moving from No. 10 in 2017 to No. 6 on this year’s list.
The top 10 list is based on 2010 U.S. Census data and includes commercial and institutional green building projects certified throughout 2018. USGBC says it calculates the list using per capita figures to allow for a fair comparison of the level of green building taking place among states with significant differences in population and number of overall buildings.
While the top 10 recognizes progress at the building level, LEED is also now used to measure sustainability performance at the city and community levels. This year, nine of the top 10 states are also home to LEED-certified cities and communities, including Chicago; Seattle; Austin, Texas; San Diego County and more. There are currently more than 137 registered and certified LEED cities and communities around the world, representing more than 50 million people. Despite Washington, D.C., not appearing in the official top 10 list because of its status as a federal territory, USGBC says it has consistently led the nation in LEED certification. For the full list, including notable projects in each state, visit www.usgbc.org.
The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) says that to protect worker privacy, it has issued a final rule that eliminates the requirement for establishments with 250 or more employees to electronically submit information from OSHA Form 300 (Log of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses) and OSHA Form 301 (Injury and Illness Incident Report) to OSHA each year. These establishments are still required to electronically submit information from OSHA Form 300A (Summary of Work-Related Injuries and Illnesses).
By preventing routine government collection of information that may be sensitive, including descriptions of workers’ injuries and body parts affected, OSHA says it is avoiding the risk that such information might be publicly disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). OSHA says this rule will better protect personally identifiable information or data that could be attributed to a particular worker by removing the requirement for covered employers to submit their information from Forms 300 and 301. The final rule does not alter an employer’s duty to maintain OSHA Forms 300 and 301 on-site, and OSHA will continue to obtain these forms as needed through inspections and enforcement actions.
In addition, OSHA says this rule will allow it to focus its resources on initiatives that have been shown to be useful—including using information from severe injury reports that helps target areas of concern and seeking to fully utilize a large volume of data from Form 300A—rather than on collecting and processing information from Forms 300 and 301 with uncertain value for OSHA enforcement and compliance assistance.
The agency is also amending the recordkeeping regulation to require covered employers to electronically submit their employer identification number (EIN) with their information from Form 300A. OSHA says the final rule’s requirement for employers to submit their EIN electronically, along with their information from OSHA Form 300A, will make the data more useful for OSHA and the Bureau of Labor Statistics and could reduce duplicative reporting burdens on employers in the future.
OSHA determined that this final rule will allow it to improve enforcement targeting and compliance assistance, protect worker privacy and safety and decrease the burden on employers.
Collection of calendar year 2018 information from the OSHA Form 300A began on Jan. 2, and the deadline for electronic submissions was March 2.
Under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, employers are responsible for providing safe and healthful workplaces for their employees. OSHA’s role is to help ensure these conditions for America’s working men and women by setting and enforcing standards, and providing training, education and assistance. For more information, visit www.osha.gov.
Construction & Demolition Recycling (C&DR) magazine celebrates its 20th anniversary in 2019. To help commemorate our time chronicling the C&D sector, we’re taking a look back at how the demolition industry has evolved over the years by speaking with the leaders who have helped shape it.
Mark Loizeaux, president of Controlled Demolition Inc. (CDI) in Phoenix, Maryland, spoke with C&DR about growing up in the business, the intricacies of implosion work and establishing a reputation that lasts.
Construction & Demolition Recycling (C&DR): Can you talk about how and when you got your start in the business?
Mark Loizeaux (ML): My father, John D. “Jack” Loizeaux felled his first structure, a brick chimney, in Virginia in 1947. Like a lot of other children in family-run businesses back before OSHA dictated that age when personnel can come onto projects under their jurisdiction, I started going out with my father on weekends and during the summer when I was 6 years old. I literally came up through the business, watching my father as he learned from his successes—and failures—in developing what became the commercial explosives demolition industry. My father’s success was recognized over the years by industry organizations both domestically and internationally. In 2000, he was awarded the Lifetime Achievement Award by the National Demolition Association (NDA) for his commitment to gaining acceptance of the explosives demolition industry and his innovative approach toward the felling of structures.
I worked my way up through the company as a laborer, then labor supervisor, project manager and vice president after studying both engineering and business in college, finally taking over the operation of CDI and The Loizeaux Group of Companies in 1976.
C&DR: How have new technologies and equipment influenced how implosion jobs are completed today?
ML: The basic tenet of explosives demolition is to use the weight and configuration of a structure, combined with gravity and the smallest quantity of explosives possible, to safely bring a structure to grade. Most structures are imploded due to the limitations of either individual contractors involved or their in-house capability to “reach” the structure from ground level to perform conventional demolition methods; conditions in the structure that make conventional demolition dangerous for a project-specific reason; tight completion schedules that require a structure to come down to grade quickly; or simply because explosives demolition can be dramatically less expensive than conventional demolition methods, particularly in high-wage-rate locations.
Gravity hasn’t changed, but the nature of structures being demolished has, with newer and more complex structural systems being demolished every year as different types of construction used in decades past “come of age” and need to be removed to make way for new development. Demolition of post-tensioned structures presents unique problems for conventional demolition, whether top-down or ground-based methods are used. CDI has developed very successful implosion methods for post-tensioned structures that, where the site lends itself to implosion, conventional demolition methods simply can’t compare to in terms of safety, speed and cost.
There have been a few innovations in the explosives industry, and some of those innovations have found their way into commercial application opportunities. The use of linear-shaped charges on steel structures is probably the clearest example of explosives innovation’s impact on demolition operations.
C&DR: How have you seen regulation change over the years?
ML: Regulations imposed here in the U.S. frequently migrate from Europe after problems have arisen in the European Union that lead regulators to decide that more regulation is better. All too often, these stem from one of the least qualified contractors in the industry whose operation leads to the problem, resulting in over-regulation of more competent contractors who never would have had the problem in the first place due to their standard practices. I am certainly in favor of regulations that enhance safety for workers and the general public, where those regulations actually result in that net effect, rather than simply increasing the cost of performance.
C&DR: How has the emphasis on safety oversight changed?
ML: There have certainly been advances in personal protection equipment and the application of said equipment that make an employee’s presence on a job site safer. There are also safety-related developments on a project-specific basis that require unique safety compliance because of the environment within which the demolition is taking place. While such advancement in worker safety oversight and safety of the public adjacent to the demolition site is worthwhile, the ever-increasing propensity for property owners to hire third-party demolition managers to mitigate or avoid their own risk associated with demolition on their properties has served to increase the cost of demolition for those types of clients. If a properly qualified demolition contractor is fully vetted for the risks associated for the project at hand, the additional layer of “demolition manager” under the guise of enforcing greater safety often serves to do nothing more than increase the cost of the project to the owner without yielding a safer operation.
C&DR: How have recycling considerations changed how you approach demo jobs and, more generally, how contractors are deriving value from materials generated on-site?
ML: Recycling of the byproducts of demolition operations is primarily undertaken to mitigate costs of demolition, in one fashion or the other. Whether soft-stripping a building to improve the utility of the remaining structural demolition debris or to derive positive cash flow from the sale of metals or equipment, everything points toward reducing the cost of legal project performance in order to win a project. If you don’t win the project, everything else is moot.
C&DR: Is it more difficult finding qualified employees today in implosion? How have your hiring practices changed, if at all?
ML: CDI has always promoted from within, bringing on personnel for work ethic, integrity or specific discipline reasons at first and then bringing them up through the ranks as they demonstrate levels of competency and performance which suggest their elevation in the company will benefit the company at large and the services we provide our clients. So, no, CDI has never had a problem finding or developing those employees we need for the position we wish to pursue in the industry at any given point in time.
C&DR: Over your years in the demolition industry, what lessons have you learned regarding what it takes to be successful?
ML: From my perspective, it is most important to protect your integrity and reputation within that industry which you care to serve. One needs to know their limitations (i.e., what you can or are capable of doing from a technical standpoint, as compared to what you should do from a risk management or commercial standpoint). Choose your clients and the projects you perform for them carefully to ensure that when you live up to the commitments you make to them, they will, in turn, live up to the commitments they have made to you.
It isn’t hard to win a project—you just have to be the low bidder. Unfortunately, the low bidder is often the wrong bidder. Win the project with the right bid, perform it honestly and faithfully, work for clients who will pay you and work hard to manage your risks to protect those profits you work so hard to earn.
