In light of the recent discussions swirling around adjustments to the Leadership in Energy and Environmental De-sign (LEED) credits given for recycling of C&D materials, several thoughts have occurred to me. Since the institution of the LEED program by USGBC, more attention and focus has been brought on the demolition and recycling industries than ever before. The proliferation of C&D processing facilities brought on, in part, by the LEED points available from recycling of C&D material, state and local regulations, and generally raised consciousness of material separation techniques and end users for the products derived has been dramatic across the county. Hundreds of millions of dollars of capital investment has developed these facilities and continues to bring them through multiple levels of maturity that yield higher percentages of higher grade and value of recovered products. Coinciding with the maturity of C&D processing facilities are facilities that incorporate the recovered products produced into manufactured end product. The range of material produced includes biomass fuels, ferrous and non-ferrous metals, the full spectrum of plastics, cardboard and paper, ceiling tiles, carpet, gypsum drywall, alternative daily cover for landfills, and most voluminously asphalt, brick and concrete.

More manufacturers are redesigning their processes to be able to use higher recycled content in their new products. Some specific examples are Tafisa in particle board, Armstrong in ceiling tiles, Mohawk, Interstate, DuPont and Milliken in carpet manufacturing, Trex for plastic lumber products, wood pellet manufacturers for pellet fuel, mulch and animal bedding manufacturers, Natural Gypsum, US Gypsum and Georgia Pacific in gypsum board production, cement producers for their use of gypsum for the calcining process, biomass power plants across the country consume tens of thousands of tons daily of specified wood chips manufactured for each particular plants’ requirements by C&D processing facilities. Asphalt, brick and concrete (ABC) comprise the largest volume by far of any recycled product, and these materials also enjoy the highest recycling rate of conversion from waste material to beneficial use.

Although LEED projects generate a very low percentage of the total of C&D material that is recycled, the lofty goals of the LEED program have provided trickle-down inspiration to every aspect of the C&D world.

We concentrate on C&D processing facilities for ascertaining the percentage of recovery of materials derived from their waste streams, but we are overlooking the manufacturers of equipment that make material recovery possible. The stage is global and we see the latest innovations from around the world being made available to the U.S. C&D recycling market. The continuing technical improvements brought to the C&D world by our manufacturer/suppliers continues to improve our capabilities, and the industry maturity.

In looking at proposed revisions to the LEED points for recycling, there seems to be a push to give less credit for high recycling percentages, rather than more. This apparent push to disallow or minimize recycling of “low hanging fruit” such as asphalt, brick and concrete, metals and ADC, I believe, is reactionary to the success that has been achieved in these areas.

If you look closely at ABC for example, the ability to recycle this material is a direct reflection of the research, development and implementation of equipment by manufacturers through contractors who are answering the huge issue of effectively and economically dealing with the materials that comprise the vast majority of the C&D waste stream.

As a dismantling and recycling contractor, our company deals with the proper handling and disposition of building material derived from our projects every day. Through involvement with LEED projects, we track not only those projects, but use the same material tracking system in many of the other projects we undertake. Part of the tickle-down aspect of LEED standards is that other owners, and ourselves, want to know where their materials went and that they were handled responsibly.

I compiled a spreadsheet of random projects of ours over a four-year period (See the table below).

Number of    Total                     Segregated    Mixed    
Projects    Weight/Tons    ABC      Wood         C&D    Metal
   34             223,170     193,026   15,415       5,917    8,812
                                       86.49%    6.91%      2.65%   3.95%

These projects represent a fair cross section of all the work we perform and several things are very obvious. We recycled as close to 100% of the ABC component of projects as possible for several reasons. We are located and perform our work primarily in the New England area. Landfill disposal fees are very high, therefore it makes great economic sense to avoid sending material to landfills in this part of the country. Secondly, the “low hanging” ABC has a beneficial use and value that can be derived from it, once it is processed to specified size and consistency. We feel the highest beneficial use we can achieve for concrete/masonry material is to process it to be used for fill and grading purposes on the site from which it originated. Through the use of specifically designed, excavator-mounted concrete breakers, crackers, pulverizers, grapples, buckets and magnets, we separate concrete as dismantling of the structures is taking place, and prepare the material by size and steel reinforcing removal to be fed into another fleet of primary and secondary crushers and screeners to make an exact product for the site requirements. This work is possible because of the design, efficiency and proper usage of specially designed equipment. The beneficial impact and cost justification to the project comes from the creation of finished spec material for on-site needs that otherwise would have to be trucked off-site to a recycling facility and then an equal number of trucks delivering off-site material back to the site for filling and grading purposes. The environmental impact to the surrounding community is greatly improved through less truck traffic, noise and above all, cost, by creating beneficial on-site application of material derived from the site.

In the New England area, the average percentage of concrete/masonry building content, in our experience, exceeds 80% of the building content by weight. It seems extremely short-sighted to minimize or penalize this reality in the proposed LEED rating system when the benefits extend far beyond just material disposal. The multiplier effect of recycling benefits for carefully conceived and well executed dismantling and recycling techniques should be rewarded fully, if not additionally in the LEED program.

The buildings are what they are. That cannot be changed. It may seem hard to intuitively comprehend, but the projects we undertake consist of more than 80% brick and concrete. Granted, we do not do a lot of residential or smaller dismantling projects, and construction materials and types may vary in other parts of the country, but why should only 75% maximum be credited for recycling when more than 80% of buildings are concrete/masonry? Is metal recycling also to be “low hanging fruit” because it is heavy and comprises more than 3% of building weight. Metal recycling is the shining example of everything the C&D world should strive for, i.e., an extremely mature industry, with a well-developed infrastructure, highly sophisticated processing equipment, and well-defined material specifications upon which a mature, and highly reliable commercial infrastructure upon which this industry is based.

This is exactly where C&D recycling should be aiming its attention. We want to develop the highest and best use for C&D materials to end users. Manufacturers and consumers need to have reliable, quality products that are commercially viable and available.

The precedent being proposed for LEED accreditation, to reduce the value of recycling pushes against the great strides that have been taken since the LEED inception. To minimize the devotion, hard work, investment and ingenuity of the legitimate demolition and recycling community is an affront to their commitment. Every effort must be made by the USGBC and the C&D community to verify, improve and foster excellence in this realm for the benefit of all.

Dan Costello is president of Costello Dismantling, Middleboro, Mass. He is also a member of the CMRA board of directors.

---

 

There’s a natural instinct in all industries to be wary of change, especially when change comes from outside forces. A prime example is the C&D recycling community and its associated industries reaction to the USGBC’s proposed changes to LEED 2012, soon to go into a second public comment phase.

Since the early incarnations of LEED, the demolition and recycling industries have been recognized by the USGBC for their integral contributions to the whole life cycle of a building—that, more often than not, an obsolete structure needs to be dismantled to make way for a modern, efficient building. That this demolition can and should be performed with the maximum emphasis on recycling is central to the goals of modern, carbon-conscious construction.

The current controversy surrounding LEED revolves around downgrading or eliminating the recycling credit given to recycled or beneficially used ABC and scrap metal associated with a LEED project, the rationale presumably being twofold: scrap metal and ABC typically constitute a large percentage of a building’s weight and/or volume, making recycling rates in the 80%-plus range relatively easy to achieve, and existing and overriding economic incentive to recycle these materials irrespective of LEED. For the program to mature and continue to push the industry toward sustainability, it has to increase recycling standards and target different building components.

Does that mean the demolition and recycling industries have to take a back seat in the process? Hopefully not. In fact, for all of the effort we as an industry have put into LEED participation—widespread education, training and capital investment—the number of LEED points associated with demolition and materials management has always been miniscule. Maybe the upcoming public comment period can provide an opportunity to address this.

For an average demolition project in an urban industrial site, the proposed 75% recycling target can be reached solely through ABC recycling. To reach the next proposed target under Material Reuse (MR): C&D Waste Management, 95%, requires a supreme effort, flawless execution and great expense—even when ABC recycling is included in the mix. To hit the 95% mark when ABC can only constitute 75% of the total and materials re-purposed as alternative daily cover are not counted at all is a phenomenal achievement and deserves LEED points in accordance with that achievement. A single point or even two doesn’t truly capture the investment that level of recycling represents. Furthermore, if the ban on alternative daily cover (ADC) as recycled content persists, the C&D industry needs to develop an accurate model to describe the percentage of C&D that goes out as ADC so the tremendous efforts of processors around the country can be given the maximum credit as LEED-certified recycling.

Extra consideration also needs to be given to the MR. Materials Reuse credits as they pertain to recycled ABC is processed to a specification and beneficially re-used on site as structural backfill or roadbase. This practice should encompass the real spirit of LEED: it makes use of ingenuity, technology and management practices to allow a developer to reliably and copiously use recycled materials and discourage the use of virgin fill, eliminate a massive amount of trucking and the associated pollution and traffic, and encourage development in urban industrial areas. The 10% of total project value threshold should be examined closely to make sure it doesn’t discourage on-site ABC reuse and, by proxy, urban redevelopment.

There’s a lot to admire in the LEED 2012 draft, in that it represents a constant push toward better, more sustainable techniques and methodology. It’s also an opportunity for the C&D processing and demolition industries to get recognition for the critical part they play in the sustainable building movement.

John Costello is vice president of Costello Dismantling, Middleboro, Mass.

---