Can’t Get No Respect

Elsewhere in this issue we present the work of two well-known C&D researchers, Dr. Kimberly Cochran and Dr. Timothy Townsend, on how much C&D waste is generated every year. Their numbers—at least 680 million tons annually—blow away any previous estimates, including the ones from the CMRA. While we may never know how much C&D is generated, following their logic a lot of the material generated is concrete, and to a lesser degree asphalt.

Anyone in the field knows there is a lot of concrete generated, and by extension, recycled. This has been going on for many, many years for a variety of reasons, the biggest of which is probably that it makes economic sense. After listening to so many people bemoan the fact that recycling just doesn’t pay, concrete/asphalt recycling, like metals recycling, almost always does. That is why it has been so successful.

But success seems to breed contempt, or at least blasé. Many market drivers today seem to take concrete/asphalt recycling for granted. An example is the recently announced proposed changes to the LEED program, where under the recycling credits the weight of recycled concrete only counts 75% toward the recycling requirement. The USGBC’s thinking seems to be that it is so heavy, and recycling it is going to take place anyway, why should we support it? That concrete is the most used building material doesn’t seem to matter.

This lack of respect continues in other areas. For example, as many know the state of Massachusetts requires several C&D materials, including asphalt, brick and concrete, go to a recycling center rather than straight to disposal. (The inadequacies of the enforcement of this ban could be the subject of a whole other column.) All fine and good. But in most states the largest user of recycled aggregates is roadbuilding, which is usually generated by a governmental agency. Yet MassHighway, the state’s department of transportation, rarely uses the material in its own projects.

The CMRA deals with many government agencies at all levels, especially those working in market development for recycled end products. None of them see any need to help concrete/asphalt recycling. What seems to be sexy for many entities trying to support C&D recycling is the focus on promoting smaller, more troublesome waste streams, such as carpet. We applaud those efforts and think they need to continue, but let’s not forget concrete/asphalt recycling needs some support, too, and still faces end use challenges. Many municipalities and, as discussed, states still don’t want to use the material as even a roadbase product, let alone in higher end uses, such as concrete aggregate, despite the overwhelming number of success stories users of the material have. Asphalt is a bit special because its bitumen content makes it even more valuable, and it is often snapped right up for use in new hot mix. But in concrete we are talking some serious tonnages here, weight that can dwarf the rest of the C&D stream.

The material may face new challenges to it being recycled if the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency goes forward with plans to consider coal ash a hazardous waste. Millions of tons of coal ash are used every year in the concrete industry as a substitute for cement, as both have similar pozzolanic properties. If the EPA calls coal ash hazardous, then what does that do to the tens of millions of tons of concrete made every year with it. Right now the agency considers it OK to recycle, but who knows into the future? If it considers a potential ingredient in concrete hazardous, is testing for coal ash going to be required for every potential load going to a recycler? Or will the demo contractor or whoever is generating the material going to say it is easier to just send the material to a landfill. Some support for recycling from the federal environmental agency.

| More...