Pennsylvania’s Allegheny County unveiled a Recycling Resources Map during a news conference Nov. 8 at the Allegheny County Courthouse in Pittsburgh. 

According to a news report from KDKA-TV news in Pittsburgh, the county’s Recycling Resources Map is an interactive tool that allows people to plug in an address and search for recycling services provided by municipalities and private operations in Allegheny County. 

“My office has received a number of inquiries about proper disposal of recyclables, which materials can and cannot be recycled, and how varying municipalities in Allegheny County handle recycling,” said Chelsa Wagner, Allegheny County Controller, during the news conference. “While it is difficult to provide short answers due to the number of municipalities in the county and changing standards for what is recyclable, my Recycling Resource Map will help to give residents peace of mind that they are recycling correctly and connect them with the proper resources to make sure recyclable items are handled responsibly.”

Wagner said the county has been working for a few months to develop this tool to help educate residents about recycling. She said Allegheny County has a total of 130 different municipalities. The new tool will help residents know what recycling services are offered in each municipality.

“With 130 municipalities, I don’t expect everyone in the county to be able to find the unique shape of their municipality easily, so you type in a particular address to find your location,” Wagner said. “You can then see detail in terms of what is accepted and what’s not. Each municipality is color-coded as an indicator as to whether they accept curbside recycling or not. Most in the county, 92 out of 130, do offer curbside recycling. And a number of municipalities that do not offer curbside recycling do offer drop-off sites.”

She added, “We tried to be as comprehensive as we could [with the map]. I think this tool will be as good as the feedback we receive for it.”

Click here to view the county's new tool.

As many local and state jurisdictions continue their push to enforce recycling mandates, and as the U.S. Green Building Council’s (USGBC’s) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program continues to emphasize awarding credits for construction and demolition (C&D) material recovery and recycling, it is more important than ever for C&D recyclers to ensure a high level of accuracy in their diversion and recovery rates.

The Sacramento, California-based Recycling Certification Institute (RCI) was formed to help these facilities prove just that.

Through its Certification of Recycling Rates (CORR) Protocol, which was developed to International Organization of Standardization (ISO)-level standards, RCI helps recyclers verify their diversion rates from landfill.

Under the CORR Protocol, which RCI has overseen since 2014, two dozen recycling lines are currently certified, with several more recyclers going through the process to get their lines certified by the end of 2019.

Stephen Bantillo, executive director of RCI, spoke with Construction & Demolition Recycling magazine about reception to the program, the benefits it has provided to the industry and the organization’s push to mandate certified rates for LEED projects.

Construction & Demolition Recycling (C&DR): How do you think the CORR program has been received to date from the C&D recycling community?

Stephen Bantillo (SB): It’s been a mixed bag. Some folks are open to it and very interested in becoming certified because they see how it will benefit their company. Others may have some concerns about what might be discovered [when their facility is audited by an independent third party], and there are a variety of reasons for that. Sometimes recyclers think they’re doing a good job, but they are hesitant to go through the process because of concerns about repercussions if it is discovered they have been reporting incorrectly. And in other instances, we’ve had facilities that the industry recognizes as innovators and as the gold standards, and we have gone through the certification process and found that they weren’t reporting 100 percent correctly. So, for these facilities, while their recycling rate may have gone down, they welcomed this feedback because they want to be reporting correctly. They appreciated having another set of eyes come in and find those errors so they can improve their processes and get their rates back up.

In the end, it’s a business process audit. The CORR Protocol doesn’t really care about what the recycling rate is. It cares about how that facility arrived at its recycling rate. So, it really looks at the various business processes, particularly those related to data management, tracking and reporting. In many respects, going through the certification process is a significant benefit to the facility because it helps them validate and improve their accuracy and efficiencies.

C&DR: How do you think RCI certification affects the contractors who work with these recyclers?

SB: It’s not just the recycling facilities, but also the contractors and builders who can benefit when a recycler gets certified. They like to have a certified facility in their area where they can get verified recovery rates for their projects because they want to know how they’re doing in terms of diversion as well. They’re going through the efforts of pulling these recyclable materials out from their projects to get them recovered, and many are looking to achieve some LEED points for their efforts. Above all, they appreciate knowing that they have verified recycling rates they can rely on, which is especially important for those who are “building green.”

For the recyclers, this certification can set them apart from other facilities in the same region with whom they are competing. They want their customers to know that they’ve gone through the verification process and that their numbers are accurate, and all of that information on these facilities is available in the reports on the RCI website.

C&DR: Some recyclers have expressed concern of going through the certification process and having to prove their recycling rates while their competitors may not be held to the same standards, specifically as it pertains to some LEED jobs. What is RCI’s perspective on this?

SB: Certified facilities have expressed frustration that the USGBC is still accepting the self-reported recycling rates of all facilities around them that haven’t been certified. Many believe that the facilities might be making up these recycling rates or inflating their numbers. There’s a lot of miscommunication and misunderstanding related to recovery rates at facilities. For LEED projects, the USGBC does not count alternative daily cover towards diversion, but a lot of facilities like to include the alternative daily cover in their recovery rates they report. When a contractor comes up to them and asks what their recovery rate is, they’ll state a high number and the contractor may decide to bring their loads to them because they say they have a higher recovery rate while not fully understanding the nuances and the details of how that rate is determined.

At RCI, our preference would be that USGBC stop giving points for projects based on unverified recovery rates. If they’re focusing on performance, then their rating system [should be set up] to accept only clarified numbers. Otherwise, there’s the potential that as they begin to calculate the environmental benefits and greenhouse gas emission reductions of green building projects, they could be misreporting those numbers. In essence, if you’re not verifying these rates, the old adage of “garbage in, garbage out” may apply.

C&DR: What kind of communication has RCI had with the USGBC on this issue?

SB: When the USGBC was looking for input for LEED version 4.1, both RCI and the Construction & Demolition Recycling Association submitted a very clear set of recommendations on how USGBC should go forward with that related to materials and resources. We recommended that they should set up the program so that points are given out for materials sent to facilities that have been certified to a national standard. That’s the only way they’re going to have a high level of confidence that the numbers have been verified and are accurate. USGBC didn’t adhere to this guidance for the original 4.1 beta version of LEED, but they got much closer to that with the most recent release in July.

The latest version of LEED has two defined paths—paths 2 and 4—that clearly identify options for projects that make it simpler for contractors to use facilities that have been certified by RCI. We’re very appreciative of that. Now, if contractors have a project and they’re looking for one LEED point, they can take all of the mixed C&D to a facility certified by RCI as capable of 50 percent recovery. They don’t have to do any sort of separation themselves, which has been really problematic for a lot of the builders because of space constraints on the job and the extra work this requires. Now, for two points and 75 percent recovery, they can send all the mixed C&D to an RCI-certified facility with one additional stream pulled out. So, commonly they’ll pull out wood or drywall or even metal and take materials to a facility to get LEED points. Now with paths 1 and 3 in the latest version of LEED, contractors have to do more separation to receive credit. At RCI, we’d like to see paths 1 and 3 go away because we much prefer that materials go to a facility that’s been audited and has the numbers verified to both elevate the C&D industry and give USGBC assurances on performance relative to the recovery of the C&D materials.

C&DR: Why do you think the USGBC hasn’t required CORR certification across the board?

SB: One of the challenges that’s been expressed is that the USGBC does focus on projects in the United States, but they really are looking at being able to have an international standard that can apply everywhere, and RCI does not operate in other countries presently. I think that the USGBC might be hesitant to require standards that don’t exist in other countries because it is preferable to have a level playing field internationally. So, I think that’s one of the barriers when it comes to requiring verification of recycling rates across the board. But from our vantage point, mandating verification of rates in the U.S. doesn’t preclude the USGBC or other organizations from establishing certification programs abroad.

C&DR: Local and state governments are getting more involved with pushing for C&D diversion. What effect has this had on the recycling industry?

SB: One of the challenges we’re dealing with is that government agencies are setting recycling mandates that the current markets for construction and demolition materials don’t support. These high recovery rates are being written into local ordinances and they demand recovery of the maximum amount of material, which is a positive, but not to the extent that it encourages misreporting. Sometimes recycling facilities may report a higher recovery rate than they are actually achieving because they feel they have to so they can participate in the local government program. However, you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. Contractors are compelled to recycle material when mandated to do so. The conflict that arises is that the material they bring to a facility may be contaminated to the extent a recycling facility won’t want to take it in because they’re not going to be able to meet their recycling rate, so they turn contractors away, and then this causes issues. It’s an interesting dilemma for the folks who are writing the regulations to try to wrangle. A workable solution is to write regulations so that they are focused on the performance of a facility and that the facility goes through an audit process to verify its processes and not just its diversion percentage. Facilities often cannot control the quality of the material they receive, but if they are recovering the maximum amount of recoverable C&D, isn’t that a good thing? We think so.

C&DR: Every recycler wants to maximize their diversion. Are you optimistic that the industry is advancing and recyclers are improving how materials are managed?

SB: The short answer is yes. Many people know this already, but the robots are coming. Technology is improving the way we think about the recovery of C&D materials. There are several facilities across the country, including Recon Services in Austin, Texas, and Zanker Road in California, that have increased productivity and improved recovery rates through the introduction of robots, which generally leads to a higher quality of material that is able to find markets. We know that finding markets across the board is really challenging, so anything we can do to help improve the materials for the market is going to boost recovery, boost the economy and lead to more job growth as well.

This article originally appeared in the Nov./Dec. issue of Construction & Demolition Recycling. The author is the editor for Construction & Demolition Recycling magazine and can be contacted at aredling@gie.net.

The Global Recycling Foundation, London, has announced that the theme for the third Global Recycling Day, which will take place on March 18, 2020, will be “Recycling Heroes.” The Global Recycling Foundation wants to recognize people, places and activities that showcase the important role recycling plays in creating an environmentally stable planet. 

According to a news release from the Global Recycling Foundation, a worldwide social media search and competition will be launched in January with the goal of recognizing some of these heroes.

Global Recycling Day was created to celebrate the importance that recycling plays in preserving the earth’s primary resources, including water, air, coal, oil, natural gas and minerals. Aiming to bring people together and champion ways to put the planet first, Global Recycling Day highlights the need to consider recyclable materials as resources rather than waste. 

Launched in 2018, Global Recycling Day has reached more than 600 million people across the world through activities and media hits in 2018 and 2019, with a target to reach 1 billion people by 2020. It has been accompanied by about 50 Global Recycling Day events in six continents across the globe, BIR reports.

“Through focusing on recycling heroes, the Global Recycling Foundation will encourage the world to look at the positive impact that individuals, communities and businesses are having on the future of our world, as well as highlight what still needs to be done. Recycling heroes surround us every day, from the big names such as Greta Thunberg and Leonardo DiCaprio to the unknown heroes, like a couple from the U.K. who built a recycling center on their driveway to inspire their local community to recycle unusual items,” says Ranjit Baxi, founding president of the Global Recycling Foundation. “In 2020, the Global Recycling Foundation wants to showcase all of these heroes, big and small, as well as cities, such as Ljubljana, and businesses who are championing innovative recycling practices around the world.”

At a time when sinking commodity values are sending an increasing amount of material to landfill, a new company is gaining traction in the South for its efforts to reverse that trend.

RePower South (RPS) was born in Moncks Corner, South Carolina, in 2013 to help recover more commodities in an economically feasible way. The company has done so by viewing not only traditional recyclables as commodities, but also waste that typically goes to landfill.

Justin Converse, Jim Bohlig and Brian Gilhuly founded the company with a license from Accordant Energy of Rutland, Vermont, for the technology to mechanically convert difficult-to-recycle waste into a non-waste engineered fuel as designated by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that can supplement coal in industrial and utility boilers. With processing systems from Bulk Handling Systems (BHS) of Eugene, Oregon, and fuel manufacturing systems from London-based Loesche Energy Systems, RPS’s facilities are offering solutions in areas where recycling is floundering.

“We took a landfill expense, and now we’ve turned that into a revenue stream,” says Gilhuly, who is the company’s CEO. “That changed the overall dynamic of the economic model, and that’s largely what we set out to do.”

Though the company was conceived in 2013, it hadn’t opened any facilities until early 2019. Now that they’re open, though, operations are fully in motion with new opportunities on the horizon.

Gaining ground

Gilhuly says RPS facilities can be tailored to fit into any waste and recycling operation.

“Our focus is to help communities increase recycling recovery by operating within whatever structure or future structure they want to be in,” Gilhuly says.

Photo Credit: RePower South

The two facilities that opened this year illustrate the range of RPS-enabled solutions the company can offer. In February, RPS revived a failed waste processing facility in Montgomery, Alabama, refurbishing it and restoring recycling to the area’s residents and businesses. The facility is publicly owned, with RPS financing the facility refurbishments and fuel production system.

Meanwhile, RPS’s facility in Moncks Corner just outside of Charleston was a greenfield development project that was built from the ground up on 15 acres inside the Berkeley County landfill under 25-year waste supply and land lease agreements. The facility, which opened in April and accepts waste from across the county, is privately owned and was financed by tax-exempt bonds and private equity.

Prior to the Berkeley facility’s construction, residents in the county either had to hire a private hauler to pick up recyclables or drive them to a drop-off center themselves. Now, area citizens have a new resource for diverting material from landfill.

“This innovative approach to recycling is bringing Berkeley County, and South Carolina, into the 21st century,” says Bill Peagler, who served as the supervisor of Berkeley County until late 2018. “This model encourages citizens to do what is environmentally friendly without the hassle of sorting, proving it is possible to increase recycling efforts in communities.”

Both facilities are currently processing about 100,000 to 120,000 tons of mixed material annually, although they each have the capacity to reach about 200,000 tons. More than 50 employees work at the facility in Berkeley, while about 40 work in Montgomery.

“These communities have committed to delivering their waste streams to us for the next 25 years. For us, having that certainty was a critically important part of opening these projects,” Gilhuly says.

Through the system

While the two facilities offer different solutions, both are relatively similar in terms of processing. The Montgomery facility can process up to 45 tons per hour, while the Berkeley facility can handle 50 tons per hour.

The material first heads through a low-speed shredder to break apart any bags and create an even flow into the main system. Then, only a few manual sorters per shift work on the front end to sort out any material that would clog up the system.

From there, it enters a series of screens that remove large, bulky items, organics and other fine material. Additional pneumatic air separation is used to separate lights from heavies. Magnets are deployed to capture ferrous metals, while eddy current separators remove aluminum cans. The material continues through BHS’s FiberPure screen and optical sorters to automate the recovery of clean fiber.

Even in the few months that passed between the opening of the facilities, Gilhuly says RPS made minor improvements on its operating system in Berkeley. The Berkeley facility’s most significant upgrades include nine BHS Max-AI autonomous quality control (AQC) robots.

“Berkeley has additional innovations and sequencing and overall improvements to the process that have evolved over time,” Gilhuly explains. “On a long-term basis, we’ll be continuing to automate and make the process more efficient.”

Once they pass through processing, old corrugated cardboard (OCC), polyethylene terephthalate (PET), high-density polyethylene (HDPE), aluminum and steel are baled with a PAAL Konti 500 to be sold into commodity markets. Meanwhile, lower grade papers and mixed plastics head to the Loesche Fuel System for fuel processing.

Waste to fuel

In the fuel system, after filters remove unwanted materials, the remaining material moves through mechanical size and moisture reduction equipment. After about 15 minutes, the resulting product is a homogenous fuel sized specifically for the end consumer and baled to be sold.

The resulting product doesn’t produce quite enough power to replace coal, but it does produce enough to act as an efficient supplement.

“Coal typically contains anywhere from 10,000 to 12,000 British thermal units (BTUs) per pound,” Gilhuly says. “Our fuel is about 9,000 BTU, so it’s comparable to coal.”

Between the two facilities, RPS is currently selling its fuel to three cement manufacturers. “We’re at the earlier stages of those relationships, and that will continue to expand over time,” Gilhuly says.

"On a long-term basis over the next 25 years, we will continue to work with that waste stream and see if we can find a higher or better use for it.” –Brian Gilhuly, CEO, RePower South

He adds that cement plants have a history of experimenting with alternative fuels to supplement their coal power, making them the most receptive customers to work with up front.

Accordant Energy developed RPS’s fuel technology over a period of more than 10 years through extensive research, pilot trials and a full-scale trial in a coal-fired utility power plant, where it was able to replace more than 10 percent of coal by energy, Gilhuly says.

The resulting fuel quality led to the EPA approving the fuel, known as ReEngineered Feedstock (ReEF), as a non-hazardous secondary material. This means plants can burn it under existing fossil fuel permits as opposed to a Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste Incineration permit.

RPS says up to 50 percent of the carbon in ReEF is biogenic and considered carbon neutral.

Just getting started

For now, RPS is aiming to turn about 35 percent of its waste stream into fuel, while about 15 to 20 percent is recycled and the rest heads to landfill. Material that heads to landfill is typically inert material, diapers, textiles, organics and other non-recyclables.

“On a long-term basis over the next 25 years, we will continue to work with that waste stream and see if we can find a higher or better use for it,” Gilhuly says. “We are motivated to divert and remove as much as we can from the waste stream.”

In addition to improving recovery rates, Gilhuly says he also wants to expand upon the types of consumers who use the fuel product to power their facilities. “I think over time, with more history, data, proof of consistency and with the quality of our fuel, others will be more receptive to it,” he says.

As for additional facilities, RPS has the license to use Accordant Energy’s technology in seven different states across the southeastern region of the U.S. Now that two facilities are up and running, Gilhuly says RPS is back in the market pursuing new projects, looking to build “as many of these as we can.”

But for the immediate future, RPS is focused on honing its process and diverting as much material from landfill as possible.

“Our challenge is to extract as much material as we possibly can, so to be as efficient as possible is our daily challenge,” Gilhuly says.

The author is the assistant editor for Waste Today magazine and can be reached at tcottom@gie.net.