Construction and Demolition Recycling Inc. is a California state certified C&D recycling facility which handles debris from the renovation, construction, and demolition of commercial interior spaces. CDR is the only facility in California that accepts only commercial interior debris, and the only facility in the country that can show a better than 80% diversion rate of these materials traditionally buried in landfills.
CDR’s staff also salvages usable items such as furniture, desks, chairs, file cabinets, and more, for reuse, donating more than 50 tons of these materials every month to not-for-profit agencies and other organizations. All of this allows CDR to divert over 80% of all inbound debris from landfills, a diversion rate that has been third party-verified by the Recycling Certification Institute.
The CDR facility in South Gate, California is a fully permitted C&D/inert debris processing and transfer facility. The facility is owned and operated by Interior Removal Specialist, Inc. (IRS), a demolition company that conducts demolition activities primarily of the interior of offices and other commercial buildings. Construction and Demolition Recycling Incorporated’s goal is to lead by example; showing that the diversion of tenant improvement demolition debris can be accomplished as efficiently and cost effectively as the debris from more traditionally recognized demolition debris. CDR has become the first and so far only recycling facility in Southern California that has earned Third Party Diversion Certification from The Recycling Certification Institute, making CDR the only facility in Southern California that is eligible to provide the US Green Building Council LEED Pilot Point for facilities with 3rd party verification.
Read the full article to learn some of the innovative strategies of this successful recycling company in “Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Program; How CDR was Conceived and How CDR Remains Sustainable.”
Solid Waste Management, Sustainability, and Recycling Programs
By following the simple procedures governing selective routing in the commercial space, it is possible to turn a high disposal garbage collection system into a high diversion recycling system, without incurring additional costs or losing collection revenue. Read more…
Tracie Onstad Bills of SCS Engineers and Richard Gertman of For Sustainability Too explain the steps for commercial-stream routing and management of commercial recyclables with remarkable results in their Resource Recycling article published in June 2016.
Questions? Ask Tracie, she writes a blog series about recycling.
SCS Engineers’ Tracie Onstad Bills and Leslie Lukacs were both selected to receive the California Resource Recovery Association’s (CRRA) prestigious Service Award this year. According to CRRA Executive Director, John H. Dane, the award recognizes “exceptional individual service to the organization and a contribution of time or resources beyond expectations.” That sounds like an SCSer alright.
Tracie Bills is SCS’s Sustainable Materials Management Director and is based in our Pleasanton, CA, location. She has been on the CRRA board for 10 years and has served in several leadership positions within the organization, including as its President for three years. Her expertise revolves around commercial recycling technical assistance, environmental purchasing, large venue and event zero waste programs, research and sustainability planning, garbage hauler franchise compliance and review, construction and demolition program / ordinance analysis and writing, climate inventory compilation, research and feasibility studies to help clients with comprehensive waste prevention and zero waste programs.
Leslie Lukacs serves as a Sustainable Materials Management Specialist in our Santa Rosa, CA, office. She has been on the CRRA board for 12 years and also served in a variety of leadership positions. She also founded CRRA’s Green Initiatives for Venues and Events technical council and was an instructor for CRRA’s Resource Management Certification Program for 5 years. Leslie specializes in the design and implementation of sustainable materials management and zero waste programs and is a pioneer in the greening of venues and events throughout the nation. Her extensive expertise in the logistics of zero waste, recycling, and composting programs, such as outreach management, business assistance, master planning, waste audits and characterization studies, extended producer responsibility ordinance preparation and implementation, compliance, grant writing, and administration are all key to successful long-term programs.
Both women were selected by the CRRA Board of Directors to be the 2016 recipients of the Service Award. The awards will be presented at the organization’s Annual Conference Awards Ceremony on August 9 in Sacramento.
CRRA is California’s statewide recycling association. It is the oldest and one of the largest non-profit recycling organizations in the U.S. CRRA is dedicated to achieving environmental sustainability in and beyond the state through Zero Waste strategies including product stewardship, waste prevention, reuse, recycling and composting. The organization provides its members with resources to advance local, regional and statewide waste reduction efforts which result in critical environmental and climate protection outcomes. Members represent all aspects of California’s reduce-reuse-recycle-compost economy and work for cities, counties, municipal districts, and businesses as well as hauling companies, material processors, non-profit organizations, state agencies, and allied professionals.
Jeff Marshall, PE, SCS Engineers will be presenting the topic of Hydrogen Sulfide Issues at CCR and MSW Co-Disposal Sites during the EREF and NWRA sponsored Coal Ash Management Forum in July.
The co-disposal of municipal solid waste and coal combustion residuals – particularly flue gas desulfurization (FGD) material – poses a significant concern regarding the generation of hydrogen sulfide gas. Hydrogen sulfide has an exceptionally low odor threshold, and can pose serious health concerns at higher concentrations. This presentation will identify the biological, chemical and physical conditions necessary for FGD decomposition and hydrogen sulfide generation. Recommendations for reducing the potential for FGD decomposition at co-disposal facilities will be presented. Technologies for the removal and treatment of hydrogen sulfide from landfill gas will also be addressed.
Jeff Marshall, PE, is a Vice President of SCS Engineers and the Practice Leader for Environmental Services in the Mid-Atlantic region. He also serves as the SCS National Expert for Innovative Technologies. He has a diversified background in environmental engineering and management, with emphasis on the chemical and human health aspects of hazardous materials and wastes. Mr. Marshall’s experience with hydrogen sulfide, odors, sulfate decomposition in landfills, and ash issues includes scores of projects dating back to the 1980s.
SCS Coal Combustion Residual Services
This innovative sustainable materials management approach involves strategically picking up loads from businesses that generate similar types of discards. The linked article discusses the approach of following simple procedures governing selective routing in the commercial space.
Using a phased methodology, it is possible to turn a high-disposal garbage collection system into a high-diversion recycling system, without incurring additional costs or losing collection revenue. Dumpsters behind shopping plazas and other sites can become opportunities at the center of a thriving materials recovery program.
About the Authors:
Richard Gertman is the owner of For Sustainability Too in San Jose, CA.
Tracie Onstad Bills has been in the Environmental and Resource Material Management Field for over 20 years. Her expertise revolves around commercial recycling technical assistance, environmental purchasing, large venue and event zero waste programs, research and sustainability planning, garbage hauler franchise compliance and review, construction and demolition program / ordinance analysis and writing, climate inventory compilation, research and feasibility studies to help clients with comprehensive waste prevention and zero waste programs. Ms. Bills has a BA in Environmental Science from San Jose State University, is a CRRA Board member and belongs to the SWANA Gold Rush Chapter, National Recycling Coalition and the Northern California Recycling Association. Contact Tracie here.
“Our clients enable SCS to build, grow, and sustain an engineering firm dedicated to solving environmental challenges,” said Jim Walsh, President and CEO of SCS. “We sincerely thank our friends, colleagues and, in particular, our clients for helping us achieve a highly regarded ranking each year.”
Firms are ranked in terms of revenue by Engineering News-Record magazine (ENR), as reported in the May 2, 2016, issue of the “ENR Top 500 Design Firms Sourcebook.” SCS has made the Top 500 list since its publication in 2002 and has ranked in the top 100 of that list since 2008.
When sorted by firm type, SCS Engineers is ranked the second largest environmental engineering firm (ENV) and is ranked in the “Top 20 Sewerage and Solid Waste” service firms in the nation. SCS has made this top 20 list since 2002.
Later in the year, ENR will publish additional resources and lists, including the “Top 200 Environmental Firms” issue, typically published in the month of August.
Learn more about our latest innovation, SCSeTools
The Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) Applied Research Foundation released a report concluding that: a significant amount of additional food waste processing capacity will be required to achieve national, state, provincial, and local food waste diversion goals. The report also emphasizes the need for local decision-making in selecting and implementing those food waste diversion programs.
…a significant amount of additional food waste processing capacity will be required to achieve national, state, provincial, and local food waste diversion goals. The report also emphasizes the need for local decision-making in selecting and implementing those food waste diversion programs.
The report goes on to say that interest in recovering food waste from municipal solid waste is growing to meet goals established by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Agriculture, but many major metropolitan areas lack the infrastructure to manage the ability to meet the established goals. Two examples were cited:
Several states, including Massachusetts and Connecticut, condition their food waste diversion requirements on the ability of generators to access adequate capacity within a certain distance.
Speaking as SWANA’s Executive Director and CEO David Biderman stated:
We believe that Americans need to rethink how food is handled before it is considered waste, to divert it into programs to feed people, and to find other productive uses for food as food. Once it becomes waste, however, municipal decision-makers, working with their processing partners, need to determine how to best manage the material.
The SWANA report focuses on the effects of food recovery at the two lowest tiers of the hierarchy – composting and landfilling/incineration. The report concludes that food waste diverted from landfill operations has the potential to be processed at composting facilities. Then, going on to say that anaerobic digestion (AD) and co-digestion at wastewater treatment facilities are also likely destinations for diverted food waste.
Jeremy O’Brien, Director of the Applied Research Foundation, noted:
The food recovery hierarchy does not apply universally; an analysis of greenhouse gas impacts based on local data and conditions is needed to identify the best food scraps management options for a specific community.
The report encourages solid waste managers to perform a life cycle analysis of economic and environmental costs and benefits based on local needs, system capabilities, and data to identify the most effective ways to manage food waste at the local level.
SCS Engineers and SWANA are both long-time advocates for local decision-making in establishing programs to collect and manage municipal solid waste.
Related articles:
Infrastructure Week (May 16–23) is a national week of events, media coverage, education, and advocacy efforts to bring the state of the nation’s infrastructure to the attention of all Americans. Forester Media, the publisher of MSW Management magazine, is an Infrastructure Week affiliate. John Trotti, MSW Managing Editor recently surveyed Jim Walsh, P.E., BCEE, President and CEO of SCS Engineers and long-time friend of the magazine on the topic. Jim is first out of the blocks to answer the four questions John asked of respondents from MSW and Forester’s other publications, Business Energy, Erosion Control, Grading & Excavation Contractor, Stormwater, and Water Efficiency.
MSW Management (MSW): Which infrastructure projects should be given priority? Roads and bridges? Dams and levees? Water supply? Electrical grid? Waste management?
James Walsh (JW): Typically public safety, cost, and benefit determine the priority for infrastructure projects, and different political jurisdictions have different priorities. Where highways and bridges are new but waste management facilities are old, the priority might be waste management facilities, and vice-versa. Some types of infrastructure are more amenable to private sector solutions, which can allow the government to focus on other types of infrastructure. The trend in waste management, for example, has been to rely on the private sector in the last decade
Each segment faces difficult challenges; the most significant is funding. Waste management does not necessarily have priority over other projects, but has progressed by regionally identifying the infrastructure necessary. Thus, each region avoids the pitfalls of competing for funding with other regions and other projects.
SCS Engineers focuses on waste management, but there are opportunities to interact with other segments in sustainable ways. For instance, we have energy clients who supply coal ash to specialty cement companies who use it to make “green” cements that last longer in applications such as road construction. We design and construct facilities that take the byproduct gases from the decomposition in landfills to generate electricity reducing their dependence on fossil fuels, or directly use the gas for energy to power wastewater plants simultaneously cleaning and conserving water. We find ways to safely redevelop contaminated property supported by existing infrastructure, thus reducing the need to build new infrastructure.
In short, we work toward helping clients find sustainable solutions to infrastructure projects.
MSW: Is there a solution to long-term infrastructure funding?
JW: With respect to the waste management infrastructure, waste systems require significant capital investment in land, equipment, facilities, and infrastructure. While many governments have decided to rely on private industry instead of financing new governmental facilities, others have become much more sophisticated in adopting private sector approaches to financing. Pro-Forma Economic Life-Cycle Models can assist governmental entities to identify the critical variables that can impact the success of an infrastructure project. Moreover, economic models evaluate how various components of a waste system and variable assumptions integrate together into a sensible approach. Pro Forma Economic Models allow for a careful analysis of the life-cycle costs and potential revenue sources and identify factors that will influence the waste system costs and demonstrate how to adequately and equitably fund the system. These Models provide different scenarios and eliminate options that are not financially feasible or do not fit a region’s short- and long-term needs or priorities. Sensitivity analysis can be conducted to understand better the impact these variables have on capital costs, operating expense, and the overall system economics. By assessing the economic and regional benefits first, we can focus on designing and building infrastructure solutions that are safer, longer lasting, and affordable. Other benefits include adjusting the Model if there is a major change in the commodity market, such as plastics’ recycling is experiencing now and when considering the use of new technologies.
Every industry segment and every region have a different blend of socio-political conditions, geography, and monetary resources—we assess and design to their particular needs. Adopting new waste management technologies, such as anaerobic digestion or waste diversion, as part of an overall waste management program can be integrated into the Model to study how, and if, they sensibly integrate within the existing program. New technologies are typically more expensive than mature technologies such as recycling facilities and landfills, but that condition alone is not why they are considered valuable to a region. The framework considers elements key to integrating anaerobic digestion for example into a long-term program. Capital investment, a significant centralized source of high-quality organic waste, power costs and economic utility incentives, limited land suitable for composting, lack of conventional waste-to-energy facilities, or a ban on organics disposal in landfills are some of the considerations.
Many states are developing organics diversion initiatives, discouraging or banning organics from landfills; they will want to develop separate capacity for diversion within their overall program to build a sustainable plan for the long-term. In some states there is plenty of environmentally sound landfill capacity, recycling facilities have adequate capacity, and the socio-political climate has different ideals. What works in Iowa might not be suitable for California.
MSW: What kind of harm is the current state of our infrastructure doing to the economy and the community?
JW: Every four years, the American Society of Civil Engineers releases a “Report Card for America’s Infrastructure” depicting our nation’s infrastructure condition and performance. In a traditional school report card format, individual infrastructure segments are assigned letter grades—solid waste has the highest grade of B- in the most recent report published in 2013. The waste management infrastructure in the United States is robust, diverse, and significantly supports our economy and communities by providing safe and cost-effective management of the materials that we discard on a daily basis.
MSW: What can various government entities—from local to Federal—do to attract private sector support and investment?
JW: In the United States, private solid waste facilities manage 75% of the municipal wastestream. The waste management industry has many examples of public/private partnerships and significant investment by the private sector. Just look at firms like Waste Management Inc., Republic Services Inc., Waste Industries, Waste Connections, WCA Waste Corporation, Covanta, and Wheelabrator, which own and operate numerous landfills, compost facilities, waste-to-energy facilities, transfer stations, processing facilities, alternative technologies, and hauling companies. These facilities require significant private investment. Allowing private industry to participate in the management of waste management infrastructure brings needed fiscal discipline and accountability to the overall waste system infrastructure.
The private sector is attracted to markets that are predictable and that provide an appropriate return on investment. Jurisdictions with a reputation for making sudden unpredicted changes in regulations that adversely affect the return on investment will find it difficult or impossible to attract private sector support.
The waste management sector and SCS Engineers have seen our share of magic technologies that are literally too-good-to-be-true, yet somehow attract governmental support both financial and otherwise. It is fine for government agencies to provide grant support for research related to promising new technologies, but adopting an unproven technology as the sole means of waste management is inviting a public health crisis. Private sector investment is not attracted to jurisdictions that have unrealistic expectations.
About James Walsh, PE, BCEE, President and CEO of SCS Engineers
Jim has worked at the forefront of sustainable waste management for more than 40 years. He has authored numerous publications, technical support documents, presentations for the USEPA, US DOE, the Gas Research Institute while serving the Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA), National Waste and Recycling Association (NWRA), and the Environmental Research and Education Foundation (EREF), among others.
DDC Journal recently published an interesting article by Pat Sullivan, “Developing power plants that reduce environmental impacts.” http://viewer.zmags.com/publication/097d62a6#/097d62a6/24
Pat Sullivan, BCES, CPP, REPA, is a Senior Vice President of SCS Engineers and our National Expert on the Landfill Clean Air Act and the New Source Performance Standard (NSPS). Mr. Sullivan has over 25 years of environmental engineering experience, specializing in solid and hazardous waste-related issues.
By Kevin D. Yard, P.E., BCEE, Marc Rogoff, Ph.D., with contributions from SCS’ Environmental Consultants
In view of recent media coverage about the costs of recycling, perhaps it is time to take a “fresh look” at the compatibility of waste diversion and ultimate waste management, i.e., landfilling. Whereas some suggest that Zero Waste enthusiasts and Landfill Management professionals have counterproductive goals, through our recent experience with integrated waste management systems we have a newfound appreciation of the common ground of the two groups.
Zero Waste proponents espouse many important goals such as behavioral changes in consumers (e.g., reducing the generation of waste, minimizing the use of products that contain toxins, reducing energy consumption, etc.). Others, in the “No Burn/No Bury” ZW camp, suggest setting a goal at zero waste of resources achieved through measures such as: bans on disposal of materials that can be beneficially used, mandatory recycling programs to address hard-to-reach constituents, separate collection of food scraps, extended producer responsibility of hard-to-handle materials, etc. Some ZW enthusiasts have stated, “We put a man on the moon, so surely we can achieve ZW”.
On the other hand, many solid waste management professionals realize that landfills represent an important component of integrated solid waste systems and that other waste management options that are sometimes viewed as alternatives to landfills (e.g., material recovery facilities, composting operations, household hazardous waste collection programs, waste conversion and waste-to-energy plants, etc.) are more properly considered as complementary waste management tools. Further, most solid waste managers understand that landfills will continue to be required for residuals from other components of integrated waste management systems for decades to come.
While recognizing that recycling is presently common and an important component of modern waste management systems, particularly in large metropolitan areas, two questions remain:
Whereas in some areas, recycling can be a break-even proposition, in most areas, implementing recycling can cost from $0.50 to $3 per household, per month. One might ask with public school budgets being reduced, the nation’s infrastructure needing extensive improvements, and forecasted water shortages warranting major water resource projects, what is the most appropriate method for determining how the costs of recycling should be born?
Perhaps the answers lie in addressing recycling goals in a manner that makes economic sense depending on the conditions of each community or, more appropriately, each waste-shed. When viewing the magnitude of the investment in a modern-day municipal solid waste landfill, one can gain a greater appreciation for the need for properly managing and amortizing such investments. Like any investment in infrastructure, the public’s investment in disposal capacity should be valued and optimized in the interest of taxpayers. For instance, in areas with limited remaining disposal capacity and limitations for developing additional disposal capacity, investing in a more aggressive recycling program may be much more desirable and cost-effective than for areas with over 20 years of disposal capacity.
As prudent taxpayers, we need to work together to assure that the assets of waste management systems are optimized in a manner that protects the environment. This, of course, includes thoughtful consideration of recycling goals, which can contribute to a more cost-effective utilization of the available landfill capacity. As recycling enthusiasts provide an ongoing impetus for further waste reduction and enhanced recycling, optimization of waste diversion will continue to evolve. This evolution will be site-specific consistent with the variable impact of evolving waste management technologies and changes in the markets for recovered products. Given that the dynamics of each waste-shed can vary dramatically, many cities will benefit from a review of waste management alternatives. Based on our experience, it has been shown that such a review can not only result in an optimization of current assets, but also a plan for continued cost-effective solid waste service for many years in the future.
SCS’ professionals provide assistance to many municipalities across the U.S. by devising programs that address all aspects of the comprehensive waste management systems: waste collection, recycling, composting, waste conversion, and landfilling. SCS’ solid waste professionals stand ready to assist additional municipal managers upon request. Please visit our website at www.scsengineers.com, call or drop us an e-mail:
Kevin Yard, P.E., BCEE, Dallas, TX: , 817-571-2288
Marc Rogoff, Ph.D., Tampa, FL: , 813-621-0080
Greg McCarron, P.E., Suffern, NY:, 845-357-1510
Anastasia Welch, P.E., Overland Park, KS: , 913-681-0030
Michelle Leonard, Pasadena, CA, , 626-792-9593
Leaders and National Experts at SCS Engineers
