ther data on the

wanted to learn how many of them face competition from concrete and asphalt recyclers, and whether they were recycling or looking to get into that market. We also wanted to know what type of equipment the recyclers were using, and what it cost them per ton to process the material. We sepa- raced the answers into regions to make comparisons based on geography.

We first asked the aggregate pro- ducers whether or not they were recycling either concrete or asphalt or were facing competition from some- body in their marketplace who was. A whopping 84% said yes to recy- cling occurring in their marketplace. Now we might concede that most who responded to the survey were probably already interested in recy- cline, but it mav be safe to sav that

We first asked those already recy- cling what they are processing (Fig- ure 1 ) . About 47% said they are processing both concrete and asphalt, with 25% doing only asphalt.

asked the producers iT they were already recycling, and if so, to please answer a set of questions designed for that group. That was 29% of the respondents. If they were not recy- cling, but thinking of getting into it, we asked them a different set of ques- tions tailored to that audience, which was 22% of those who filled out the questionnaire. The third group con- sisted of those not in or interested in becoming recyclers.

Remarkably, these levels remained pretty consistent from region to region in North America.

Type of equipment Nationally, 68.4% of the recycling plants are portable units, with 27.4% being stationary and 4.2% being mobile plants (Figure 2). These per- centages more or less held steady throughout the regions, with the exception of the Pacific region, where

the response was evenly divided between stationary and portable plants, and East South Central, where stationary outnumbered portable 3-to-1.

As shown in Figure 3, a jaw crush- er was the overwhelming favorite for the primary crusher, being the choice of 61.3% of the recycling respon- dents. The next choice was an impactor ofsome type at 19.3%, fol- lowed by a cone at 7.5%.

Nearly 80% of those who respond- ed to the question about type of pri- mary indicated they had a secondary crusher in their plant. Figure 4 shows that for a secondary crusher, 43.2% of the respondents were utilizing a cone (the Pacific and Mountain regions reported higher percentages, 67% and 57%, respectively, of cone use com- pared to the rest of the country). Additionally, 24.3% use an impactor, and 17.5% a triple-roll crusher. About 4% recirculate to the jaw for addition- al crushing of oversize.

Exactly half the respondents use a triple-deck screen-almost all the rest use a double-deck. The most com- mon sizes cited by survey respondents were 6 x 20 ft and 6 x 16 ft.

1. Materials Processed Currently Recycling

2. Plant Type

3. Primary Crusher Choice - Currently Recycling

Jaw 61%

Impactor 19%

Cone 7.5%

Other 12.5%

4. Secondary Crusher Choice

The material Most of the recycled concrete and asphalt is being processed into either road base or some kind of fill. The types of base depended on which state or even county the recycler was in, as we saw many fancy designations for what amounted to 5-, 3- or Win. minus. About half the asphalt recyclers did say they were putting their final product back into the asphalt batch plant.

As many recyclers know, another profit possibility to recycling is to charge a tipping fee to haulers looking to dump construction waste or demolition debris, the mate- rial to be processed. According to our survey, 52.6% of the recyclers charge such a fee. The average price per truckload is $44, although the mode, the most common- ly given figure, was $30. The range of charges were from $8 to $150, depending on the material, with asphalt often commanding a slightly higher dumping fee. Not surprisingly considering their landfill space problems, the Pacific and New England regions reported the highest average tipping fees, sometimes as high as $25 per ton. None of the East South Central recyclers who responded reported they were receiving any tipping fees.

Rebar is a common waste product for those producers recycling concrete. We asked them what they did with their rebar, and 57% said they are able to sell it (For more information on handling rebar at recycling sites, see the article on page 29). Another 21% simply dispose of it to landfills, while 22% give it away.

In some parts of the country we have heard reports that material to process is difficult to get for various rea- sons, from intense competition to limited construction and demolition activity, to a limit on just how much material contaminated with extraneous debris can be accepted. However, according to the survey, only 2 1.6% of the respondents report having any problem obtaining material to recycle.

A little more than two-thirds-68.4%-of the respondents said their recycling operations are inspected regularly by either Mine Safety and Health Administra- tion (MSHA) or Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). Again, the respondents are almost all aggregate miners who are used to being moni- tored regularly by MSHA. Of those being inspected, 63.8% are checked by MSHA and 36.2% by OSHA.

The next question was, “How many people work at each recycling plant?” The numbers were all over the lot here, with the range being 1 to 15. However, some study of the forms revealed more expected st&ng levels. The mode was 3 persons, and the average was a bit more than 4. From our experience in the field, that seems the norm.

Operating Costs As for operating costs, we again got a pretty wide range of answers, but there is a recurring level that provides a basis for comparison for recyclers. We asked the recyclers what it cost to produce a ton of concrete or asphalt. Figure 5 shows the responses. The range was incredible for both,

5. Operating Costs Per Ton Currently Recycling

6. Plant Type Considering Recycling

7. Primary Crusher Choice

8. Secondary Crusher Choice

running from 60 cents to $25 for concrete and $1 to $15 for asphalt. For concrete, the mode for the production cost data was $3, with the average being $4.96. For asphalt, the mode was again $3, but the average was more than a dollar less, $3.86. The Mountain, Pacific, and New England regions all had slightly higher than aver- age operating costs.

Now these figures are from actual recyclers, almost all of whom are aggregate producers and, hence, should be knowledgeable about crushing and screening operations.

Getting into the business We also asked those producers looking to get into the business what they planned to do. As mentioned above, 22% of the respondents said they were investigating entering the construction material recycling busine?.

We asked if they would be purchasing equipment or using existing machinery. At 49% for using existing machinery, it was pretty evenly split.

Like those already recycling, a majority of the respon- dents, 71.5%, think portable plants are the way to go and plan on making their plant portable (Figure 6). Of the rest, 22.2% will set up stationary operations and 6.3% will use mobile equipment. Some diversity exists on the regional level, however. Again, the East South Central region will have more stationary than portable plants, while the Canadian respondents all said they would be starting up portable operations.

Nationally, Figure 7 shows that the overwhelming winner in the choice of primary crushers is the jaw mod- el, with two-thirds saying that is what they will use. An impactor was the second most cited model at 30%. Obviously, most of the regions followed this pattern, but in the Mid-Atlantic and Mountain regions, it was evenly split at 50% each for jaw crushers and impactors.

The impactor was the first choice for the secondary crusher. For those who said they were entering the recy- cling market, 47.2% plan to use that type of unit, while 27.7% said they will use a cone (Figure 8). Some of the other types mentioned include a triple-roll, 11%, and recirculating to the jaw, 8.3%.

As for screens, two-thirds of the respondents plan to employ a double-deck type for their screening system, with the remainder choosing a triple-deck. The usual size of the screens mentioned by the soon-to-be recyclers was 6 x 16 fi, 5 x 14 fi, and 6 x20 ft.

How soon do these business people plan to start up their plants? At the time of the survey, about seven months ago, 20.5% were going to do it in six months; 24.3% within one year; 28.2% within 18 months; and 26.9% were going to take more than 18 months. With the problems getting permitted and working the bugs out of the equipment, the last time frame may be the most realistic, unless the company has already been in the start- up process for some time.

An interesting comparison is the personnel plans for the would-be and current recyclers. While the average for

those already recycling is 4.3 persons per plant, this group’s average response was 3.1 workers. However, the mode of three was the same for this group as for current recyclers, and the range of answers was much narrower, from one to eight people per plant.

This group also expects to profit from tipping fees, as hlly 75% expect to be able to charge haulers. The range quoted was from $10 to $150 per truckload, with the average being $35 but the most commonly stated figure being $25. Not much, but still, it’s a better deal to get paid to have material to process, rather than have to pay for blasting or excavating, then hauling to the primary, such as in quarries and pits.

We asked the soon-to-be recyclers two questions relat- ed to money: What they expected to spend to enter the recycling market, and what they thought their operating costs would be (Figures 9 and 10).

To enter the market, the respondents said they would spend $20,000 to $1.5 million. Their responses often depended on how much equipment they had to buy when they start. But the average of all the figures given was $388,600, and the mode, the most commonly cited figure, was $3 00,O 00.

These producers might be a bit low in their estimates. One prominent recycler in the Chicago area says it takes $1 million to get a plant started. Another long-time con- crete recycler, this one in New York City, said that today it would cost him $1.2 million to $1.3 million to start up the plant he has now.

For operating costs, we did not receive an adequate number of responses from potential recyclers to warrant splitting the response into separate categories of concrete and asphalt. However, their responses were interesting, as shown in Figure 10. They expected their operating cost per ton to average $4.56, although the range of respons- es was from $1.25 to $15 per ton. The most commonly cited number was $2.50 per ton. This is 50 cents per ton less than what those currently recycling say it is costing them to process the material.

Which brings us to a somewhat troubling observation. There seems to be a considerable and consistent bit of underestimating of personnel needs and operating costs by those entering the concrete and asphalt recycling mar- ket. It might end up costing those businesses more than they bargained for to enter and stay in construction waste and demolition debris recycling.

Issues and challenges The last point we asked both current and future recy- clers about was what they perceived were the problems and issues facing the industry.

For those currently recycling, regulatory challenges of some kind, especially permitting, were cited as the biggest problems they had to face. Other regulatory obstacles that were most often cited by this group followed the same line of thinking, ranging from dust and environ- mental concerns to “incompetent safety inspecrors.”

Pa

U Y

9. Planned Expenditures to Enter Market

Considering Recycling

Range $20,000-$1,5 mil1

Average $388,600

Mode $300,000

10. Operating Costs Per Ton Considering Recycling

Range $1.25-$15

Average $4.56

Mode $2.50

Another concern cited was gaining customer accep- tance of the recycled product. Reportedly, many cus- tomers still are suspicious of the capabilities of recycled aggregate materials.

Those looking to enter the recycling market had a dif- ferent set of concerns, although permitting and other reg- ulatory hurdles did make their short list of things to worry about. But they also were conscious of the need to make good equipment choices from the start, and this was their biggest concern. Getting customer acceptance, environmental and zoning approval, and developing a market for the recycled material were mentioned sporad- ically, yet all paled as issues compared to picking the cor- rect machinery.

Their reasons for getting into the business were pretty straightforward. It was often anticipation for demand of the material that made up the minds of those looking to get into the concrete and asphalt recycling market. Also, some of the respondents said they were doing it only as a service to their customers.