Committee Corner: Gypsum Recycling Update

During our most recent meeting, Chair Terry Weaver welcomed new members and shared the latest updates with the committee. Also, plans for an online gypsum recycling library and a series of gypsum recycling sessions for the Dallas edition of C&D World 2025 were mentioned. Mark your calendars for March 12-14! Other projects for later in 2025 and beyond were also mentioned. And Terry shared information on a new $100,000,000 EPA Buy Clean Initiative that may result in future grant opportunities. Committee members Susan Hines, Mark Englert and several others then discussed EPA Product Category Rules (PCR’s), and how they can determine how work related to a Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) might be performed.

On a related topic, work related to the gypsum Life Cycle Analysis project continues, with questionnaires currently being collected from some of our C&D recycler stakeholders. Of course, one of the primary messages we are trying to convey as part of this work is that the collection and recycling of gypsum represents a far better outcome than depositing this product in a landfill, and Terry thanked all of the organizations who have already pledged funds to help offset the projected cost of producing this LCA. It is not too late for other companies to step up! Companies contributing to this effort will be recognized publicly, as requested. If interested, please reach out to Chair Terry Weaver and Executive Director Terri Ward no later than Friday, September 6th, so that we may report any updates to the committee during our next call on September 11th. 

Then the key features of successful recycling programs and the role that different stakeholders play in the gypsum recycling process were reviewed. All the features noted could play a role in the development of national and/or state recycling policy. And the results of a July poll of committee members, designed to solicit opinions on what the key components of a recycling policy should be, were also shared during this call. At the same time, the group is wary of the possibility of unintended consequences that may result from the crafting of legislation.

Next, several existing state recycling programs were compared, including programs in King County, WA, San Jose, CA and the state of Massachusetts. Kinley Deller of King County mentioned the participation by recyclers and manufacturers in this program, the local drive to achieve a circular economy while noting the difficulties in capturing significant quantities of clean gypsum when commingled in waste processing facilities, and the suggested addition to program language offered by a recycler that would call for gypsum material to be “source separated in its own bin”.  Terry Weaver shared information on Massachusetts waste bans, and the requirement that C&D material go to permitted recyclers. Certain materials such as asphalt pavement, brick, concrete, metal, wood and gypsum are already banned from being landfilled or transferred for disposal. In order to maintain a MASSDEP permit, the recycling of at least 15% of incoming C&D waste is currently required. This minimum is expected to increase over time, starting with a 20% minimum in 2025. Terry reiterated Kinley’s statement that only a small percentage of drywall in the C&D waste stream is currently being recovered, for a variety of reasons.

And finally, San Jose, CA’s program was reviewed. San Jose’s CALGreen mandates a 75% recycling rate and requires C&D waste to be directed to an approved processing facility. Several committee members commented on the desire for C&D waste that is free from contamination as much as possible. Then, Brock Hill of Premier Recycle Company offered his presentation, noting some of the current challenges to recycling of gypsum in the area, such as transportation costs and the widespread availability of gypsum in the state. San Jose’s program has been codified into law. Specific deposit fees per square foot have been noted as part of the code. Source separation is encouraged, and enrollment in the program can guarantee a steady stream of inbound material. However, there are factors that limit the success of the current program, such as the minimum diversion rate of 75% for those processing facilities enrolled in the program without the requirement for any third-party verification of the data reported by facilities. In addition, some large projects may attempt to bypass program requirements, and there is little or no enforcement in place to limit this. Brock suggested that alternative pricing models, third party verification of reported data, and other steps could improve the program. Thanks to all our presenters for an excellent meeting!