Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
By
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
2006
Copyright 2006
by
Kimberly M. Cochran
To my family.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The research performed for this dissertation would not have been possible without
fellowship (sponsored by the National Science Foundation, the University of Florida, and
Alachua County Public Schools). I also gratefully acknowledge the Florida Center for
Solid and Hazardous Waste and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for
Delfino, Dr. Dr. Jenna Jambeck, and Dr. Angela Lindner for their support and
guidance. I especially thank my committee chair and advisor, Dr. Timothy Townsend,
without whom this research would not have been possible. During the five years I have
worked with him, I have gained an immeasurable amount of knowledge, wisdom, and
I also thank my fellow students, especially Brajesh Dubey, Qiyong Xu, Stephen
Musson, and Stephanie Henry, for their help and support in my research. The support
that you all have provided is extremely important in an endeavor such as this.
encouragement and support have allowed me to pursue my dreams. I could not have
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ................................................................................................. iv
ABSTRACT...................................................................................................................... xii
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................1
v
3.2. Methodology.......................................................................................................30
3.2.1. Concrete....................................................................................................30
3.2.2. Wood ........................................................................................................32
3.2.3. Drywall .....................................................................................................34
3.2.4. Asphalt Shingles.......................................................................................38
3.3. Results and Discussion .......................................................................................41
5.1. Introduction.........................................................................................................70
5.2. C&D Debris Recycling Barriers.........................................................................70
5.3. Policy Options ....................................................................................................73
5.4. Policy Analysis ...................................................................................................74
5.4.1. Methodology.............................................................................................74
5.4.2. Local Policies ...........................................................................................76
5.4.3. State Policies ............................................................................................82
5.5. Discussion/Guidance ..........................................................................................84
vi
6.6. Discussion.........................................................................................................106
7.1. Summary...........................................................................................................108
7.7. Conclusions.......................................................................................................112
7.8. Academic Contribution.....................................................................................113
7.9. Future Research ................................................................................................113
APPENDICES
LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................160
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table page
2-2 Service lives for building products when used in different construction
applications...............................................................................................................12
3-1 States that produced crushed stone in the US during 2004. .......................................32
3-3 Data used to estimate recycled gypsum market potential and competition................37
3-4 Total value of asphalt pavement and asphalt shingle shipments in the US by state...40
4-1 Amount of pollutants of that will leach from each material in an unlined landfill. ...52
4-2 Amount of pollutants of that will leach from each material in a lined landfill. .........55
4-3 Equipment used in recycling processes and their energy requirements. ....................57
4-4 Summary of the energy requirements from each waste management scenario..........66
4-5 Range of energy amounts needed by methods of C&D debris management. ............68
4-6 Range of national tipping fees for methods of C&D debris management..................69
5-1 Definitions of policies types that may encourage C&D debris recycling. .................75
5-5 Guidance questions for implementing C&D debris recycling policies. .....................85
viii
6-1 Concrete service life used in different structures. ......................................................90
6-2 Energy requirements of equipment found at concrete and mixed C&D debris
recycling and disposal facilities in Florida...............................................................97
6-3 Assumed distances between the C&D debris landfills and the cities centers. ..........97
6-4 Assumed distances between recycling facilities, limestone mines, and the city
centers.......................................................................................................................99
6-7 Guidance questions for implementing C&D debris recycling policies. ...................104
6-8 Results of a survey of local cities and counties that have enacted C&D debris
recycling policies....................................................................................................105
6-9 Estimated costs and successes if C&D debris recycling policies are applied in
Florida. ...................................................................................................................106
ix
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure page
1-1 Basic flow of virgin and waste C&D materials from the cradle to the grave...............3
2-1 Flow of materials during activities that a building, road, bridge, or other structure
can undergo in its lifetime. .......................................................................................10
2-4 Total US C&D debris composition in 2002 from all job types using different
assumptions for service life......................................................................................21
2-5 Composition of building waste only using three different assumptions for building
life.............................................................................................................................22
2-6 Projected US C&D debris generation using a materials flow analysis. .....................23
3-1 Comparison of the amount of C&D debris materials generated, recycled, and
potential market capacity. ........................................................................................41
4-1 Boundaries of the life cycle assessment for drywall, concrete, wood, and asphalt
shingles.....................................................................................................................48
6-2 Concrete waste generated in 2002 from various job types as estimated using a
materials flow analysis. ............................................................................................91
x
6-4 Uses of crushed stone produced in Florida during 2003. ...........................................94
6-7 Material flow in the life of waste concrete, including substitution for crushed
stone when recycled. ................................................................................................96
xi
Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
December 2006
renovation, or demolition of a structure. This waste stream has become a concern across
the United States. Recycling is often seen as a solution, but questions remain regarding
the size of the debris stream, market availability for recycled waste materials, the
A materials flow analysis was performed to estimate the amount of C&D debris
generated from the amount of construction materials consumed each year. It found that
approximately 0.8 1.3 x 109 Mg were generated in 2002. While this type of estimate
accounts for materials consumed, current assumptions used may result in larger amounts
than the amount actually generated. The size and location of recycled C&D debris
across the US are possible. Sufficient market capacity exists for concrete and wood, but
there is not sufficient market for asphalt shingles and drywall faces competition from
xii
other materials. A life cycle assessment approach was used to compare environmental
impacts from the various methods of C&D debris management, including disposal,
recycling, and incineration. Recycling was found to be the most beneficial method of
management for concrete, drywall, and asphalt shingles when comparing global warming
potential, human toxicity potential, acidification potential, and abiotic depletion potential.
The best management method for wood was incineration. Policies that encourage C&D
debris recycling around the country were compared. All local policies were successful,
with degrees of success and costs greatly dependent on regional characteristics. State
Finally, a case study was performed for waste concrete in Florida to determine the
amount that is generated (40 61 x 106 Mg), the market availability, the management
option with the fewest environmental impacts, and the best policy to encourage concrete
recycling. Sufficient market exists to recycle all concrete in Florida. Recycling was
found to have the fewest environmental impacts in most areas of the state. Policies that
required contractors to recycle a percentage of their waste stream were the best for
Florida.
xiii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
Construction and demolition (C&D) debris is the waste material that results from
and bridges. Typical waste components include portland cement concrete, asphalt
concrete, wood, drywall, asphalt shingles, metal, cardboard, plastic, and soil. This waste
material has only recently gained attention as concerns about its environmental impact
have developed.
to understand the size of the C&D debris stream. The exact quantity of C&D debris
generated in the US is currently unknown. Many states do not track the amount of C&D
debris disposed of or recycled. Some states do collect this data from landfills and
recycling facilities, but some facilities do not have scales and report only converted
volume estimates.
generated, generally applying average waste generation per unit area amounts to total
and Halstead, 1998; Cochran, 2001). Few other types of national C&D debris
estimations have been performed to find a better method or to contrast against the current
1
2
solid waste (MSW) generation and this method should be tested for the C&D debris
stream.
managing C&D debris. Finding a market for a recycled waste product is the most
important step in establishing a recycling program. C&D debris is not recycled in many
areas of the US for varied reasons. One reason for the lack of recycling could be that
markets for the recycled material do not exist. A market capacity analysis is needed to
determine if there is sufficient demand for recycled materials to warrant C&D debris
recycling programs.
primarily regulate this waste stream and each state has different laws, it can be disposed
operators collect leachate from the landfill and either send it to a wastewater treatment
plant or recirculate it in the landfill. In unlined landfills, the leachate escapes into the soil
directly below the landfill, entering the environment. C&D debris may be recycled at a
new market. C&D debris can be directly reused from the construction site. Some
materials, such as wood, can be incinerated. The energy from incineration can then be
used to generate electricity, although some incinerators do not collect the energy. Figure
Although reduction and reuse are the preferred methods of managing the waste
stream according to the USEPA solid waste management hierarchy (2005), recycling is
being pursued as a more realistic method of managing waste with fewer impacts on the
3
environment than the current practice of disposal. There has not been sufficient evidence
to determine if recycling C&D debris truly has the fewest environmental impacts of all
extensively, yet the impacts that result from different methods of construction and
demolition (C&D) debris management have not (Li, 2006; Junnila and Horvath, 2003;
Scheuer et al., 2003; Harris, 1998). Most building and road life cycle assessments end
when waste is dropped off at a landfill. Many options of waste management exist,
however, after the waste leaves the job site. A comparison of the environmental impacts
Unlined Landfill
Electricity
Manufacturers/ generation
Materials Preparation
Facilities
Natural Resource
Extraction
Figure 1-1. Basic flow of virgin and waste C&D materials from the point of generation
to point of dissipation into the environment.
4
have been implemented to encourage recycling and reuse, regulators can be left
wondering where to start. Since the success of policy instruments depends on many
1.2. Objectives
1. To evaluate the use of a materials flow analysis to estimate the generation amount
and composition of C&D debris in the US.
4. To compare the success of policies aimed at encouraging C&D debris recycling and
determining how such policies might be applied elsewhere.
To complete the first objective evaluating the materials flow analysis method to
materials in the US was analyzed. Typical waste percentages were used to determine the
Average service lives were used to determine when the rest of the consumed materials
The approach for achieving the second objective, determining if there are sufficient
US markets for C&D debris recycled materials and determining which states have the
most potential for recycling, was to examine markets for materials that could be
substituted by recycled C&D debris materials. Demand was analyzed by size and
location. Market capacity was then compared to the estimated amount of debris
generated, the amount recycled, and the amount of other recycled materials generated that
A life cycle assessment was the approach used to satisfy the third objective of
drywall, and asphalt shingles were investigated. Management methods considered were
disposal in an unlined landfill, disposal in a lined landfill, recycling when separated at the
job site, recycling when separated at the recycling facility, and incineration (where
applicable). Impacts considered were global warming potential, human toxicity potential,
policies that can be applied to C&D debris recycling were first compiled and defined.
Locations that had enacted such policies were surveyed. Policies that were considered
were those that have been enacted at both the state and local level and their costs,
Each methodology used in the previous four objectives was applied to concrete
waste in Florida to complete the fifth objective. Cochran (2001) found that there is a
great potential for recycling concrete in Florida, but much of it is still disposed. Cochran
et al. (2006) estimated the amount of concrete generated from building-related C&D
6
debris but the amount of concrete generated from all sources is unknown. Thus, a
materials flow analysis was used to determine the amount of waste concrete generated in
Florida. A market capacity analysis was used to determine if sufficient markets exist to
recycle concrete in Florida. A life cycle assessment was used to determine if recycling,
versus disposal in an unlined landfill or use as lake fill, has the fewest environmental
impacts to global warming and surrounding water systems in five Florida cities. Finally,
a policy analysis was performed to determine how to encourage concrete waste recycling
in the state.
The methodology, results, and discussion for each research objective are presented
estimating C&D debris generation amounts and composition. Chapter 3 presents the
C&D debris recycling market analysis. Chapter 4 compares C&D debris management
methods using a life cycle assessment approach. Chapter 5 evaluates policies used to
encourage C&D debris. Chapter 6 applies all methodologies to a case study of waste
concrete in Florida. Chapter 7 provides conclusions to all studies used to complete the
five objectives. Appendix A provides the life cycle inventory that Sima Pro 5.1 used to
calculate final impacts for the life cycle analysis presented in Chapter 4. Appendix B
presents results of the local government policy survey discussed in Chapter 5. Full
references are provided for all citations in this document following the appendices.
CHAPTER 2
ESTIMATING US CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION (C&D) DEBRIS
GENERATION USING A MATERIALS FLOW ANALYSIS
Recent concerns over the C&D debris stream and how it is currently managed have
led more state and local governments to review their policies on the material. Solutions
stream and how much is generated. Since many regions in the US do not track the
amount of C&D debris generated or have an idea of the waste composition, these
amounts can only be estimated. Only one method has been used to estimate the amount
of C&D debris generated. This method uses some measure of the current level of
construction, demolition, or renovation activity and applies some waste generation factor
to that level. While this method has produced results acceptable to many, there are no
The materials flow method is often chosen for other waste estimates, but it has
never been used to estimate C&D debris. A materials flow analysis estimates the amount
of waste generated by determining the amount of material coming into service and
approximating when and what proportion of that material will enter the waste stream.
7
8
Franklin Associates (1998) first estimated the amount of C&D debris generated in
the US, using an approach similar to a method reported by Yost and Halstead (1996) to
calculate the amount of drywall generated in a specified region. Equations 2-1 and 2-2
show this method, which uses some measure of the level of construction, renovation, or
demolition activity in a region (either area, m2, or cost, $) and the average waste
generation per building area (kg/m2) to determine waste generation. Cochran et al.
(2006) used this method to calculate the amount of waste generated in Florida, US.
There are few other methodologies that have been employed in either Florida or the
US to consider. The Franklin Associates (1998) study is the only estimate made for the
US and an update will be published soon. In Florida, the State requires that all C&D
debris facilities report the amount of material they accept (FDEP, 2001), but these
facilities are not required to report the composition of the waste stream. In addition,
these facilities are permitted to accept other materials not considered in the Cochran et al.
(2006) estimate, such as land-clearing debris, pallets, and debris from non-building-
related sources, such as roads and bridges. Since the Cochran et al. estimate was made
for only building-related material, it is difficult to compare the results to the amount that
performing waste facility sorts, visual characterizations, and monitoring. This method
has been employed by many, including Reinhart et al. (2003), McCauley-Bell et al.
(1997), and Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. (2004). It uses some combination of visual
This type of study requires the examination of a large number of waste samples for
representation, which can take a great deal of time and present difficulties for a waste
stream that contains bulky, heavy waste materials, such as the C&D debris stream. Thus,
this type of study is good for regional waste investigations, but is difficult to apply
nationally.
Materials flow (or materials balance) analyses examine at the amount of materials
that come into service in a given time range and predict when those materials will come
out of service as waste. Adjustments are also made for exports and imports. The USEPA
has been using the materials flow method to characterize the municipal solid waste
(MSW) stream in the US since the late 1960s and early 1970s. They use production data
(by weight), average product lifetime, and some waste composition studies to determine
the amount of MSW generated in the US and its composition (USEPA, 2003a). This
method has not been used in estimating C&D debris generation and composition,
however.
2.3. Methodology
demolition. All of these activities generate waste, some more than others. The purpose
10
of this research is to calculate this waste amount using a materials flow method. In
accomplishing this goal it is important to first understand the flow of the materials.
Figure 2-1 shows a flow chart of where materials enter and leave a structure.
Materials
(M)
Waste Waste
(CW) (DW)
Figure 2-1. Flow of materials during activities that a building, road, bridge, or other
structure can undergo in its lifetime.
After the flow of materials is understood, notations are assigned to each variable
and equations are written. The amount of materials consumed for all construction
activities (M, Megagrams, Mg) is the largest value found in this flow of materials. This
mass for a given year can be determined by examining data gathered from industry
associations and federal agencies, such as the US Census Bureau and the US Geological
Survey. These agencies and associations often report US production and consumption
data for various construction materials. All of these materials are used either in a
Not all materials purchased end up in the structure some are discarded during
(CW, Mg). The amount discarded is some portion (wc, %) of the materials, as shown in
equation 2-3.
CW = M w c (2-3)
11
The average portion discarded during construction (wc) can be found from construction
guides (DelPico, 2004; Thomas, 1991). Contractors use these guides to help them
estimate the quantity of materials to purchase. Table 2-1 lists these average waste
Materials that are a part of the structure after initial construction (MC) can be
removed during renovation or may stay in the structure until final demolition (MR).
These materials will end up as demolition waste (DW), either during renovation or during
demolition. This waste amount is equivalent to the amount of material still in the
structure after installation, minus the amount discarded during installation, as shown in
equation 2-4.
DW = M CW (2-4)
Since all materials generally possess a finite service life, it is possible to approximate
when a material will come out of service and be placed in the waste stream. For
example, materials that have a 50-year service life discarded in 2002 were originally
Materials have varying service lives, depending on their durability and desirability.
Building life cycle assessments and associated databases have used many assumptions for
the life of a building and the materials within it. All sources produced ranges of service
lives for materials. Thus, three estimates were made that use short, typical, and long
service lives for the materials. Table 2-2 presents the service lives found in literature.
Table 2-2. Service lives for building products when used in different construction
applications.
Service Life
Material Job Type
Range Typical
Building 50 100 75
Portland cement concrete Roads/bridges 23 40 25
Other structures 20 50 30
Asphalt concrete Roads 12 33 20
Masonry cement Building 50 100 75
Brick Building 50 100 75
Steel/iron Building 50 100 75
Wood lumber and plywood Building 50 100 75
Wood wood panel Building 20 30 25
Gypsum products Building 25 75 50
Clay floor and wall tile Building 15 25 20
Asphalt shingles Building 20 30 25
The following sections present the methods for collecting data on historical US
construction material consumption (M, Mg). The major construction materials are
concrete, wood, metal, drywall and other gypsum products, brick and other clay products,
asphalt concrete, and asphalt roofing materials. These materials are not restricted to use
in buildings, but are used in all forms of structures, including roads, bridges, utilities, and
other structures. Data were found from various statistical sources, including the US
Census Bureau (USCB), the US Geological Survey (USGS), and the US Department of
2.3.1.1. Concrete
While the total production of concrete cannot be found from one source, it can be
calculated by examining the amount of cement produced for concrete production. The
USGS reports the amount of cement consumed in the US (USGS, 2004). In 2002, the
contains approximately 10 to 17% cement by volume, with 11% being typical. If this
volume approximation is used and assumed densities are 1500 kg/m3 for cement and
2300 kg/m3 for concrete (PCA, 2006), the amount of concrete that this consumption of
cement and concrete consumption. They estimate that public and private residential and
47% of cement; streets and highways consumed 33%; and other structures, 20% (2006).
Thus, if these amounts are used, it is possible to estimate the amount of concrete
amounts. The USGS provides historical cement consumption data, but does not estimate
These numbers were calculated in the same ways as in 2002, using portland cement
consumption data from the USGS. Since PCA market data do not exist for historical
cement consumption, concrete consumption for each structure type can be calculated
using the proportion of values put-in-place of each structure type (as reported by the US
Census Bureau every year) to the amount of concrete used and the value put-in-place for
14
each structure type in 2002. Table 2-3 presents the USGS-reported US cement
consumption and the calculated US concrete consumption for the years used to calculate
2.3.1.2. Wood
US timber production is monitored by the USDA Forest Service, which reports the
industries. Wood used in construction can be divided into lumber and structural veneers
and panels. During 2002, the US consumed 77 x 106 Mg of wood products (Kelly and
Matos, 2006). The USDA Forestry Service estimates that only 77% (approximately 60 x
106 Mg) of this amount is used in the construction industry (Howard, 2003). Lumber is
generally used as a structural material in buildings and thus will generally have the same
service life as the entire building (50, 75, or 100 years). The amount of lumber consumed
for construction was approximately 30 x 106 Mg for 1902, 1927, and 1952. While the
fact that this number did not vary dramatically over 50 years was unexpected, the USGS
has found that consumption of nonrenewable resources has increased since the turn of the
century while the consumption of renewable resources has decreased (Matos and
15
nonrenewable resource use, but not necessarily an increase in renewable resource use.
Plywood and other structural veneers are tracked by the USGS, which estimates
that approximately 12.2 x 106 Mg were consumed in 2002 (Kelly and Matos, 2006).
Since plywood is part of the structure of the building, it will have the same service life as
the entire structure (50, 75, or 100 years). The US consumed 0.01 x 106, 0.5 x 106, and 2
USGS also found that the US consumed 19 x 106 Mg of wood panel in 2002 (Kelly
and Matos, 2006). Wood cabinets and wood flooring are replaced every 20 to 30 years,
with typical replacement around 25 years (Chapman and Izzo, 2002; Keolian et al. 2001).
The consumption of wood panel in 1972, 1977, and 1972 was 9 x 106, 11 x 106, and 9 x
The USGS reported that 29.5 x 106 Mg of prefabricated gypsum products and
plasters (including paper, metal, and other additives) were consumed in the US in 2002.
About 96% of this amount was represented by different types of drywall products,
including regular drywall, Type X drywall, pre-decorated drywall, and greenboard. The
other 4% is represented by plasters, laths, veneers, and sheathing. Drywall and gypsum
interior surfaces have a service life of 25 to 75 years, with a typical life of 50 years
(Keolian et al., 2001; Chapman and Izzo, 2002; Scheur et al., 2003). The US consumed
approximately 3.6 x 106, 6.8 x 106, and 13.4 x 106 Mg of drywall and other calcined
gypsum products consumed in 1927, 1952, and 1977, respectively (Kelly and Matos,
2006).
16
The amount of asphalt shingles produced per year can be estimated using the USGS
statistics for the amount of crushed stone used for roofing granules. The USGS reported
that about 4.43 x 106 Mg of crushed stone was used for roofing granules (USGS, 2004).
material. Coarse granules are placed on top of the asphalt to increase its weather
resistance, fire resistance, and decorative appeal. The amount of course granules added
varies by manufacturer, but some shingle recyclers have quoted a range of 20 to 38% by
weight of the shingle (Sengoz and Topal, 2005; CIWMB, 2001). If this range is used to
approximate how many Mg of asphalt shingles can be made with 4.43 x 106 Mg of
roofing granules, the total amount of asphalt shingles manufactured can be approximated
production of asphalt shingles manufactured in the US. They estimate that 12.5 x 109
square feet of asphalt shingles are produced every year (ARMA, 2006). Most asphalt
shingles weigh anywhere from 225 to 325 pounds per 100 square feet, although shingles
are produced that weigh either less or more (Bolt, 1997). Thus, this approximation from
ARMA produces a range of 13 x 106 Mg to 18 x 106 Mg, which is a range close to that
Most sources agree that asphalt roofing products will have a service life of about 20
years (Bolt, 1997; Keolian et al., 2001; Chapman and Izzo, 2002). The amount of asphalt
shingles produced each year was not readily available and was estimated by using the
annual amount of asphalt produced at US crude oil refineries (EIA, 2004). Thus, the total
17
asphalt shingles produce per year was determined as a proportion of asphalt production to
2.3.1.5. Steel
The USGS tracks the amount of steel, the most heavily used metal in construction,
approximately 18.6 x 106 Mg of iron and steel (USGS, 2002). This amount includes
recycled metal. Metal is mostly used in structural elements of structures and will last for
their entire lifetime (50, 75, or 100 years). The US consumed 1 x 106, 4 x 106, and 7 x
106 Mg of steel for construction in 1902, 1927, and 1952, respectively (Wattenberg,
1976).
The Brick Industry Association estimates that brick manufacturers produced 8.1 x
109 bricks in 2002 (BIA, 2002), which equates to approximately 15 x 106 Mg. This
calculation can be made assuming that 500 bricks equate to about one short ton (0.91
Mg). The BIA also estimates that 81% of bricks produced were used in residential
landscaping) (BIA, 2002). Bricks can last the lifetime of a building (50, 75, and 100
years) (Chapman and Izzo, 2002; Scheur et al., 2003). The US consumed 8.93 x 109,
9.47 x 109, and 5.89 x 109 bricks in 1902, 1927, and 1952, respectively (Wattenberg,
According to the USGS, 851,000 Mg of clay were used for tile. Clay tile is
replaced every 15 to 25 years, with a typical service life of 20 years (Chapman and Izzo,
2002). The US consumed approximately 180,000, 350,000, and 630,000 Mg of clay tile
stone and construction sand and gravel. The USGS keeps statistics on the amount of
these materials consumed in the US every year. The amount of these aggregates used for
bituminous pavements was approximately 390 x 106 Mg in 2002 (USGS, 2002). Typical
asphalt concrete contains 95% aggregates and 5% bitumen, by weight. Thus, the US
Several studies investigated the service life of asphalt pavement. They found that
the service life can range from 12 to 33 years, with a typical life of 20 years (Zapata and
Gambatese, 2005, Park et al., 2003). The US consumed 290 x 106, 160 x 106, 250 x 106
Mg of aggregates in 1990, 1982, and 1969 for asphalt concrete. Thus, the US consumed
an estimated 300 x 106, 170 x 106, and 260 x106 Mg of asphalt concrete in those years,
respectively.
2.4. Results
Most of this amount (approximately 1.4 x 109 Mg) was portland cement concrete
consumption. Asphalt concrete is the next most consumed material at 400 x 106 Mg.
Wood is the third most consumed material at 90 x 106 Mg. Figure 2-2 shows the
historical US construction material consumption. For all years, concrete was the most
consumed materials. Asphalt concrete became the second most consumed materials in
the mid-1920s.
19
2,500
concrete
asphalt concrete
wood
gypsum products
2,000 asphalt shingles
steel/iron
US Consumption (million Mg) .
1,000
500
0
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000
Year
The total amount of C&D debris generated was an estimated 0.80 x 109, 1.10 x 109,
or 1.3 x 109 Mg, depending on the assumption of a long, typical, or short service life.
Figure 2-3 shows the amount of waste that each job type contributed to the total amount
of waste. Bars in Figure 2-3 show the range of values, as provided by using the range of
material component service lives. The diamond value identifies the anticipated waste
that was calculated using typical service life values. Road and bridge demolition
produced the largest amount of waste, while buildings and other structures produced
amounts of waste that had great impact on the total amount generated. The largest,
typical, and smallest total values were the sum of the largest, typical, and smallest values
from all sources of debris. The spread in the total values reflects the range of debris from
1,400
1,200
Waste Generated (million Mg) .
1,000
800
600
400
200
-
road and road and building building other other Total
bridge bridge construction demolition structure structure
construction demolition construction demolition
Job Type
Figure 2-4 presents the material composition of the total C&D debris stream in
2002. The three compositions represent varying service life assumptions. In this figure,
concrete represents the largest fraction of the waste, followed by asphalt concrete.
Composition varies as material usage through time fluctuates based on market conditions.
Additionally, construction styles have changed as building codes and new techniques are
developed. During the early part of the century, the US used more renewable resources
(such as wood) and fewer nonrenewable materials (such as portland cement concrete).
On the other hand, the long service life assumption includes asphalt concrete consumed
in 1969 (33 years before 2002). Consumption of asphalt concrete was well on its way up
at this time (see Figure 2-2). In contrast, the typical service life includes asphalt concrete
21
consumed in 1982 (20 years before 2002). During this time, consumption of asphalt
100%
80%
Waste Composition (by weight)
steel/iron
60% gypsum products
brick and clay tile
asphalt shingles
wood
40%
asphalt concrete
portland cement concrete
20%
0%
Long Typical Short
Service Life Assumption
Figure 2-4. Total US C&D debris composition in 2002 from all job types using different
assumptions for service life.
understanding of the impacts from the other materials. Figure 2-5 presents the
composition of building-related C&D debris using three structure life assumptions. This
figure reflects the increase in use of nonrenewable resources (such as portland cement
concrete and steel) in construction from 1900 to 1950, while the use of renewable
100%
80%
Waste Composition (by weight)
steel/iron
60%
gypsum products
asphalt shingles
brick and clay tile
40% wood
portland cement concrete
20%
0%
100 75 50
Building Life Assumption (Years)
Figure 2-5. Composition of building waste only using three assumptions for building
life.
Figure 2-6 presents projections of waste generation from 2002 to 2052. Projections
were made using consumption data for those materials that last 50 years or more. For
those materials that last less than 50 years, consumption trends were used to determine
their approximate value up to 50 years. The difference between the three waste estimates
increases through time, reflecting the escalation of material consumption (see Figure 2-
1). The shorter service life assumes waste from farther up on the curve of consumption.
The longer service life assumes waste from farther back on the curve. Figure 2-7
presents the historical consumption and uses consumption trends to estimate future
consumption.
23
3,500
total (long)
total (typical)
Total Waste Generation (million Mg) 3,000 total (short)
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
-
2002 2012 2022 2032 2042 2052
Year
Figure 2-6. Projected US C&D debris generation using a materials flow analysis.
3,500
3,000
100-year trend
2,500
US Consumption (million Mg) .
2,000
Consumption
1,500
1,000
500
0
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Year
2.5. Discussion
The actual amount of C&D debris generated in the US is unknown. The Franklin
Associates (1998) estimate calculated the amount of debris from building-related sources
calculated in both estimates. A comparison of the Franklin Associates and materials flow
(MF) estimates is presented in Table 2-4. As Franklin Associates calculated C&D debris
generated in 1996, a column was added to adjust the estimate to 2002 using value-put-in-
place data for residential and nonresidential buildings. There is a large disparity between
the Franklin Associates estimate and the materials flow analysis typical service life
estimate, as well as the materials flow analysis short service life estimate. The Franklin
Associates estimate and the long service life estimates are somewhat similar in total,
however.
There could be a number of reasons for this difference. Because the Franklin
Associates study uses composition studies to estimate material generation, they could be
accurately reflect the materials that are actually used nationally. Additional composition
studies that are more reflective of the variety of construction styles in the US would help
25
resolve this problem. On the other hand, the materials flow analysis may overestimate
the amount of material demolished. The accuracy of the estimates of when or how much
material is taken out of service is as good as the service life assumptions that are used.
Additionally, the materials flow analysis assumes that all material is removed and enters
the waste stream for disposal or recycling at the end of its service life. It is possible,
In general, concrete is the most consumed construction material (see Figure 2-2).
Consumption of concrete is three times that of asphalt concrete and 16 times that of
wood, the second and third most consumed construction materials. Reasons for this
include the heavier density of concrete and its ubiquity in construction uses, whether
under water or on land. Thus, errors in the assumptions used to calculate concrete waste
have the most dramatic effect on the total amount of waste generated. How much
concrete is truly taken out of service each year is unknown and, thus, it is difficult to
ascertain true service lives, especially for the other structure category. Estimates of
waste from structures that have well-studied service lives, such as buildings, roads, and
bridges will be more accurate than other structures that are not as studied.
approximately 180 x 106 Mg of concrete are generated each year from all sources of
debris. Their estimate is based on surveys of demolition contractors and recyclers who
claim that 50 to 57% of concrete is recycled and that they recycle approximately 91 x 106
Mg of concrete (Sandler, 2003). This study estimates that 540 to 830 x 106 Mg of
concrete waste are generated each year, with 50 to 260 x 106 Mg arising from building
sources, 280 to 350 x 106 Mg from roads and bridges, and 140 to 290 x 106 Mg from
26
other structures. These estimates are also dramatically different. The discrepancy could
arise from the CMRA underestimating the amount of concrete actually generated and not
recycled or from this studys overestimating of the amount of concrete removed from
service, not simply abandoned or used longer than the assumed service life.
1993 estimated that the US generated 91 x 106 Mg of asphalt concrete waste, with 80% of
this amount recycled. The materials flow analysis found that 170 to 300 x 106 Mg were
generated. In comparing value put-in-place data, the US spent 1.26 times more on streets
and highways in 2002 than in 1993 (in constant 1996 dollars). Thus, adjusting the
USDOT/USEPA figure to 2002, the amount of asphalt concrete waste generated in the
US can be estimated as 110 x 106 Mg. The USDOT/USEPA report, however, garners its
results from a survey of state departments of transportation which likely did not report
asphalt concrete generated from non-highway applications, such as parking lots. It is also
possible the states did not report the amount of waste generated from county- and city-
owned roads. The other reason for the discrepancy could be that the materials flow
analysis assumes that all asphalt paving will have the same service life as a highway.
This is most certainly not true as asphalt paving is used in parking lots and other
applications, which put less strain on the material and, therefore, allow the material to last
longer. Additional information on the proportion of asphalt paving that is used in those
In general, data sources also play a significant role in the accuracy of the materials
flow analysis results. The sources of much of the data rely on industry surveys.
27
Therefore, many numbers rely on the accuracy supplied by the respondents to those
surveys. The more accurate these numbers are, the better the results will be.
CHAPTER 3
ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL MARKET CAPACITY TO ABSORB RECYCLED
C&D DEBRIS IN THE US
created hierarchies for solid waste management, identifying the most-to-least preferable
method (USEPA, 2005). Although reduction and reuse are identified as the most
method of managing waste when reuse and reduction are not possible. Many estimate
that a large percentage of the construction and demolition (C&D) debris can be recycled,
Consultants, Inc., 2006; Sandler, 2003; Tellus Institute, 2003; Cochran et al., In Press).
For example, it has been estimated that 23% is recycled in Florida (FDEP, 2004) when as
much as 65 to 95% of the waste stream could be recycled (Sandler, 2003; Cochran,
2001). Finding a market for a recycled waste product is the most important step in
securing a recycling program. Lack of markets may be a reason that recycling rates of
There have been only limited efforts to assess available markets for major materials
found in C&D debris. Most studies describe the markets that could be used for these
materials or have directories of businesses that accept recycled materials, but do not
discuss the capacity of these markets to accept material. Assessments made in North
28
29
Carolina and California assumed that the entire potential capacity to absorb recycled
materials is the actual amount that is currently recycled (Lindert, 1993; CIWMB, 1996;
NCDENR, 1998). They do not consider any possible market capacity if barriers to
recycling, such as economics, are overcome. Two studies in Florida, however, estimated
the potential demand that existed for these materials in an effort to determine if low
recycling rates were due to lack of sufficient market for the recycled material (Cochran,
2001; Barnes, 2002). These studies used industry data on the consumption of natural
resources that could be replaced with recycled materials to estimate potential recycled
material demand.
Concrete, wood, drywall, and asphalt roofing shingles represent the largest
fractions (20% - 99%) of C&D debris (by weight) and have the greatest potential for
being recycled. Although metals and cardboard may also represent a large portion of
C&D debris (2% - 41%), they will not be included due to the extensive existing recycling
system already in place for these materials (Franklin Associates, 1998; SPARK, 1991).
Therefore, concrete, wood, drywall, and asphalt shingles should be targeted for recycling
programs.
The objective of this research was to determine if substantial markets exist in the
US for the four major recyclable materials in the C&D debris stream: concrete, wood,
drywall, and asphalt shingles. Similar to the Florida studies, market consumption of
materials was used to determine total potential demand for recycled materials. Markets
were examined geographically to determine which states had the most and least potential
for C&D debris recycling. Competition from natural resources and from other recycled
30
products was analyzed. Finally, the total potential market capacity for recycled materials
3.2. Methodology
This study assumes that many markets that currently use natural resources or other
waste sources could replace these materials with recycled C&D debris products. The
study estimated this potential demand for recycling C&D debris materials by examining
markets that could use recycled materials but generally use natural resources. The
amount of material these markets consumed was then compared with the amount of
recyclable waste material that was generated and the amount currently recycled.
Competitive materials were also analyzed to determine what impact they may have on the
ability to recycle C&D debris materials. Only four C&D debris materials were
investigated here: concrete, wood, drywall, and asphalt shingles. These materials were
selected due to their high potential for recyclability and current low recycling rates in
many regions of the country. Data were found from literature, government agencies, and
industry associations.
3.2.1. Concrete
Concrete is likely the most recycled material of the four materials. The
x 106 Mg of concrete is recycled nationally. They used a method that counts the number
of concrete crushers in operation and assumes a production rate for each crusher. The
EPA used this figure to estimate that 180 x 106 Mg of waste concrete was generated
Concrete can be recycled as subbase and base in road construction, aggregate for
new concrete, drainage media, and surface material many instances in which crushed
31
stone is used (Townsend et al., 1998). The US Geological Survey collects data from
crushed stone producers around the country. They reported that in 2004 US producers
generated 1.59 x 109 metric tons of crushed stone. Of all of the uses for crushed stone,
including construction, agricultural, chemical and metallurgical, the most likely uses for
recycled concrete are those in the construction industry. The USGS reported that more
than 630 x 106 Mg of crushed stone was used in construction. An additional 830 x 106
Mg was not reported or reported as used in an unspecified market as not all suppliers
know exactly what their customers are using their products for. It is quite possible that
some of this material was used in construction. If so, the total demand for crushed stone
conservative, however, only those uses that frequently employ recycled concrete were
examined riprap and jetty stone, filter stone, railroad ballast, graded road base or
subbase, and unpaved road surfacing. These markets alone consume 180 x 106 Mg of
concrete. If the same percentage of the market represented by these uses (11%) is applied
to the unspecified and unreported numbers, it can be assumed that almost an additional
100 x 106 Mg was used. This would mean that the demand for recycled concrete could
range from 180 x 106 Mg to 1,500 x 106 Mg, with a conservative estimate of 280 x 106
Mg.
Table 3-1 shows all the states that produce any type of crushed stone, including
limestone, dolomite, marble, granite, traprock, sandstone, quartzite, slate, shell, and
volcanic cinder. Of all the states but Delaware produce crushed stone. Texas,
Pennsylvania, Florida, Georgia, and Illinois are the top five producing states.
32
Table 3-1. States that produced crushed stone in the US during 2004.
Crushed Crushed Crushed
stone stone stone
State State State
produced produced produced
(103 Mg) (103 Mg) (103 Mg)
Alabama 49,100 Louisiana* W Ohio 76,400
Alaska 2,230 Maine 4,370 Oklahoma 40,200
Arizona 11,100 Maryland 29,900 Oregon 22,800
Arkansas 32,900 Massachusetts 13,600 Pennsylvania 112,000
California 55,400 Michigan 35,800 Rhode Island 1,600
Colorado 11,000 Minnesota 10,900 South Carolina 31,300
Connecticut 10,000 Mississippi* 2,760 South Dakota 5,370
Delaware 0 Missouri 69,100 Tennessee 57,900
Florida 105,000 Montana 4,090 Texas 122,000
Georgia 79,500 Nebraska 6,900 Utah 8,020
Hawaii 5,190 Nevada 9,760 Vermont 5,110
Idaho 3,320 New Hampshire 4,750 Virginia 72,500
Illinois 76,500 New Jersey 25,500 Washington 12,300
Indiana 56,800 New Mexico 3,430 West Virginia 14,700
Iowa 36,800 New York 52,700 Wisconsin 38,600
Kansas 19,800 North Carolina 72,300 Wyoming 7,150
Kentucky 55,600 North Dakota W Other 10,100
Source: Tepordei, 2004; W = Withheld to avoid disclosing proprietary data. These numbers are included in
the Other category; *A significant amount of material was shipped in from other states.
3.2.2. Wood
The amount of wood from C&D debris generated, disposed of, and recycled in the
US is unknown. McKeever (2004) estimated that 35.7 x 106 Mg of C&D debris wood
was generated in 2002, while the EPA has estimated that 25 x 106 Mg of C&D debris
wood waste was generated annually (Sandler, 2003). McKeever (2004) also estimated
that 17.3 x 106 Mg of waste wood was recovered from the national C&D debris stream
C&D debris wood recycling has many complicated issues and few markets. It is
commonly recycled as mulch, but it is also often incinerated as boiler fuel (Cochran,
2001). Both of these uses could pose problems if the wood waste stream contains CCA-
treated wood and other contaminants. While recyclers attempt to pull treated wood from
33
their recycling piles, many pieces are undetected and recycled into mulch. If CCA-
treated wood is incinerated for boiler fuel, the ash left behind can contain high levels of
The US consumed 2.032 x 1015 Btus of energy from wood waste, about 2% of the
total national energy consumption in 2002. Sources of this wood waste include timber
manufacturing, pulp and paper mills, and C&D debris. If one US short ton of wood
waste produces 9.961 x 106 Btus of energy, approximately 190 x 106 Mg of wood waste
was consumed in 2002. Most wood waste (74%) captured for energy is used by the
industrial sector, but about 7% of energy from wood waste is consumed for electric
power. The nation only uses 70% of its capacity for electricity generation from wood
(EIA, 2003). If full capacity were used, an additional 5 x 106 Mg of wood waste could be
consumed. Table 3-2 amount of energy generated from wood waste in the US by state.
Thirty states use wood waste for energy. Alabama, Maine, California, Georgia, and
Louisiana are the top five states with the most capacity.
Cochran (2001) used a method that is commonly used by the Mulch and Soil
Council to estimate demand for mulch. This method uses the number of owner-occupied
houses, percentage of occupied homes that are regular customers, typical number of bags
that are purchased per customer, and the average weight of a mulch bag. This study
assumed that a home uses seven bags of mulch per year, each weighing 50 pounds
(approximately 23 kg). It also assumed that 25% of the occupied homes are regular
customers. The US Census Bureau reports that 60% (approximately 74.6 million) of the
houses in the US were occupied by the owner in 2005 (US Census Bureau, 2006). Using
34
these assumptions, the demand for mulch was estimated at 3 x 106 Mg. Table 3-2 shows
the number of housing units and percentage that are owner-occupied in each state.
Competition for markets arises from other wood waste producers, such as timber
This study found that approximately 177.5 x 106 Mg of residuals were generated from the
3.2.3. Drywall
The amount of drywall generated in the US has been estimated by various sources.
The USGS estimated that more than 4 x 106 Mg of gypsum was generated from C&D
sources as well as manufacturing scrap (USGS, 2006). The USEPA estimates that the
amount is closer to 12.7 x 106 Mg per year (Sandler, 2003). There are no estimates on
Drywall is not often recycled because it is difficult to recover once it has been
mixed with other materials. Drywall consists of a layer of gypsum (around 85%, by
weight) sandwiched between two layers of paper (around 15%, by weight). It can be
recycled into most markets that consume gypsum, such as new drywall manufacture,
generally processed for recycling by removing the paper and other contaminants,
although agricultural markets may not require the paper to be removed because it
decomposes. Thus, comparisons here will be made for the gypsum from drywall only.
35
amount, markets imported 10.1 x 106 Mg into the US (Founie, 2004). This amount
includes gypsum that was produced for all uses. Gypsum is calcined for wallboard and
other plaster products. In its crude, uncalcined form, it is often used in cement
production or agriculture. About 25.5 x 106 Mg (70%) was calcined for use in
construction, primarily for wallboard production. Of the rest, 8 x 106 Mg was consumed
in the cement industry and 2.7 x 106 Mg was consumed by agriculture (Founie, 2004).
Table 3-3 shows the states that have the highest market potential for recycled
drywall. These states are those that produce cement, generate calcined gypsum for
drywall, or grow crops that can benefit from gypsum application (such as bell peppers,
cabbage, corn, cotton, cucumbers, peanuts, potatoes, soybeans, squash, tomatoes and
watermelons). Cement production and calcined gypsum was found from the USGS
(Tepordei, 2004; van Oss, 2004). The USDA reports crop production for the US (NASS,
2002).
Recycled gypsum from drywall faces competition from mined gypsum and from
forming gypsum. Synthetic gypsum is formed during other industrial processes, such as
the electricity production. Coal-fired power plants use a lime slurry to remove SO2 and
SO3 from their flue gas, forming gypsum. This product is known as flue gas
FGD gypsum and sold 9.04 x 106 Mg to various gypsum markets, but mostly wallboard
manufacturers (93%) (ACAA, 2005). Table 3-3 shows the production of gypsum at
mines by state and the consumption of coal for electricity generation (where FGD
37
Table 3-3. Data used to estimate recycled gypsum market potential and competition.
Calcined Gypsum Cement Crops Benefiting Gypsum Coal Consumed
State Produced Produced from Gypsum mined for Electricity
(103 Mg) (103 Mg) (km2) (103 Mg) (103 Mg)
Alabama 554 4,796 4,726 0 31,827
Alaska 0 0 3,359 0 357
Arizona 212 1,375 1,316 310 18,198
Arkansas 983 1,377 17,517 750 13,896
California 2,510 11,928 8,359 1,390 838
Colorado 212 1,353 5,207 311 17,464
Connecticut 0 0 236 0 1,934
Delaware 0 0 1,484 0 1,864
Florida 1,510 5,232 2,174 0 25,078
Georgia 481 944 10,406 0 32,744
Hawaii 0 0 0 0 729
Idaho 0 743 2,954 0 0
Illinois 677 3,009 87,930 0 49,059
Indiana 677 3,077 46,234 288 53,940
Iowa 1,930 1,419 93,401 1,920 19,843
Kansas 677 2,687 27,434 750 20,084
Kentucky 0 1,077 0,380 0 35,690
Louisiana 983 0 7,426 750 14,492
Maine 0 1,633 444 0 152
Maryland 413 2,519 4,195 0 10,502
Massachusetts 477 0 185 0 3,953
Michigan 916 2,844 18,552 452 32,035
Minnesota 0 0 59,851 0 18,207
Mississippi 0 1,077 13,065 0 9,026
Missouri 0 5,263 34,844 0 40,260
Montana 0 743 493 0 10,271
Nebraska 0 1,419 54,307 0 11,476
Nevada 1,410 743 63 1,390 7,713
New Hampshire 477 0 125 0 1,506
New Jersey 477 0 874 0 4,018
New Mexico 212 1,375 1,276 310 15,115
New York 2,130 1,633 7,249 288 8,802
North Carolina 413 0 13,227 0 27,145
North Dakota 0 0 18,705 0 21,695
Ohio 223 1,020 32,994 288 49,890
Oklahoma 983 1,377 3,798 3,250 18,410
Oregon 492 960 601 0 1,884
Pennsylvania 585 6,228 8,897 0 46,900
Rhode Island 0 0 23 0 -
South Carolina 0 3,114 4,409 0 14,113
South Dakota 0 1,419 35,491 311 2,112
Tennessee 0 1,077 10,023 0 22,527
Texas 1,470 11,183 35,393 2,450 92,318
Utah 212 743 393 1,390 15,065
Vermont 0 0 754 0 0
Virginia 413 944 5,183 288 13,501
Washington 244 960 1,861 0 6,241
West Virginia 0 944 320 0 32,619
Wisconsin 0 2,844 26,193 0 22,477
Wyoming 244 1,353 445 311 23,975
38
gypsum is produced) by state. These two materials are competitors for post-consumer
recycled gypsum. Gypsum is mined in 20 states, with the top five gypsum-producing
states being Oklahoma, Texas, Iowa, California, and Nevada. Coal is consumed for
electric power in 47 states. The top five consuming states are Texas, Indiana, Ohio,
The CMRA, University of Florida, and the NAHB Research Center estimate that 6
to 10 x 106 Mg of asphalt shingles are disposed of in the US every year (Sandler, 2003;
NAHB Research Center,1998). While many studies have been performed on the viability
recycled.
Asphalt roofing shingles can be recycled into new hot mixed asphalt (Grzybowski,
1993; Newcomb et al., 1993). Roofing shingle scrap from manufacturers is sometimes
recycled in this manner. Some hot mix asphalt manufacturers are hesitant to use shingles
The potential capacity for recycling asphalt shingles into roads can be calculated by
estimating the amount of asphalt concrete consumed in the US per year. The amount of
asphalt concrete produced per year can be estimated using several methods. First, US
consumption of asphalt from crude oil refineries was considered. The problem with this
is that asphalt is also used to make asphalt shingles. Next, the consumption of crushed
stone, sand, and gravel used in making asphalt concrete was considered. The US
consumed 74.7 x 106 Mg of sand and gravel in 2004 for asphaltic concrete aggregates and
other bituminous mixtures (USGS, 2004). The US also consumed 118 x 106 Mg of
concrete is represented by the bitumen and the rest by aggregates, it can be assumed that
200 x 106 Mg of asphalt concrete was consumed (Lavin, 2003; Grzybowski, 1993;
Newcomb et al., 1993). If 28% of the bitumen can be replaced by shingles, this method
yields approximately 3.4 x 106 Mg of shingles that can be recycled in this manner
estimate of 3,600 hot mix asphalt plants in 1996 in the US for its AP-42 Emission
Factors, but their locations are not known (USEPA, 2004). Due to this lack of data, the
2002 Economic Census was consulted to determine asphalt concrete production by state
(US Census Bureau, 2002). The US Census Bureau collects data from manufacturers,
such as the total value of shipments by state, shown in Table 3-4. This source may not be
reliable, however, as it only shows 18 states that manufactured asphalt concrete in 2002.
The top ten producing states were California, New York, Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Michigan, Illinois, New Jersey, Florida, and Georgia. An internet search, however,
shows that some states reported as not producing asphalt concrete contain hot mix asphalt
plants.
Recycled asphalt shingles face competition for end markets from shingle
contamination from nails and other materials. Additionally, there is still a fear of
asbestos in old shingles and, since shingles are no longer manufactured with asbestos,
(NAHB) Research Center estimates that 60 manufacturing plants across the US generate
0.62 to 0.82 x 106 Mg of scrap (1998). Again, the US Census Bureaus 2002 Economic
40
Census was consulted to determine where the production of asphalt shingles is occurring.
Table 3-4 shows the production of asphalt shingles by state (by value of shipments in
thousands of dollars) (US Census Bureau, 2002). This source reports that asphalt
shingles were only manufactured in ten states. The top five producing states are Texas,
California, Ohio, Alabama, and Georgia. An internet search, however, found that there
are other manufacturing plants not accounted for by the US Census Bureau.
Table 3-4. Total value of asphalt pavement and asphalt shingle shipments in the US by
state.
Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt
State Pavement Shingles State Pavement Shingles
($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000)
Alabama 142,150 367,917 Montana - -
Alaska - - Nebraska - -
Arizona - - Nevada - -
Arkansas - - New Hampshire - -
California 1,030,846 602,040 New Jersey 238,980 -
Colorado 142,439 - New Mexico - -
Connecticut 131,088 - New York 586,704 -
Delaware - - North Carolina - -
Florida 214,722 - North Dakota - -
Georgia 152,056 345,066 Ohio 514,534 516,624
Hawaii - - Oklahoma - -
Idaho - - Oregon - -
Illinois 276,746 297,722 Pennsylvania 480,633 333,555
Indiana - - Rhode Island - -
Iowa - - South Carolina 76,482 -
Kansas - - South Dakota - -
Kentucky - - Tennessee - -
Louisiana - - Texas 538,095 701,806
Maine 47,866 - Utah - -
Maryland 146,913 297,708 Vermont - -
Massachusetts - - Virginia - -
Michigan 351,421 - Washington 69,593 100,502
Minnesota - 215,125 West Virginia - -
Mississippi - - Wisconsin 39,570 -
Missouri - - Wyoming - -
Source: US Census Bureau, 2002
41
Figure 3-1 compiles all of the results of the market capacity analysis. This figure
shows the amount of each material generated, the amount that is currently recycled, the
potential demand for recycled products, and amount of competing material produced.
Concrete has the largest market and is also the waste material most generated. Wood has
the second largest market, but also faces substantial competition from other recycled
wood sources. Drywall and asphalt shingles face the largest market shortage.
Although there have been many discussions on the recyclability of concrete, some
markets are still hesitant to use this material (such as state departments of transportation).
Hesitancy to use the material results from fear of contamination from post-consumer
RCA, such as nails, wood, asbestos, or lead paint. Successful use of the material by
private sectors has eased this fear and some states , such as Texas and Florida, do use or
300
Generated Amount
Recycled Amount
250
Potential Recycled Amount
Amount (million Mg)
150
100
50
0
Concrete Wood Drywall Asphalt Shingles
C&D Debris Material
Figure 3-1. Comparison of the amount of C&D debris materials generated, recycled, and
potential market capacity.
42
The most promising locations for recycling concrete are in the top five crushed
stone producing states Texas, Pennsylvania, Florida, Georgia, and Illinois. Crushed
stone is a cheap material and is unlikely to be moved far distances due to cost of
transportation. Thus, it is likely that these states also have the highest demand for the
material, which can be replaced by crushed stone. Since these markets are being satisfied
by crushed stone in the state, competition from the natural material in some parts of the
state may make recycling difficult. States such as Mississippi and Louisiana that
received a substantial amount of crushed stone from outside the state would also likely be
able to have successful recycling programs. This is especially true post-Katrina, where
occurring. Almost all states produce and demand crushed stone, however, as roads are in
Wood has a large potential for recovery through mulch and incineration. This is
likely to increase as the US moves away from foreign sources of energy. In fact, four
new wood-fired power plants have recently come online. Some of these plants rely on
the harvesting of tree stands for energy sources (USDOE, 2006). With the large
generation of wood waste from C&D debris, however, such plants should look to the
contamination from CCA and lead-based paint. Some sources have shown that CCA-
treated wood may represent up to 30% of the waste stream and may increase (Solo-
Gabriele and Townsend, 1999). Incinerating CCA-treated wood causes the heavy metals
Alabama, Maine, California, Georgia and Louisiana have the greatest potential for
incinerating wood waste. There are wood waste incinerators in only 30 states. Thus, this
method of managing wood waste is limited to these locations. Market capacity is sure to
increase, however, as the country looks to alternative fuels for energy. Recycling wood
waste into mulch can occur in almost any state, as there are homes in every state. This is
While there is sufficient capacity to recycle all of the drywall generated, recycled
FGD gypsum is expected to increase due to more stringent regulations. These new
regulations, however, may result in an increase in the heavy metal content of FGD
gypsum that may lead to the undesirability of its use in drywall manufacture.
Drywall has a better chance of being recycled in states (such as California) that
have a great demand for gypsum in all three markets with little competition from FGD
gypsum. Since much of the coal is mined in the eastern portion of the US, some western
states use other energy sources. States such as Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana, with heavy
demand for gypsum due to high crop areas would also have a great potential for
recycling. States, such as Pennsylvania, may have difficulty with drywall recycling
programs due to the likely high production of FGD gypsum and relatively small market
demand for gypsum. It must be noted, however, that this study assumes that each market
that consumes gypsum can consume 100% recycled gypsum instead. Some, however,
have found that markets (such as cement manufacturing) will not accept 100% recycled
gypsum and must use a blend of mined and recycled gypsum due to material handling
44
equipment (Townsend et al., 2001). This will reduce the market size for recycled
gypsum.
The results from this study show that there is not sufficient capacity for recycling
for an already low market. New market sources should be investigated for this material.
New York, and Texas. Not all states produce asphalt pavement and, therefore, asphalt
shingle recycling programs may be limited nationally. In addition, many of the states that
produce asphalt pavement also produce asphalt shingles, causing post-consumer shingles
management for the waste stream, although the USEPA has defined a hierarchy where
recycling and incineration are preferable (2005). This study aims to determine if
recycling has the fewest environmental impacts for four waste materials or if other
methods create fewer environmental impacts. Life cycle assessments were used to make
this comparison.
its life span from creation to waste or recreation in another useful form (Graedel, 1998).
LCAs have evaluated the different methods of municipal solid waste (MSW)
management and there are sources that provide life cycle inventories (Solano et al., 2002a
and 2002b; Weitz, 1999; White et al., 1995). Computer programs have been developed
to help evaluate MSW management options (Kaplan et al., 2004; Weitz et al., 1999; PR
Consultants, 2002).
Many LCAs have been performed regarding the environmental impacts from
buildings and roads (Gonzalez and Navarro, 2006; Li, 2006; Lollini et al., 2006;
Erlandsson and Levin, 2005; Keolian et al., 2005; Zapata and Gambatese, 2005;
45
46
Emmanuel, 2004; Katz, 2004; Mithraratne and Vale, 2004; Erlandsson and Borg, 2003;
Junnila and Horvath, 2003; Park et al., 2003; Scheuer et al., 2003; Thormark, 2002;
Frangopol et al., 2001; Stripple, 2001; Nishioka et al., 2000; Schenck, 2000; Harris,
1998; Adalberth, 1997; Jonsson et al., 1997; Cole and Kernan, 1996; Hakkinen and
Makela, 1996; Horvath and Hendrickson, 1996; Stammer and Stodolsky, 1995) and
(Athena Institute, 2006; Zhang et al., 2006; Horvath et al., 2003; NIST, 2003; PR
Consultants, 2002; Ries and Mahdavi, 2001). Most LCAs regarding buildings revolve
around the buildings themselves and discuss waste management at great length. Some
estimate the energy that each building consumes through materials manufacturing, use of
the building, and landfilling (sometimes recycling). Most, however, end their life cycle
A few studies have investigated some C&D debris materials. Jambeck et al. (In
Press) used the USEPA MSW DST model to compare landfill disposal to incineration of
investigated the life cycle of wood versus concrete in building construction. They
estimated gas emissions from landfill disposal but did not investigate impacts from
leachate. The USEPA released a document comparing greenhouse gas emissions from
clay brick reuse and concrete recycling (USEPA, 2003b). Rivela et al. (2006) compared
recycling temporary wood structures into particle board versus incinerating it.
management, a life cycle analysis evaluating the impacts from the time the waste was
generated until the point that the material recycled or dissipates into the environment was
47
used. Research was performed to evaluate the environmental impacts from disposing,
recycling, and incinerating (where applicable) four major C&D debris materials:
concrete, wood, drywall, and asphalt shingles. Emissions to the air, soil, and water are
considered here. Impacts that were analyzed were global warming potential, human
4.2. Methodology
leachate from debris disposal is sought to be limited through recycling, are the trade-offs
The functional unit for all four of the waste materials is 1 Mg (metric ton) of waste
material. This is appropriate as most waste materials are measured by weight incoming
LCAs may be able to easily use these data if a weight measurement is used.
The major unit processes that are being examined are waste collection, C&D debris
landfill disposal (with and without leachate collection and treatment), incineration (with
transportation, natural resource extraction (when recycling does not occur), and electrical
energy (when energy recovery from waste does not occur). Boundaries for each waste
The scope of these LCAs does not include energy usage from waste management
offices or other buildings associated with any stage. Additionally, none of the impacts
from the construction of the infrastructure, such as the construction of landfills, waste-to-
48
energy plants, or manufacture of machinery or trucks, is included. Only the impacts from
Recycling /
processing (job Recycling/ Recycling Recycling/
site separated) processing Facility (job processing
(separated at site separated (separated at
the facility) the facility)
Use in new drywall,
cement manufacture, or Road
agriculture Construction
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 4-1. Boundaries of the life cycle assessment for (a) drywall, (b) concrete, (c)
wood, and (d) asphalt shingles.
C&D debris ends up in many types of landfills around the U.S. Each state has its
own laws regarding landfill construction, siting, and monitoring. According to a recent
49
natural liner (three of which require leachate collection), and nine require either a
composite or double liner (Clark et al., 2006). Since the majority of the states do not
require liners for C&D debris landfills, one assumption made in this assessment is that
leachate generated from the disposal of C&D debris is allowed to be released into the soil
below the landfill. This material has the potential to impact the groundwater and the land
in general, especially if the land were to be used as something different in the future.
Another disposal scenario is that the debris is sent to a lined landfill where the leachate is
In all recycling scenarios, impacts from use are not considered. For example, It is
assumed that after the asphalt shingles are mixed into hot mix asphalt, the asphalt mix
will have similar impacts to the environment that would occur without the addition of
recycled material. Thus, impacts from transporting the asphalt and using it to construct a
When C&D debris is recycled, it is generally sent to a location that has the ability
to process the material before its reuse in a market. This recycling facility separates the
material, processes it, and sells it to a consumer. In some locations, however, the
material is separated first at the job site and sent to the recycling facility. In these
Some C&D debris is incinerated, either with or without energy recovery. When
Impacts from particulate matter (dust) are not considered. There is a lack of data
from disposal and recycling facilities on the amount of dust. Additionally, data published
on the amount of dust produced from natural resource extraction (such as USEPA AP-42
factors) are not always reliable because they determined from a limited number of tests
performed only on some (not all) machines used during these processes (USEPA, 2004).
These dust emissions factors vary tremendously depending on moisture content, wind
speed, and other factors. Thus, an assumption for dust emissions from various C&D
Data were collected for all scenarios from literature and from equipment
processing rates. Studies conducted on landfill leachate and gas production from various
wastes were consulted to determine potential landfill impacts from each waste. Finally,
the Franklin Associates database in Sima Pro 5.1 was consulted for unit processes
Since only four waste materials from the C&D debris stream are being examined
here, environmental impacts from those materials in landfills are examined. Emissions
to the air come from the equipment used at the landfill and landfill gas. Water emissions
It is assumed that one 300-kW compactor compacts 200 Mg/day of C&D debris,
gas from C&D debris landfills primarily consists of methane (CH4), carbon dioxide
51
(CO2), and hydrogen sulfide (H2S). For wood, Borjesson and Gustavson (1999)
performed an LCA comparing greenhouse gas generation from wood and concrete in
building construction. They assumed that only 10 to 40% of the wood would decay in
landfills, using a 20% figure as the anticipated amount of decay. This is a reasonable
figure given the high lignin content of wood. Using this degradable fraction, 70 kg of
CO2 and 30 kg of CH4 is produced per Mg of wood. If the methane portion is flared off
Drywall also produces landfill gas in the form of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) under
process (Postgate, 1984; Hao et al., 1996). Drywall consists of approximately 85%
gypsum and 15% paper. Therefore, if 5% (0.0425Mg) of the gypsum can be converted,
then 9.4 kg of H2S will be formed per Mg of drywall. The H2S can then be converted to
Unlined Landfills. The amount of leachate produced per metric ton is dependent
on the amount of rainfall that is produced in a given region. The average amount of
rainfall in the US is 76 cm/year. It is assumed that 20% of the rainfall will turn into
leachate. Townsend et al. (1999) studied simulated leachates from a mixed C&D debris
stream and four C&D debris materials: cardboard, concrete, drywall, and wood. Results
from this study were used to approximate leachate concentrations in landfills. Table 4-1
shows the amount of pollutant in the leachate that is produced over 500 years with these
assumptions.
52
Townsend et al. (1999) used only new, untreated wood in their study of leachate
produced from C&D debris materials. Wood in the C&D debris stream, however, often
contains a large proportion of CCA-treated wood. Studies have shown that CCA-treated
wood can represent 9 to 30% of the wood waste stream (Blassino et al., 2002; Solo-
Gabriele et al., 2004). It is likely that the amount of CCA-treated wood in the waste
stream will continue to represent one-third of the waste stream for 10 to 20 years as
treated wood from the last decade (when 36 to 48% of southern yellow pine, a major
source of construction wood was treated) is taken out of service (Solo-Gabriele et al.,
2004).
Table 4-1. Amount of pollutants of that will leach from each material in an unlined
landfill.
Pollutant Concrete Wood Drywall
(kg/Mg) (kg/Mg) (kg/Mg)
Arsenic - 1.2 -
Calcium 10 10 130
Carbonate 20 1 30
Chromium - 1.3 -
Copper - 0.02 -
Sulfate 1 2 260
Total dissolved solids 30 110 540
The amount of CCA in treated wood can vary depending on the product, from 4 to
40 kg/m3 (AWPA, 1999). There is a lack of data on the proportion of this waste stream
that each product represents. The American Wood Preservers Association (AWPA) and
the American Wood Preservers Institute (AWPI) have reported that average wood
preservation retention values ranged from around 4.6 to 5.8 kg/m3 (Solo-Gabriele et al.,
2003).
Leachate studies have been performed on C&D debris and MSW using simulated-
landfill lysimeters and varying amounts of CCA-treated wood. If the amount of CCA-
53
treated wood is adjusted to 100%, these studies have shown leachate concentrations of
9.1 to 42.2 mg/L, 7.4 to 25.4 mg/L and 0.1 to 8.0 mg/L for arsenic, chromium, and
copper, respectively (Jambeck, 2004; Jang and Townsend, 2003). These studies have
shown, however, that other waste products have an impact on the amount of metals
leached from treated wood products (as is typical) than if it is disposed of by itself (such
as in a monofill). Thus, in this study, it is necessary to use results that might be most
lysimeter study with waste amounts similar to what is found in a C&D debris landfill.
She assumed that 30% of the wood waste mass (10% of the total waste mass) would be
This study uses the same percentage (30%) of treated wood in all wood waste
wood, studies have shown that treated wood remains in recovered wood waste streams (0
30%) (Tolaymat et al., 2000; Tolaymat et al., 2001; Solo-Gabriele et al., 2001;
Townsend et al., 2003). Thus, even though it is likely that less CCA-treated wood would
be encountered in a recycling stream than a disposal stream, it is important that the same
waste is compared evenly for each management method for the purposes of this study.
Using the results of the Jambeck (2004) study, it is possible to assume that if 1.26
mg As/L, 0.75 mg Cr/L, and 0.01 mg Cu/L leach from a waste stream containing 10.2%
CCA-treated wood, 3.68 mg/L As, 2.21 mg/L Cr, and 0.03 mg/L Cu will leach from a
waste stream containing 30% CCA treated wood. Therefore, if 650,000 L of leachate is
produced for 1 Mg of wood containing 30% CCA-treated wood, it will leach 2.39 kg As,
1.43 kg Cr, and 0.02 kg Cu. The arsenic and chromium amounts are greater than that
54
contained in the wood (1.2 kg As and 1.3 kg Cr). Thus, 100% of the amount of As and
Cr will leach in 500 years, while only 3% Cu is leached. These results are added to the
Lined Landfills. The biggest differences in lined versus unlined landfills are the
amount of leachate produced and the chemistry inside the landfill. In a lined landfill,
landfill, precipitation may enter the waste and produce leachate long after the final load
of waste is placed. In the MSW DST, an assumption is used that 20% of the precipitation
becomes leachate during the first 1.5 years, 6.6% in the subsequent 3.5 years, 6.5% the
following 5 years, and 0.04% after 10 years. This assumes that the most precipitation
becomes leachate when the waste is placed into the landfill cell, less precipitation when
part of the cell is finished and covered and part is still unfinished, and the least when the
disposed of with MSW, which is required under federal law to be disposed of in lined
landfills. Due to the complex chemistry of MSW, leachate concentrations for some
wastes are likely different than if C&D debris is disposed of by itself. Data are lacking
materials when co-disposed of. Thus, similar assumptions will be made as to the amount
of leaching per liter of leachate for most pollutants as was made for unlined landfills.
The exception is that of CCA-treated wood. Jambeck (2004) also did a leachate analysis
for CCA-treated wood when co-disposed of with MSW. Adjusting the results from that
study for 30% CCA-treated wood by weight, it is possible to determine the amount of As,
55
Cr, and Cu that will leach per Mg of wood waste. Table 4-2 lists all of the assumed
Table 4-2. Amount of pollutants of that will leach from each material in a lined landfill.
Pollutant Concrete Wood Drywall
(kg/Mg) (kg/Mg) (kg/Mg)
Arsenic - 0.06 -
Calcium 0.1 0.1 1.4
Carbonate 0.2 - 0.3
Chromium - 0.02 -
Copper - 0.001 -
Sulfate - - 2.7
Total dissolved solids 0.3 1.1 5.7
The scope of this life cycle assessment begins at the point of waste generation and
ends when the material is recycled or has dissipated into the environment. To recycle
C&D debris materials, they must be separated by material. This can either be performed
at the job site or recycling site. In a scenario where waste is separated at the job site,
materials are processed directly. Processing can occur either at a recycling facility or at
the market that will use the recycled material. If the materials are not separated at the job
site, they can be manually or mechanically separated for recycling at a recycling facility.
In a scenario where C&D debris is disposed of, it does not require separation and can be
There are two recycling scenarios: one where the waste materials are separated at
the job site by placing them into a separate bin or pile and one where they are separated at
the recycling facility by machine or by hand. Both scenarios are used in different areas
of the U.S. If waste is separated at the job site, it is assumed that no additional
Drywall. Drywall can be recycled into many markets, but one of the most
facing and backing (about 15% of the drywall content, by weight) and other contaminants
that may be mixed in the waste stream. The material must also be processed to reduce
the size of the material. Once the drywall is sufficiently processed, the gypsum can be
used by the markets for their applications. In drywall manufacture, the gypsum becomes
to remove the paper backing and other waste stream contaminants from the gypsum is of
most concern. Additionally, the gypsum must be size reduced to meet the market
specifications. There are different ways to accomplish this, but the method explored in
Florida for processing uses a trommel screen to separate the gypsum from the paper
backing. This method was able to achieve a 70% recovery rate, by weight (Townsend et
al., 2001). A loader is necessary to move the material around as well as initial size
reduction by running the loader over the pile several times. Table 4-3 provides the
energy requirements for all equipment used in the recycling and disposal scenarios. Once
the material is processed, it can then be recycled into new drywall, cement, or as an
environmental impacts from the use of the material in these markets will not be analyzed.
through recycled gypsum use. Although there are many markets for gypsum, one of the
most viable for recycled gypsum from drywall is new drywall manufacture. Thus,
57
scenario. There is a lack of data from the US on environmental impacts from gypsum
mining. While LCAs have been performed on cement (for which gypsum is an
ingredient), they often only assess the environmental impacts on site and do not include
impacts from purchased materials, such as gypsum (Marceau et al., 2006; Gabel et al.,
2004). The American Institute of Architects mentions that recycling drywall into new
drywall requires 30% less energy and is mined and processed similar to crushed stone
with explosives and draglines commonly used in surface mines. Thus, similar energy is
needed. This is confirmed by Sima Pro 5.1, which assumes that 53 MJ/Mg of energy is
Table 4-3. Equipment used in recycling processes and their energy requirements.
Energy Requirements
Equipment Name Waste Material (MJ/hour)
Range Assumed
a
Loader Drywall, wood, concrete, shingles 350 860 460
Excavatora Wood, concrete, shingles 150 390 280
Trommel screenb Drywall 300 600 440
Finger screen Wood, concrete, shingles, drywall 300 600 300
c
Horizontal grinder Wood, shingles 900 2,300 1,000
Tub grinderc Wood, shingles 500 4,800 2,500
HSI crusherd Concrete 500 1,400 870
a
Compactor All materials 700 1,500 1,080
Source: a Caterpillar; 2005; b Powerscreen, 2005, Morbark, 2005, Diamond Z; 2005, c Morbark, 2005,
Diamond Z, 2005, Bandit, 2004; d Eagle Crusher, 2005
Concrete. Concrete can be recycled into most markets that are currently satisfied
by crushed stone. The most common markets for recycled concrete are those in
construction, specifically road base (86%), asphalt concrete (8%), and general fill (6%).
The USGS reports that concrete recycling facilities fall into three processing categories:
small (110 x 106 Mg/year), medium (253 x 106 Mg/year), and large (312 x 106 Mg/year)
(Wilburn and Goonan, 1998). Typical concrete crushing facilities in the past consisted of
58
jaw and cone crushers for primary and secondary crushing. Eagle Crusher (Galion,
Ohio), one of the major manufacturers of concrete recycling equipment, reports that
horizontal shaft impactors (HSI) have replaced the jaw/cone crushing system as the most
popular systems purchased today (Chris Harris, Eagle Crusher, personal communication).
In addition to the HSI crusher, a recycling facility will generally have an excavator that
can crush very large pieces of concrete and place the concrete into the HSI crusher. A
loader is also needed to move material around and put the material into consumer trucks.
There are several sources for information on the amount of energy used by concrete
recycling facilities. Wilburn and Goonan (1998) reported that a Denver, Colorado
recycling facility used 34 MJ/Mg of concrete. Data from Sima Pro 5.1 show that an
average concrete recycling facility in the Netherlands uses 8.35 MJ/Mg (PR
Consultants, 2002). Neither of these sources discuss what is using this energy (machines,
buildings, etc.). According to brochures from Eagle Crusher, the most popular crusher
(the 1200-25 model) requires 325 hp (242 kW) of power and can process approximately
250 tons (227 Mg) per hour (Eagle Crusher, 2006). This equates to approximately 4
MJ/Mg. An excavator and loader moving the same amount per hour equates to 1 MJ/Mg
conservative estimate, however, as loaders probably do not move as much material per
If concrete is recycled, benefits are accrued through the reduction in need of virgin
aggregates that the recycled aggregate is able to replace. The major impacts to the
environment from mining and crushing rock are energy use and dust emissions. Both
59
Wilson (1993) and Wilburn and Goonan (1998) agree that crushed stone requires 54
MJ/Mg of energy. A database in Sima Pro 5.1 uses a 62 MJ/Mg of limestone factor (Pre
Consultants, 2002).
removed during renovation and demolition. The reuse of wood from old structures in
new buildings does occur, but is considered a very minor portion of C&D debris
management. Recycling of wood waste does occur, but it is generally recycled into
mulch.
Once the wood arrives at the recycling facility, unless already separated it is
separated from the other wastes. It is then put through a grinder usually a tub or
horizontal grinder. This scenario assumes a horizontal grinder as it is more compact and
safer for urban areas, where recycling facilities may exist. A horizontal grinder used at a
MJ/Mg (Morbark, 2006; Diamond Z, 2006; Bandit, 2006). The recycling facility will
need a loader to move material and an excavator to load the grinder. If a typical
recycling facility receives approximately 200 Mg/day of C&D debris, a loader and an
from the stream that is recycled, it is still found in mulch samples. It is assumed here that
the same amount of treated wood in the disposal stream enters the recycling stream.
Emissions to soil from the mulch, assuming that 30% of the wood is CCA treated with a
4.8 kg/m3 retention value, are the total amount of metals contained in the Mg of wood
60
1.2 kg As, 1.3 kg Cr, and 0.8 kg Cu. While this assumption may be high since many
recyclers do attempt to remove treated wood from the recycled stream, this amount has
been found in the recycled stream (Tolaymat et al., 2001). Additionally, it is important to
keep the same assumptions for all management methods of wood waste.
Since wood waste is recycled into mulch, energy savings from recycling will not
come from lack of lumber or structural wood manufacturing. The only savings that
might occur are those from the lack of natural resources needed in producing mulch.
There are a variety of sources for mulch: it is produced as a byproduct of the forest
industry, from yard wastes, from trees cleared to make room for new development or
utilities, and from trees felled for the sole purpose of making mulch. While data on the
that 60% of mulch was cypress; 20% pine bark; 17% recycled wood waste and mixed
hardwoods; and 1% pine straw, melaleuca, and cypress. Most cypress, pine bark, and
mixed hardwood mulch results as a byproduct of the forestry industry, but some cypress
trees are felled for mulch only (Duryea, 2001). Conversations with the Mulch and Soil
Council (MSC) found that, other than mulch from recycled C&D debris wood, most
mulch produced in the US is a byproduct of the timber industry, rather than from felled
trees (Lagosse, MSC, personal communication, 2006). This assessment will look only at
the scenario where mulch is created as a byproduct of the forest industry. Therefore, no
additional energy is needed to harvest the trees. Energy is, however, still needed to grind
the wood. A similar set-up as a recycling facility (without separation) is assumed with a
Asphalt Shingles. Asphalt shingles contain approximately 35% asphalt, 45% sand,
and 20% mineral filler (Newcomb et al., 1993). They are typically disposed of in
landfills, but can be recycled into asphalt concrete. Fiberglass-backed and felt-backed
roofing shingle wastes can be used in related bituminous applications, such as granular
1993). This scenario will investigate shingles use in dense-graded hot mix asphalt
mixtures. Asphalt shingles can be added to hot mix asphalt in percentages up to 10% by
(Newcomb et al., 1993; Grzybowski, 1993). At this percentage, the amount of asphalt
binder needed for the hot mix is reduced by approximately 28% (Newcomb et al., 1993).
Shingles are generally ground to a smaller size to ensure better melting and easier
adding to hot mix asphalt. A horizontal grinder, such as those used to grind wood for
mulch, has been shown to be effective in this endeavor (RMG, 2001). Horizontal
MJ/Mg of diesel energy. An excavator is needed to put the material in the grinder and a
loader is needed to move the material and load outgoing trucks. If a typical recycling
facility receives 200 Mg/year of C&D debris, a loader would require approximately 12
MJ/Mg of diesel energy. An excavator moving 40 Mg/hour of shingles into the grinder
If asphalt shingles replace asphalt from crude oil sources in asphalt cement, the
amount of asphalt needed is reduced in asphalt cement. Although native asphalt exists
naturally, almost all asphalt today is petroleum derived. In this process, crude oil is
extracted from deposits around the world and shipped to a refinery in the US. At the
62
refinery, the crude oil is passed through an atmospheric distiller and a vacuum distiller to
produce a basic asphalt cement (Lavin, 2003). The amount of energy needed to extract
oil, transport it to a refinery, and refine it to make bitumen (asphalt) is about 3,000
MJ/Mg (Zapata and Gambatese, 2005). The asphalt can then be transported (generally,
by rail or ship) to hot mix asphalt plants where it is kept heated until it is mixed with
aggregate. The final mixture must also be kept warm before being shipped to a road
recycling facilities that separate the waste materials mechanically. A screen is generally
used to remove fines from the larger pieces of debris. Generally, a trommel screen or a
finger screen is used in this application. Trommel screens are more likely to break up
drywall so that it is removed in the fines. A finger screen is necessary to remove drywall
in large pieces. A picking station is then needed to separate the big pieces of debris. The
picking station is generally powered off of the screen. An extra excavator is needed to
load the screen and pull large pieces of debris out of the waste stream. A typical C&D
Wood is incinerated along with other wastes, such as land-clearing debris and
municipal solid waste (MSW). Many of the incinerators are used in the production of
energy, but this is not always the case. Two scenarios are considered for incineration:
one with energy capture and one without. Either way, the wood is required to be ground
so that it may be more easily fed to the incinerator. Grinding is assumed to be conducted
63
in the same way that mulch is made with a horizontal grinder or tub grinder. The total
The ash from incinerators is generally disposed of. Solo-Gabriele et al. (2002)
examined the amount of heavy metals that leached from CCA-treated wood ash produced
from wood with CCA retention values of 4, 9.6, and 40 kg/m3. They also tested ash
produced from incinerating mixtures of treated and untreated wood. Adjusting the 4-
kg/m3 retention value leaching results from this study for 4.8 kg/m3 retention value and
30% treated wood (70% untreated wood), it is possible to estimate that the ash would
have leachate concentrations of 21.1 mg As/L, 10.3 mg Cr/L, and 0.02 mg Cu/L.
Jambeck et al. (In Press) also compared the environmental impacts of landfilling versus
incinerating treated wood waste and assumed the waste stream contained 2% treated
wood for disposal and 5% treated wood for incineration. Thus, the leachate values for
incineration ash in that study were much lower (1.76 mg As/L and 4.79 mg Cr/L). As
stated previously, the purpose of this study is to compare the management methods for
the same amount of waste. Therefore, the same assumption for all management methods
of wood waste is used (30% CCA-treated). Ash requires 0.0245 m2/Mg of landfill space
and, if leachate is produced as assumed in the MSW DST, the amount of metals released
in a lined landfill from the ash were 414 mg As, 202 mg Cr, and 0.4 mg Cu per Mg of
ash. This is equivalent to 8 mg As, 4 mg Cr, and 0.01 mg Cu per Mg of wood waste.
While heavy metals in CCA-treated wood can be volatilized into the air, fuel
composition that is expected at waste incinerators affect the percentage that is volatilized
(Iida et al., 2004). Thus, similar to the Jambeck et al. (In Press), it assumed that all heavy
64
metals concentrate in the ash rather than volatilize in the flue gas. This may be changed
if data regarding heavy metal content from actual wood waste incinerators are obtained.
Impacts considered in this LCA were global warming potential, human toxicity
potential, acidification potential, and abiotic depletion potential. Sima Pro 5.1 was used
to perform the impact analysis for comparison using the Centre of Environmental Science
(CML) 2 baseline 2000 impact method, with normalization for the Netherlands in 1997.
Figure 4-2 compares the impacts for each waste material. It must be noted that none of
These charts show that wood incineration with energy capture for electricity has the
biggest negative impact (offsetting the most emissions) of all methods of management for
all materials. It must be noted that while this method of management releases the lowest
amount of metals that cause human toxicity into the environment through ash leaching,
incineration concentrates the chemicals in the ash to an extent that the ash becomes
classified as a hazardous waste and must be disposed of as such. This can occur in wood
If energy is not captured for electricity from wood incineration, the preferable
method of management is disposal in a lined landfill. This method will keep metals from
treated wood from leaching after the landfill cell has closed. Thus, human toxicity is
reduced. Additionally, all methane generated from disposal will be collected and flared.
Therefore, global warming potential is reduced. If all treated wood is excluded from the
1,200
0
-9
-5
-11 -10
-13 -15
-15 -20
-17 -25
wood concrete drywall shingles wood concrete drywall shingles
Waste Material Waste Material
(c) (d)
Recycled, separated at the job site
Recycled, separated at a MRF
Disposed in an unlined landfill
Disposed in a lined landfill
Incinerated
Incinerated with energy recovery
Figure 4-2. Comparison of (a) global warming potential, (b) human toxicity potential, (c)
abiotic depletion potential, and the (d) acidification potential of various
methods of management for four C&D debris materials.
The energy consumption for each waste management process is listed in Table 4-4.
These energy requirements do not consider transporting of the material to the waste
Table 4-4. Summary of the energy requirements from each waste management scenario.
Asphalt
Concrete Wood Drywall
Scenario Shingles
(MJ/Mg) (MJ/Mg) (MJ/Mg)
(MJ/Mg)
Disposal 39 39 39 39
Recycling, job site separated -47 0 -30 -800
Recycling, separated at facility -33 14 -16 -790
Incineration with energy capture NA -12,700 NA NA
Incineration NA 24 NA NA
NA = Not Applicable
truck consumes the most energy, while an ocean freighter consumes the least. It is easy
to see how using a truck to transport material can increase energy consumption, even
over short distances. Thus, impacts to the environment are dramatically dependent on the
8,000
Truck (single unit)
Diesel locomotive
7,000 Barge
Ocean Freighter
Tractor Trailer
Energy Consumption (MJ/Mg)
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
-
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000
Distance (km)
Source: PR Consultants, 2002
The best method of management for drywall is recycling. Figure 4-2 shows that
Acidification results from the conversion of H2S gas to SO2 in the atmosphere.
Recycling asphalt shingles offsets impacts from using natural resources on the
recycling asphalt shingles has the most positive benefits due to the avoidance of creating
asphalt from crude oil. It must be emphasized that transportation effects must be
The sensitivity analysis was conducted by using a range of values collected in the
data inventory. While typical and most likely values were used in the impact assessment
described above, this analysis investigates how the possible range of values found could
cause the impacts to vary. Energy had the greatest variation in all scenarios, while
leachate and gas production variances produced many results for drywall and wood
scenarios.
Energy capture from wood waste can vary depending on the moisture content of the
wood. In fact, energy from wood incineration can vary from 8 to 16 GJ (Tchobanoglous
et al, 1993). This can cause the global warming potential value to range from -600 to
-2,000 kg CO2 equivalents (eq), the human toxicity potential to range from -60 to -140 kg
1,4-DB eq, the abiotic depletion potential to range from -10 to -20 kg Sb eq, and the
acidification potential to range from -15 to -30 kg SO2 eq. Given this variance,
incineration still has a great negative impact and is still the preferable method of
management is most affected by the amount of energy used in managing the debris at
waste facilities (and natural resource extraction). The range of energy requirements for
each management method is presented in Table 4-5. These ranges should also be
Table 4-5. Range of energy amounts needed by methods of C&D debris management.
Asphalt
Concrete Wood Drywall
Scenario Shingles
(MJ/Mg) (MJ/Mg) (MJ/Mg)
(MJ/Mg)
Disposal 24 53 24 53 24 53 24 53
Recycling, job site separated -40 -50 25 60 -25 -40 -800 -810
Recycling, separated at facility -30 -45 -15 -55 -15 -35 -790 -805
Incineration with energy capture NA -8,000 NA NA
-16,000
Incineration NA 25 60 NA NA
Regardless of the amount of H2S gas generated, recycling will still be the best
management method for drywall. The only deviation from this recommendation is if H2S
gas is not generated at all. Then, energy consumption from various methods of
management must be compared using the ranges of energy from Table 4-5.
The biggest impact from asphalt shingle management comes from avoiding
bitumen production. Energy consumption for bitumen production does not vary widely
unless sources of crude oil change. Thus, assuming sources of crude oil are static, energy
consumption from transportation will have the largest influence on impacts from
management. Where applicable, a range is presented first, with an average for the US
presented second. The costs presented are those paid by the hauler or contractor to the
69
recycling, incinerating, or disposal facility and are also known as tipping fees. For
recycling, some facilities accept clean debris for free but charge if the material is mixed
Table 4-6. Range of national tipping fees for methods of C&D debris management.
Waste Material ($/Mg)
Method of Waste
Management Asphalt
Concrete Wood Drywall
Shingles
Disposal Lined Landfill 30 100 30 100 30 100 30 100
Disposal Unlined Landfill 10 50 10 50 10 50 10 50
Incineration NA 10 100 NA NA
Recycling separated at the 0 80 0 80 0 80 0 80
job site
Recycling mixed debris 10 100 10 100 10 100 10 100
NA = Not Applicable; Source = William Turley, CMRA, personal communication
CHAPTER 5
EFFECTIVENESS OF POLICIES THAT ENCOURAGE C&D DEBRIS RECYCLING
5.1. Introduction
Recycling is often proposed as the best management method for all wastes. In
many locations, however, recycling is not the chosen method of management by the
generators of the waste. The reasons for the lack of recycling are varied, but include
meant to overcome those barriers, but the effectiveness of these policies is unknown.
This study investigated the policies for encouraging construction and demolition
(C&D) debris recycling. C&D debris generally includes concrete, wood, drywall, asphalt
shingles, asphalt concrete, metal, and other structural materials. As C&D debris becomes
more of a concern to the nation, governments will investigate the possibilities of using
The objectives of this research were to define possible policies that can be used to
encourage C&D debris recycling, find locations in the US where these policies had been
enacted, and determine their success. Policies were evaluated based on the potential for
increasing the recycling rate and potential costs. A survey was used to obtain this data
It is not easy to convert the current system of C&D debris management into one
that incorporates a large amount of recycling. Many barriers exist in the system. These
70
71
barriers can be overcome, however, as evidenced by other regions in the U.S. and in the
world.
C&D debris is generally managed by disposal. In most states in the US, C&D
debris is allowed to be disposed of in unlined landfills (Clark et al., 2006). Many states
that do require liners, however, only require natural clay liners and do not require landfill
Physical barriers to C&D debris recycling start with the way that it is often
collected. C&D debris in the US is most often collected in large 20- to 40-cubic-yard
containers. Debris is mixed in these containers, reducing the ability of the material to be
efficiently separated at an alternate location. Contractors do not have many options for
separating the material on site, however. Since the containers do not have divisions in
which to put different types of material, the only way to separate the material would be to
order multiple containers which can be a costly option (Townsend et al., 2001).
Economic barriers to C&D debris recycling include the low tipping fees at C&D
debris landfills. These tipping fees make it difficult to create a system in which recycling
do not reflect the costs to the environment that the C&D debris poses. Possible
contamination of the groundwater and other impacts will pose unknown costs. In
addition, natural resources that compete with recycled materials for markets are not
expensive. Thus, it is difficult in many areas for people to make money from recycling.
Political barriers can occur when policies that are currently in place inhibit
recycling is not stipulated in a franchise contract. Since the waste hauler is being paid to
collect the waste, they often do not have any incentive to recycle it. Many waste haulers
own the landfills that they take their waste to and recycling the debris would mean a loss
of revenue. Franchises can also prevent other waste haulers that would recycle from
collecting the waste. Another political barrier occurs when government regulators and
industry representatives that fear the impact of C&D debris recycling policies. Counties
have some understanding of the possible political objections that may result from
proposing new policies and can overcome such opposition with the right plan, which
includes involving industry and government representatives throughout a county plan and
the current mindset toward disposal. People are comfortable with the current system and
are resistant to change, especially when they perceive no reason to change. They often
do not understand how their actions can impact the environment. Barr and Gilg (In
Press) stress the need to understand the individual behavior patterns in crafting local
waste policy. It is important to understand what obstacles exist in a region and which
exist for many of these materials and have evaluated different processing techniques, but
the results clearly indicate that other factors act as impediments to wide-scale recycling.
Gypsum drywall, for example, has been demonstrated to be recyclable from a market and
underway. Additional barriers, most notably economic barriers, have continued to make
73
C&D debris recycling difficult in much of the state. Although these barriers do exist, it is
implemented in some areas of the country. In some cases, recycling becomes feasible
government officials and policy-makers have C&D debris recycling more attractive.
State and local governments face a large challenge in trying to encourage recycling.
economically inefficient and, have, with some exceptions, actually increased industry
are preferred. These mechanisms are supposed to integrate the environmental costs into
the economy. Market-based policies do have their problems, however. Merely the
speculation of increased prices drove market prices for recycled materials up in the price
spike of 1995. The prices then rapidly fell to normal levels the next year, causing many
to lose large investments in the recycling trade. What is the appropriate role of policy
Many types of policies can encourage recycling any wastes. A literature search
was performed to categorize the potential policies that could be used to encourage C&D
There are three types of policies: (1) direct regulation, (2) market incentives, and
(3) education (Barron and Ng, 1996). Direct regulations require or encourage waste
requirements, green building requirements, recycling goals, and salvage requirements are
all examples of direct regulation. Market incentives make waste diversion more
74
incentives. Education policies spread information to the public to make them aware of
recycling opportunities.
5.4.1. Methodology
The methodology used here is similar to that used by Barron and Ng (1996) and
Townsend et al. (2001). Barron and Ng listed many policies and ranked them according
Townsend et al. listed policies and their positive and negative characteristics.
The C&D debris policy analysis simplified the Barron and Ng (1996) list by
evaluating total cost, recycling rate, and regional characteristics. Data about each policy
were gathered by surveying cities, counties, and states that have implemented a C&D
debris policy that may encourage recycling. These governments were found by a
literature and internet search. The survey was conducted by telephone and persons
completed the survey were directly involved with the administration, implementation,
The city and county survey collected data including costs to administer the
program, enforce the program, and for purchasing needed recycling equipment.
Additionally, data on revenues made from advanced disposal fees or deposits were
collected. Counties and cities were also asked about the amount of C&D debris recycled
Table 5-1. Definitions of policies types that may encourage C&D debris recycling.
Name Description
Disposal ban A law or ordinance that specifically bans the disposal of
certain waste materials from being disposed of in a
landfill or restricted to certain landfills that have
increased protection of the environment, such as RCRA
Subtitle D or C landfills.
Disposal tax Artificially inflating the cost of disposal to make
recycling or reuse a more economical option to the
public.
Subsidized recycling Artificially decreasing the cost of recycling in order to
make recycling or reuse a more economical option to the
public.
Percentage recycling A law or ordinance that requires that a percentage of the
requirement waste stream is recycled.
Material recycling A law or ordinance that requires certain waste materials
requirement to be recycled.
Deposit/Advanced disposal A law or ordinance that requires the public to pay for
fee (ADF)/ Rebate disposal before waste generation (generally at the time
that the building permit is applied for). This fee is
returned if proof is given that the material is recycled.
Government waste recycling A law or ordinance that says that all government agency
requirement construction activity that produces waste (including
C&D debris) must recycle or divert from the landfill
some portion of that waste.
Government recycling A law or ordinance that requires government agencies to
purchasing requirement purchase materials that have some recycled content.
While legislation has been enacted in some states, their implementation has been
too recent to obtain results. Many states, however, have recycling goals that have the
potential to encourage C&D debris recycling. States known to encourage C&D debris
recycling and states that issue the most residential construction building permits were
investigated to determine the amount of C&D debris recycled in the state, the recycling
goal, the actual recycling percentage, and the effect that this goal has on the amount of
Six counties and 12 cities were contacted that had some sort of legislation that
encourages C&D debris recycling. Of the 18 contacted, 14 responded. Those that did
not respond were still evaluated from diversion data provided on the California Integrated
Waste Management Board (CIWMB) website (2006). These cities and counties were
permits (2005a). Additionally, periodicals that publish updates on new C&D debris
Table 5-2 presents the governments that were surveyed and some of their characteristics,
such as population, number of residential building permits issued in 2004, and the
average tipping fee for C&D debris. Not all counties had C&D debris facilities and, thus,
average tipping fees of the counties that surrounded them were used. Tipping fees that
were reported in dollars per cubic yard were converted to dollars per ton. Tipping fees
Table 5-2 shows that the surveyed cities and counties have a population range of
7,000 to 1.5 million. The number of residential construction building permits issued
77
ranges from 0 to 6,500 per year. While it may seem superfluous to have a C&D debris
policy in a location that does not issue many permits for residential construction, many of
these areas are already built up and renovations are the primary C&D activity that occurs.
Renovation data are not typically collected by a central source and, therefore, cannot be
easily accessed. Tipping fees in these areas range from approximately $30/ton to
$44/ton, which means that these areas do not have the most expensive tipping fees in the
US for C&D debris. Some areas of the Northeast US have tipping fees of up to $100/ton
communication). Most of these C&D debris ordinances are in California. While many
states have recycling goals, California has a mandated diversion amount. This has
prompted many cities and counties in California to target C&D debris to increase their
Cities and counties were surveyed by telephone. The survey and its results are
presented in Appendix B. All costs listed are incurred by the government, except for
direct costs to the public, which are created by the government and imposed on haulers,
contractors, or other persons. Average tonnages are averages throughout the program.
California does not track C&D debris specifically and estimates C&D debris generation
Results from the survey were varied and somewhat incomplete. Many locations in
California do not track the amount of C&D debris recycled and estimates must be used.
studies and disposal data. Many cities and counties did not know exactly the amount of
money spent on their policies, but estimated based on the amount of time that is spent
78
administering the policy. Each city and county surveyed is discussed below by policy
type implemented.
Disposal Restriction. Only one county, Orange County in North Carolina, had
implemented a disposal restriction. They restricted wood, pallets, cardboard, metal, and
land clearing from being disposed of in their landfill. The county owns and operates its
own C&D debris landfill and recycling the materials required purchasing equipment.
Additionally, people were needed to oversee the program. To encourage recycling, they
also reduced the tipping fee for these materials to $0/ton, thus, losing tipping revenues.
All of these items resulted in a cost for the county. They did accrue some revenue for
79
hauler licenses that were required for all haulers in the area; however, this revenue did
not compensate for the incurred costs. While the state has a recycling goal of 40%, the
countys own recycling goal is 60%. This policy allowed the county to achieve a 22%
through the US Green Building Council. Certifying a building as green means that the
buildings have excelled in five areas: sustainable site development, water savings, energy
efficiency, materials selection, and indoor environmental quality. While use of recycled
C&D debris materials and recycling of generated waste is promoted in this certification
process, it is possible to become certified without performing these tasks. These are not
often implemented to increase recycling and, therefore, recycling success is not widely
provided rebates for recycling. They generally required a fee when a building permit is
issued and offered the reimbursement of that fee if it is proven that a certain percentage
of the debris is recycled. This often results in revenue for the city or county because the
contractor does not return to obtain the reimbursement. The governments surveyed stated
that they rarely turned down a reimbursement when the paperwork was turned in. It was
not in the contractors interest to put the time in for the reimbursement, especially if the
cost is passed onto the consumer. Some governments stated that the number of
renovations, especially roofing replacements, in their region is high. There was a lack of
80
significant markets for roofing shingles; therefore, the renovation contractors were not
submit waste plans for their developments and show that they will recycle a percentage of
their waste stream. Cities and counties that have implemented this type of policy range in
population from 20,000 to 1.5 million. Many of the cities and counties required a fee
during the permit process to cover the administrative costs of this program. While the
policy allows the government to enforce the program, enforcement is rare. Instead, many
cities and counties rely on the contractors to follow through with their plan. Some
locations require their recycling facilities to be certified and, thus, required to recycle as
much C&D debris as possible. The waste management plans, therefore, are a backup
develop a plan to demonstrate that a percentage of the waste will be recycled. While
Once the data were gathered, they were compiled by policy type. Average
recycling successes and costs were found. Table 5-3 displays the results of this analysis.
This table shows that the deposits have the fewest costs per ton recycled. In fact, revenue
can be accrued. It also had the highest increase in C&D debris recycling rates. This
81
policy can be seen as the best for costs and recycling rates. Some locations, however,
All numbers presented in Table 5-3 were determined as an average of the survey
results. Thus, applications to other regions must take into consideration the
In 2005, Florida issued the most residential construction building permits of all
states in the US. Texas, California, Georgia, and North Carolina round out the top five
residential building permit states. These states are the most likely to face problems
associated with growth. Although all states in the US have been growing in population
over the past 15 years, not all states encourage C&D debris recycling or track the amount
legislation has been enacted in Massachusetts to ban unprocessed C&D debris from
recycling goal so that cities and counties must find ways of increasing the amount of their
total waste that is diverted, included C&D debris. Ohio recently enacted stricter
regulations on their C&D debris landfills that may make recycling more appealing.
Many states commonly use recycling goals to encourage recycling of any solid
waste, but primarily MSW. In some cases, C&D debris is included. The states were
reviewed to determine which had recycling goals and how successful those goals have
been in encouraging C&D debris recycling. Table 5-4 shows all of the states evaluated,
their recycling goal, the actual amount recycled and the amount of C&D debris recycled.
The highest recycling rates for C&D debris exist in New York and Massachusetts.
These regions typically have high tipping fees and recycling becomes a more viable
option. In fact, the disposal ban in Massachusetts is estimated to only increase the C&D
debris recycling rate from 80% to 89%, increasing the total recycled tonnage by
1,000,000 tons (Tellus Institute, 2003). Much waste from New York and Massachusetts
83
is exported from the states to Ohio, which is why Ohio is becoming more concerned
about the effects C&D debris landfills have on the environment and public health (OEPA,
2004). California has a mandated diversion amount, but the contribution of C&D debris
Table 5-4. State recycling goals and C&D debris recycling success.
Total Actual C&D debris C&D debris C&D debris
State Recycling Recycling Recycling recycled Recycled
Goal % % (tons/year) (tons/capita)
California 50% 60% * * *
Florida 30% 24% 34% 5,400,000 0.3
Massachusetts 70% 62% 80% 14,000,000 2.2
New York 40% 47% 60% 9,600,000 0.5
North 40% 19% 0.2% 20,300 0.0
Carolina
Ohio 25% 23% * * *
* No data were available for these categories. California calculates the amount of waste diverted by
looking at disposal figures and estimating the amount of waste that could have been generated using
population and economic trends. They do not track recycling amounts. Ohio does not track the amount of
C&D debris recycled in the state.
Florida has given some grants for recycling C&D debris, but most recycling that
occurs is a result of market mechanisms. While there is still additional room for
recycling in this growing state, the current amount recycled is high compared to other
states. As the fact that the recycling goal is close to being attained shows, many cities
and counties in Florida take the recycling goal seriously. Since some C&D debris
recycling contributes to this goal, some cities and counties attempt to recycle to
encourage C&D debris recycling. Additionally, the State of Florida encourages recycling
North Carolinas recycling rates are low, both in total and in their C&D debris
recycling rates. Their annual report shows that, since the policy is only a recycling goal,
many cities and counties do not take it seriously. While significant growth occurs in
North Carolina, the amount of C&D debris that is recycled is very low.
84
5.5. Discussion/Guidance
Local policies can be implemented quickly, but only with the approval of the
government. This can be difficult if public sentiment is not for recycling policies in
general. However, a policy that incurs little cost to the government, little cost to the
public, and large increases in recycling might be popular. Deposits (or advanced disposal
fees or rebates) have positive effects on recycling rates while keeping costs down.
Deposits generally appeal more to demolition contractors than to other contractors due to
the large return they may get. Other contractors may just pass the costs onto the
consumer. Percent recycling requirements and disposal bans, however, can ensure that
For any recycling policy, recycling facilities are needed. If there are no private
recycling facilities the government may need to set up a recycling operation so that the
contractors in the area may be able to legally manage their debris. This can be costly, as
seen in Orange County, North Carolina. Revenues from marketing the material,
however, may offset these costs, but markets should be explored before policy
For states, recycling goals do not seem to have an effect on the amount of C&D
debris that is recycled. Instead, state mandates for recycling, state encouragement of
recycling through grants, tipping fees, disposal scarcity, and markets have more impact.
The California counties and cities enacted policies to satisfy state diversion mandates,
while the North Carolina county needed a method to ease the problems foreseen due to
lack of disposal.
85
population of an area is seemingly irrelevant to the type of policy, costs for programs
such as percent recycling requirements and deposits can vary depending on the amount of
construction, renovation, or demolition activity that occurs. Table 5-5 presents questions
that cities and counties need to answer to help determine which type of policy will work
for them.
Table 5-5. Guidance questions for implementing C&D debris recycling policies.
Item Question Recommendation
1. Are there C&D debris Yes any No any policy will work,
recycling facilities close by? policy will but purchasing recycling
work equipment is necessary.
Government recycling
requirement may develop
recycling programs
2. What is the primary activity in construction - Renovation - Demolition
your area? % recycling % recycling Deposits/
requirements, requirements, ADF/ Rebate
disposal bans disposal bans
3. Do you have one or two staff Yes - % No Green
members that will be able to recycling building,
monitor the policy as part of requirements, government
their daily activities? disposal bans, recycling
Deposits/ADF requirement
4. Do you want to make sure that Yes No all other
the program does not cost Deposits/ADF policies
anything to the government
CHAPTER 6
CONCRETE RECYCLING IN FLORIDA: A CASE STUDY
Florida continues to grow rapidly from 2000 to 2005 the population in Florida
grew 11% while the total US population grew only 5% (US Census Bureau, 2000,
2005b). Construction activity is usually associated with growth. Florida issued more
residential construction building permits in 2005 than any other state even though it is not
the most populated state (US Census Bureau, 2005a). Concerns over the debris have
increased in recent years due to the volume disposed of, impacts to groundwater from
landfills, and odors produced from decomposing drywall. Recycling is often seen as a
of the C&D debris stream (Cochran, 2001). Many believe that concrete recycling could
be increased from its current status if several obstacles to concrete recycling could be
overcome. Unknowns remain about waste concrete in Florida, including the amount that
waste concrete generated, a materials flow analysis was performed. A market capacity
Life cycle assessments were performed to compare the environmental impacts from
86
87
disposing and recycling concrete. Finally, a policy analysis was performed to determine
facilities that accept mixed C&D debris report the amount that they accept, dispose, and
recycle. The amount that was disposed of in Florida, however, is not separated into
material type. Additionally, other facilities only accept clean concrete debris, not mixed
C&D debris, and are not required to report the amount that they recycle to the FDEP. It
is necessary to estimate the amount of concrete disposed of and the amount that these
facilities recycled.
composition. This estimation found that approximately 2.1 x 106 Mg of concrete was
generated in Florida during 2000, which represented around 56% of the building-related
C&D debris stream. Cochran et al.s method used building permit data to determine
annual area (m2) of construction, demolition, and renovation activity. They then
multiplied the area by a typical waste generation factor (kg/m2) found from job site waste
studies. This estimate, however, only investigated building-related debris and did not
A materials flow analysis can be used to estimate waste generation by studying the
amount of materials that are consumed and estimating when those materials might enter
the waste stream. This approach has been used in estimating national C&D debris
generation, but there have been no attempts at using this method regionally. A materials
flow analysis was used to determine the amount of waste concrete generated in Florida,
buildings, roads, bridges, and other structures. Calculations of waste generation were
divided into two equations: construction waste generation (including the construction or
installation portion of renovation waste) and demolition waste generation (including the
Concrete waste from construction was estimated by first estimating the amount of
concrete consumed in Florida (MC) and applying a waste factor (wc), as shown equation
6-1. Consumption of concrete can be found from the US Geological Survey (USGS) and
the waste factor can be found from construction guides. As all contractors must estimate
the amount of materials that they need, they generally use a waste factor to estimate how
much additional material they will need above the amount that will end up in the
building.
C CW = M C w c (6-1)
The amount of concrete consumed is not available, but can be approximated using
cement consumption in Florida. The amount of cement consumed can be found from the
building (47%), roads and bridges (33%), and other structures (20%) was found from the
Portland Cement Association (PCA, 2006). While the PCA does produce this
information for Florida, limited resources prevented the research team from acquiring it.
Thus, national figures were used. Figure 6-1 shows the consumption of concrete in
Florida. Florida consumed approximately 7.8 x106 Mg of cement in 2002, which makes
120
100
Concrete Consumed (million Mg)
80
60
40
20
0
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year
Figure 6-1. Historical consumption of concrete in Florida based on reported cement
consumption.
Demolition waste was calculated by subtracting the concrete waste from the
consumption data and estimating when that material would be taken out of service, as
shown in equation 6-2. Service lives have been estimated in literature for life cycle and
durability assessments. Concrete has different service lives, depending on the structure,
as shown in Table 6-1. This table also shows the associated concrete consumption in
years from which materials are expected to be removed from service in 2002. An
example calculation of demolition waste for concrete with a 50-year service life is shown
in equation 6-3.
The total amount of waste concrete generated in Florida during 2002 was between
40 and 61 x 106 Mg, with an estimate of 60 x 106 Mg using a typical service life
assumption. Figure 6-2 shows the range of possible waste generation results from each
job activity. The amounts estimated are quite large. In fact, the FDEP estimates that
only approximately 6.4 x 106 Mg of C&D debris was collected by Florida permitted
C&D debris landfills and recycling facilities (FDEP, 2002). This amount, however, does
not include debris that went to municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills or non-permitted
recycling facilities.
In Florida, facilities that accept and recycled only clean debris that is not mixed
with other construction materials are not required to obtain a C&D debris recycling
facility permit. Therefore, they are not required to report the tonnage they recycle to the
state. Since no data exists on the amount that these facilities recycle, they were surveyed
to acquire this information. Fifty-three concrete recyclers were surveyed around the state
in person and by phone. Figure 6-3 presents results from this survey. In addition, Figure
91
6-3 also presents the amount recycled by other types of facilities, including permitted
C&D debris facilities. Also shown are crushed stone producers, as some have begun to
recycle concrete to keep their market share. The total amount of concrete recycled in
70
60
Concrete Waste Generated (million Mg)
50
40
30
20
10
0
Building Building Road & Road & Other Other Total
Construction Demolition Bridge Bridge Construction Demolition Concrete
Construction Demolition Waste
Job Activity
Figure 6-2. Concrete waste generated in 2002 from various job types as estimated using
a materials flow analysis.
All of the C&D debris landfills in Florida are required to report the entire amount
of waste they disposed of, but are not required to break this number down by category.
Thus, there is no official number for the amount of concrete disposed of. Instead,
estimations performed at C&D debris landfills around the state can be used. A survey of
13 Florida C&D debris landfill operators found that concrete represented about 30% of
the waste stream by volume (Cochran, 2001). Visual characterization studies at nine
landfills have found that concrete represents an average of 14% of the waste stream by
92
volume (RW Beck, 2001a; RW Beck 2001b; Reinhart et al. 2002). Using an average of
these studies it is possible to infer that concrete represents about 22% of the C&D debris
stream by volume. Since Florida disposed of approximately 6.4 x 106 Mg of mixed C&D
debris in 2002, this means that approximately 3.1 x 106 Mg of concrete was disposed of
4.5
3.5
Amount Recycled
3
(million Mg)
2.5
1.5
0.5
0
C&D Debris Clean Concrete Crushed Stone Total
Facilities Facilities Producers
Concrete Recycler Type
Figure 6-3. Amount of concrete recycled in Florida during 2004 by permitted and
nonpermitted facilities.
Summing the amount disposed of in C&D debris landfills and the total amount
recycled, Florida generated about 8 x 106 Mg of concrete. This is far less than the
materials flow analysis estimates. Thus, the assumptions used in the materials flow
Recycled concrete can replace natural aggregate in many markets that uses crushed
stone, such as fill, aggregate base and subbase for roads, and rip rap (Robinson et al.,
93
2004). Florida is one of the largest aggregate producers in the country. The USGS
reported that Florida produced 97.5 x 106 Mg of crushed stone at 91 operations and 78
quarries in 2003. Figure 6-4 shows the various uses of crushed stone (limestone and
dolomite) in Florida during 2003 (Tepordei, 2003). This natural supply of aggregate in
The USGS reports the amount of crushed stone produced not only by state but by
district. They break Florida up into four districts, as shown in Figure 6-5. As Figure 6-6
shows, concrete recycling faces the largest competition in District 4 and the least
comparison, production share of crushed stone. Thus, District 2 has the largest potential
for concrete recycling. A recent survey of concrete recyclers found that much concrete
recycling does occur in this district. Figure 6-6 shows the percentage share of concrete
6.4. Using LCA to Determine Best Management Practice in Five Major Cities in
Florida
The practice of lake fill is common in South Florida, where it is common for some
recyclers to fill in old borrow pits, now filled with rain water, with clean concrete that
they cannot otherwise recycle. There has been no comparison of the environmental
Life cycle assessments were used to compare the environmental impacts from
various management methods for waste concrete in five major Florida cities:
Jacksonville, Miami, Orlando, Pensacola, and Tampa. The environmental impacts that
94
were considered were global warming potential and impacts to freshwater from concrete
leachate.
Concrete
aggregate
11.0%
Bituminous
aggregate
10.3%
Other uses
53.8% Roadstone and
coverings
16.4%
Riprap and
railroad ballast
Agricultural 0.4%
Other
uses construction
0.3% uses
Figure 6-4. Uses of crushed stone produced in Florida during 2003.
100
Crushed Stone Production
90 Concrete Recycling
80 Population
70
Percentage Share 60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4
USGS District
Figure 6-6. Percentage share of crushed stone production and population by district.
compared were disposal in an unlined landfill, recycling (with crushed stone avoidance),
and use as lake fill. Transportation impacts between unit processes were considered. The
life cycle in each scenario begins at the point of waste generation and ends at the point
that the concrete dissipates into the environment. Impacts from use in recycling are
assumed to be the same as limestone use and are, therefore, not considered. For example,
if concrete is recycled into road base, impacts are considered from transporting the
concrete from the recycling facility to road construction site but impacts from the placing
of the recycled concrete are not considered. Impacts from infrastructure use or
construction were not considered (landfill construction, road construction, etc.). Impacts
from manufacturing equipment used to process materials were not considered. Figure 6-
Recycling/ Recycling/
Processing Processing
(job site (separated at
separated) the facility)
Road
Construction
Lake fill
Aggregate
mining/ crushing
Figure 6-7. Material flow in the life of waste concrete, including substitution for crushed
stone when recycled.
Data were gathered from literature, equipment manufacturers, and the Franklin
Associates database in Sima Pro 5.1. Data on leachate produced in landfills were
gathered on studies performed on C&D debris landfill leachates. Assumptions for typical
equipment used at landfills and recycling facilities were made based on conversations
major impacts from concrete disposal in an unlined landfill come from the leachate
produced, energy used at the landfill, and energy used for transportation to the landfill.
Leachate is generated from the contact of rainfall with waste materials. Florida
receives approximately 135 cm/year of rain and 20% of this rain will become
approximately 135,000 L of leachate over 500 years. The major impacts to leachate from
concrete are in the form of carbonate and total dissolved solids. Under these conditions,
concrete.
97
requirements of equipment at disposal and recycling facilities and the amount of material
each machine processes. These data are used to calculate the amount of energy needed
Table 6-2. Energy requirements of equipment found at concrete and mixed C&D debris
recycling and disposal facilities in Florida.
Energy Requirements Material
Equipment (MJ/hour) Processing Rate
Range Assumed (Mg/hour)
a
Compactor 700 1,500 1,080 34
HSI Crusherb 500 1,400 870 230
Loadera 350 860 460 230, 34
Excavatora 150 390 280 230
Finger Screenc 300 600 300 34
Source: a Caterpillar, 2005; b Eagle Crusher, 2005; c Erin Systems; 2003
Transportation is needed from the job site to the landfill. It is assumed that the job
site is at the city center for each city. A list of C&D debris landfills was provided by the
FDEP. Table 6-3 lists the shortest distances from each city center to a C&D debris
Table 6-3. Assumed distances between the C&D debris landfills and the cities centers.
Shortest Distance from City
City Center to a C&D Debris Landfill
(km)
Jacksonville 29
Miami 15
Orlando 23
Pensacola 8
Tampa 30
Concrete can be recycled into many different markets that consume crushed stone,
with the primary market of road base (Wilburn and Goonan, 1998). This scenario
98
assumes that the concrete will be recycled into road base and that it can arrive at the
recycling facility either mixed or separated at the job site. If it is mixed, it must be
separated at the recycling facility using a finger screen, picking station, and an extra
excavator to load the screen. Table 6-2 shows the energy consumption from these
machines.
After the concrete is separated (either at the job site or at the recycling facility), it
must be crushed into the appropriate size needed by road contractors. This can be
performed using a horizontal shaft impact (HSI) crusher. A front loader is used to move
the material at the recycling facility from the crusher to the truck. An excavator is
assumed to be needed to load the crusher and a loader is needed to move the recycled
product from the crusher to trucks and stockpiles. Table 6-2 shows the energy
energy will be avoided from mining limestone. A typical crushed stone mine will
facility and from the recycling facility to the end user the road construction site. The
recycling facility is assumed to be in the same city as the both the site where the waste is
generated and the road construction job site. Shortest distances from the city centers to
the recycling facilities are listed in Table 6-4. A recycling scenario assumes an
avoidance of mining natural limestone in Florida. Table 6-4 provides distances from
99
single unit diesel truck consuming 3.6 MJ/Mg-km (PR Consultants, 2002).
Table 6-4. Assumed distances between recycling facilities, limestone mines, and the city
centers.
Shortest Distance from City Shortest Distance from the City
City Center to a Recycling Facility Center to a Limestone Mine
(km) (km)
Jacksonville 1 31
Miami 44 6
Orlando 8 11
Pensacola 9 409
Tampa 10 9
Lake fill is the process of filling in an old surface mine or borrow pit (which has
subsequently filled with water) with clean debris, such as concrete, to make more land.
This waste management method takes place at C&D debris recycling facilities and is
most often seen in south Florida. This area is where most Florida C&D debris recycling
facilities are located due to high tipping fees and where proximity to limestone mines has
Impacts from lake fill include increased water pH due to carbonate in the concrete
and energy consumption from transportation to the recycling facility and from equipment
used to separate C&D debris materials at the recycling facility. It is assumed that the
The same assumptions used for transportation from city centers to the recycling
facility are used here, but no transportation is needed from the recycling facility or for
limestone mine avoidance. Energy requirements at the recycling facility are the same as
carbonate into the water, causing the pH level to rise. Eventually, the lake will be filled
with concrete. This analysis does not take land use impacts into account due to the
unknown length of time that a recycling facility may last and, therefore, the amount of
concrete recycled per area of land used is unknown. Even this assessment did take land
use into account, lake fill might be seen as a beneficial land use as it reclaims rather than
destroys land. Before the lake is filled, however, the carbonate releases to the water can
increase the pH. This depends on surface area and clean concrete disposed of in this
manner enters in all sizes from ground fines to large chunks. One megagram of
The major impacts that concrete has in management come from the energy used to
manage the debris and the leaching of carbonate and other dissolved solids. Thus, the
impact considered was global warming potential, while carbonate leaching was
considered separately. Sima Pro 5.1 was used to conduct the impact analysis using the
Centre for Environmental Studies (CML) 2 baseline 2000 method, with normalization for
the Netherlands (PR Consultants, 2002). Figure 6-8 shows the global warming potential
In addition to energy usage, concrete releases carbonate into the water when
disposed of in an unlined landfill or as lake fill. Lake filling concrete releases the most
carbonate in this fashion (186 kg versus 29 kg). Lake fill, however, will eventually fill
20
-20
-40
-60
-80
Landfill
Recycling, Separation at Recycling Facility
-100
Recycling, Job Site Separation
Lake fill
-120
Jacksonville Miami Orlando Pensacola Tampa
City
Figure 6-8. Global warming potential of various methods of concrete waste management
in five Florida cities.
Table 6-5 lists the total energy requirements of all management options in five
major cities in Florida. The break-even point to make recycling (with job site separation)
a better option than disposal from an energy standpoint is 24 km. In other words, the
distance that the material must be transported to and from the recycling facility
(subtracting the avoided transportation from the limestone mine to the road construction
job site) must not be greater than 24 km further than the distance concrete must be moved
(equation 6-5).
Distance from
Distance from Distance from Distance from
the point of (6-5)
waste generation + the recycling - the limestone 24 km + the point of
facility to the mine to the waste generation
to the recycling
to the landfill
point of use point of use
1 4 4 4 2 4 4 43
14 4 4 4 4 4 44 4 442 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 43
facility
Disposal Scenario
Recycling Scenario, Job Site Separatio n
102
The break-even point to make recycling (with facility site separation) preferable is 20 km.
The break-even point to make lake fill preferable over disposal is 5 km. The break-even
point to make recycling with job site separation and facility separation over lake fill is 19
Table 6-5. Energy requirements of various concrete waste management options in five
Florida cities.
Energy Consumed (MJ/Mg)
Scenario
Jacksonville Miami Orlando Pensacola Tampa
Disposal 140 93 120 68 147
Recycling, job site separated -150 250 -29 -1,500 -7
Recycling, facility separated -140 260 -15 -1,400 7
Lake fill 25 180 50 53 57
Table 6-5 shows that recycling is preferable to disposal and lake fill in all cities
except Miami. This is due to the location of recycling facilities and proximity to
limestone mines in this area. In fact, the reason that lake fill has become a popular
method of management is due to proximity of limestone mines, which competes with the
same markets as recycled concrete aggregate. If the job sites are closer to the recycling
facility than the city center, however, recycling becomes a better option.
Many types of recycling policies can be enacted locally to encourage C&D debris
recycling in Florida. Types of policies and their definitions are listed in Table 6-6.
county or city wanted to encourage C&D debris recycling, however, several questions
C&D debris recycling facilities, especially concrete recyclers, exist throughout the
state. Facilities that accept mixed debris and separate it, however, exist mostly in South
104
Florida. Thus, ability to separate the material would have to be developed or job site
Table 6-7. Guidance questions for implementing C&D debris recycling policies.
Item Question Recommendation
1. Are there C&D debris Yes any No any policy will work,
recycling facilities close by? policy will but purchasing recycling
work equipment is necessary.
Government recycling
requirement may develop
recycling programs
2. What is the primary activity in construction - Renovation - Demolition
your area? % recycling % recycling Deposits/
requirements, requirements, ADF/ Rebate
disposal bans disposal bans
3. Do you have one or two staff Yes - % No Green
members that will be able to recycling building,
monitor the policy as part of requirements, government
their daily activities? disposal bans, recycling
Deposits/ADF requirement
4. Do you want to make sure that Yes No all other
the program does not cost Deposits/ADF policies
anything to the government?
Most areas in Florida see more construction activity than renovation or demolition
activity. Thus, percent recycling requirements or disposal bans could work best. If a city
or county did not have sufficient staff to carry out the disposal ban or percent recycling
Using results of a survey of local cities and counties that have C&D debris
recycling policies, an approximate cost and a total amount recycled can be estimated.
Table 6-8. Results of a survey of local cities and counties that have enacted C&D debris
recycling policies.
Policy Type Disposal Green Deposit/ % Govt. Total/
Ban Building ADF/ Recycling Recycling Average
Rebate Req. Req.
#of locations 1 2 5 8 1 17
implemented
Ave. cost/ $3.90 $ - $(0.51) $0.38 $ - $0.75
person/year
Ave. cost/ton $51.83 $ - $(8.75) $ 0.16 $ - $9.00
recycled
Ave. total 23% 9% 10% 7% 9% 12%
recycling rate
increase
Ave. total lbs 150 300 25,000 3,000 250 5,700
recycled/person/
year
Ave. cost/ $400 $ - $(7,300) $66 $ - $(1,400)
residential
construction
building permit
issued
Ave. tons 8 30 4,200 240 266 120
recycled/
residential
construction
building permit
issued
If the population of Florida (over 17.8 x 106 people) is applied to the costs and
recycled amounts per person, costs and successes can be estimated for Florida. Table 6-9
presents these costs and successes. These figures should be looked upon with great
skepticism as the data used to make the estimations come from areas that have different
Another estimation can be performed using building permit data, but this is seen as
unreliable since many of the cities and counties surveyed did not issue many construction
106
permits mostly renovation and demolition permits. The disposal restriction is the
costliest, but this estimation is based on data from a county that had enacted this policy
had to provide the recycling equipment and were recycling without revenue. The
Deposit/ADF/rebate policy provided the most benefits and least costs, but this policy is
best in locations where there is a great deal of demolition or renovation activity not in
requirements seem to have the most success with little cost and should be used in Florida.
Table 6-9. Estimated costs and successes if C&D debris recycling policies are applied in
Florida.
Deposit/ % Govt.
Disposal Green
Policy Type ADF/ Recycling Recycling
Restriction Building
Rebate Req. Req.
Cost/year 69 0 -9 7 0
(millions of dollars)
Amount recycled/year 1 2 202 24 2
(million Mg)
6.6. Discussion
Concrete recycling can and does occur successfully. The case study here has found
that a significant amount of concrete waste is generated. In the materials flow analysis,
this amount is very large. However, surveys of concrete recyclers and disposal facilities
show that the materials flow analysis may provide an estimate that is too high.
The market capacity analysis shows that there is sufficient capacity to recycle all of
the concrete, but locations of where the recyclers exist are important. While extensive
markets seem to exist near Miami, plentiful crushed stone producers exist in that area. In
contrast, a large market exists near Orlando and Jacksonville; however, few crushed stone
The life cycle assessment shows that recycling concrete has a negative impact
(positive benefit) on the environment for most areas except for Miami. Recycling in
some areas of Miami can consume more energy than disposal; all this is not the case if
the job sites are located closer to the recycling facility. Transportation is largely the
cause of the environmental impacts, although pollution to the leachate in the form of
The policy analysis performed here was very general. A more in-depth policy
analysis is necessary for individual cities or counties, but the policies that will likely
encourage the most recycling while keeping costs low are percent recycling requirements
and disposal bans. These policies are favored for areas with much construction activity.
CHAPTER 7
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1. Summary
C&D debris is a waste stream that will continue to need ongoing research and
investigation. The results of the studies provided in this dissertation have shown that it is
a sizeable waste stream with large potential for recycling, but impacts to the environment
policies are not always necessary. Finally, case studies focus on a specific area to help
local solid waste managers decide how to best manage their waste.
This study presented a methodology for using a materials flow analysis to calculate
the amount of C&D debris generated in the US. This materials flow analysis used
material consumption and service life to estimate the amount of debris generated per
year. This approach considered all construction materials consumed each year. The total
amount of C&D debris generated was estimated as 0.90 x 109, 1.05 x 109, or 1.10 x 109
service life. The range of C&D debris composition was 61 to 75% portland cement
The materials flow analysis method of calculating the amount of debris generated is
an effective method as long as the best assumptions are used. Assumptions used for the
service life of construction materials, especially that of concrete, will have the largest
108
109
impact on the total amount of debris generated. Thus, more studies are needed as to the
Multiple C&D debris estimation methods are needed to more accurately describe
the debris stream. Different methods can produce a range of estimated C&D debris
generation amounts. This will help solid waste managers understand the potential
magnitude of the problem so that they can make more informed decisions on how to
manage it. The materials flow analysis can also be used regionally as long as
consumption of the construction materials is known in that region. This method can
provide an insight into the amount of waste generated as well as the composition of that
waste.
C&D debris is not heavily recycled in many areas of the US. This study aimed to
determine if lack of market capacity is a reason for this. Four major materials from the
C&D debris stream were studied: concrete, wood, drywall, and asphalt shingles. Typical
markets were investigated to determine their current demand for materials that are or
Concrete is the only material that does not face substantial competition from other
recycled materials. Its main competitor is crushed stone, which is plentiful. Many
regions of the US, however, do not produce crushed stone but do have a need for
aggregates that could be replaced by recycled concrete. Thus, there is sufficient capacity
The other materials wood, drywall, and asphalt shingles all face substantial
competition from other recycled materials. Thus, market development is needed for these
materials. This is likely to happen for wood, as the US moves toward renewable energy
110
sources and away from foreign sources of energy. While substantial markets currently
exist for recycled gypsum from drywall and FGD gypsum, the amount of FGD gypsum is
expected to increase two to three times its current production. This will likely decrease
the desirability of recycling drywall. Sufficient market capacity does not currently exist
for asphalt shingles and competition from manufacturer scrap decreases its desirability.
A life cycle analysis was conducted for four C&D debris materials on various
were global warming potential, human toxicity potential, abiotic depletion potential, and
acidification potential. Data from C&D debris leaching studies, hydrogen sulfide
Recycling was found to be the optimal option for concrete, drywall, and asphalt
Concrete management through recycling or disposal had few other impacts beyond
could cause recycling to be more harmful to the environment than a disposal scenario.
Incineration was found to be optimal for wood waste, even though it was assumed that
the wood waste stream would consist of 30% CCA-treated wood. Incinerating high
concentrated in the ash to the extent that the ash must be treated as a hazardous waste.
The avoidance of electricity generation from other typical sources and the decrease in the
111
preferable option.
The validity of this study depends on the assumptions. As the sensitivity analysis
shows, this variation can be large but does not change the results extensively. For
example, even if CCA-treated wood is not present in the wood waste stream, incineration
generation from typical sources. If other sources for assumptions were found, however, a
This study evaluated the environmental impacts from management methods for
C&D debris. While recycling is typically encouraged as the best method of management,
this study aimed to find if this was truly the best management method for all materials
given impacts that recycling can have. The results of this study can be used by
government at all levels (federal, state, and local) to better aim their solid waste policies.
An analysis was performed on policies that have been enacted to encourage C&D
debris recycling. A survey of cities, counties, and states was performed to collect data on
costs incurred by the policies and recycling successes. Policies that require contractors to
recycle a percentage of their waste seem to encourage the most recycling while incurring
the fewest costs. While there is little enforcement in most cases, recycling does occur.
Advance disposal fees (or deposits or rebates) accrue a great deal of revenue, but in
construction and renovations these costs to the contractor or hauler seem to be passed on
to the customer and do not really encourage recycling. While these policies do encourage
recycling, a great deal of public support is needed in state and local governments.
112
A case study was performed on C&D debris concrete in Florida to estimate the
amount generated, the potential for recycling in the state, to determine if recycling is the
best method of management, and to determine if policies could be used in the state to
Florida. The materials flow analysis, however, appears to overestimate the amount
generated by five to seven times the actual amount generated. Assumptions should be
adjusted and refined to make better estimates. A market analysis for waste concrete
showed that extensive potential market demand for the recycled material exists in
Florida, especially in the northwestern and northeastern portions of the state. There is a
lack of markets in South Florida, however. Life cycle assessments prove that recycling
can have the fewest impacts on the environment, but the greatest impact avoidance occurs
in the northwestern and northeastern portions of the state. In general, job site separated
recycling is best when a recycling scenario (including crushed stone mining avoidance)
requires that material be transported no more than 24 km more than a disposal scenario.
7.7. Conclusions
C&D debris is a large waste stream of concern. Even if some estimates are too
high, examination of the materials consumed show that there is a great potential
The materials flow analysis estimates larger amounts of C&D debris generation
than previous estimates. In the US, this method estimated as much as 2.6 times
the amount from a previous method. In Florida, this method estimated five to
Markets for concrete and wood are plentiful, but markets for drywall and asphalt
concrete.
most areas of Florida, except near Miami. Due to the proximity of limestone
mines and distance of recycling facilities, lake fill or landfill may be preferable
in some areas.
Thus, this study did not collect the data initially or perform the studies that provided
much of the data used, but aggregated the data and analyzed it in a manner that has not
been done before. It contributes to a greater knowledge of the C&D debris stream,
The materials flow analysis would greatly benefit from additional research on
service lives and the percentage of materials that are abandoned rather than discarded.
This is especially true for concrete in other structures, which could represent anything
114
from stadiums to concrete light poles and pipes. Since the amount of concrete consumed
is so high, these assumptions have a great impact on the results of the analysis.
The market capacity analysis greatly depended on central sources that collected
data on the amount of materials consumed in each state. Since few sources exist that
compile this information, additional sources are needed to provide better and more
complete information. This is especially true for asphalt pavement and asphalt shingle
production, for which the US Census Bureaus Economic Census was consulted.
The results of the LCA study rely entirely on the accuracy of assumptions.
Additional research is needed to determine the true impact of co-disposing all C&D
debris and incinerator ash with MSW. Additionally, more information on other air
pollutants, such as particulates, from waste management facilities and natural resource
product facilities would enhance the results of this study. True waste generation values
of CCA-treated wood and its degree of weathering throughout the US are important in
information on the escape into the flue gas of arsenic, chromium, and copper from CCA-
Recent policies enacted in cities, counties, and states need to be followed into the
future. Many of the policies discussed in this dissertation were only recently enacted and
the future success of the policies is unknown. Lessons learned from following the
115
116
148
149
Dear:
I read with great interest about the {policy that exists there in [city/county/state]}.
While I have been able to find a considerable amount of information about this that is
available on the internet, some of the data we are gathering is not. This is where I need
your help. We are collecting information regarding costs, revenues and recycling success
of the program that was implemented. Upon your convenience, please fill out the
questionnaire on the next page and return it to me via email at steph2uf@ufl.edu or fax at
352-392-7735.
If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me. Any help
that you can provide is greatly appreciated. Thank you very much for your time.
Sincerely,
Stephanie L. Henry
Research Assistant
150
Policy Title:
City/County:
These questions are looking for the amount of money that your [city or county] had to
spend to get this policy rolling. If you are unsure of the answers, approximate numbers
are fine.
1) Did your [city/county] have to buy any equipment for the program? If so, what
equipment was purchased? Approximately how much did you spend to purchase the
equipment?
2) Please fill in the table based on the countys annual budget for the policy.
Other Administration
Enforcement
1) How much revenue from licenses or permits does the [county or city] collect per
year?
1) Please fill in the following table about the tonnage recycled and disposed in your
[city/county].
Recycled?
3) Please provide a mark in the box next to the recycling programs that your
[city/county]participates in? Please provide names of other programs that your
[city/county] participates in but have not been listed.
152
Curbside Pick-Up
Drop-Off
Buy Recycled
Newsprint Program
Trash Bag Program
Used Oil Program
School Waste Reduction Campaign
White Office Paper Collection
Other programs:
Follow-Up
May I contact you if I have any additional questions? If so, please list the best way to
contact you.
Name:
Title:
Table B-1. Results of the city C&D debris recycling policy survey.
City Pleasanton Berkeley Cotati Atherton
Policy Type Green Green Salvage Deposit/ADF/
Building Building Rebate
Length of Program ~ 3 years ~2 years ~13 years ~7 years
Ave. C&D debris Unknown
recycled prior to
program (tons/year)
Ave. C&D debris Unknown
disposed prior to
program (tons/year)
Ave. total waste
recycled prior to
program (tons/year)
Ave. total waste 139,790
disposed prior to
program (tons/year)
Ave. C&D debris Unknown 435,295
recycled during
program (tons/year)
Ave. C&D debris 88,632
disposed during
program (tons/year)
Ave. total waste
recycled during
program (tons/year)
Ave. total waste
disposed during
program (tons/year)
C&D debris recycling
rate before policy
C&D debris recycling
rate after policy
Total recycling rate 48% 52% Unknown 31%
before policy
Total recycling rate after 52% 57% 39% 55%
policy
Direct cost to the public $0.00 $0.00 Publishing fee $-10.00
Initial equipment cost $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Annual operation & $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
maintenance costs
Administration costs $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $30,000
Enforcement costs $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Revenues per year $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $30,000
Revenues lost per year $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
154
Table B-1. Results of the city C&D debris recycling policy survey (continued).
City Laguna San Jose Santa Oakland
Hills Monica
Policy Type Deposit/ Deposit/ Deposit/ Deposit/
ADF/ ADF/ ADF/ ADF/
Rebate Rebate Rebate Rebate
Length of Program ~3 years ~5 years ~6 years ~6 years
Ave. C&D debris recycled
prior to program (tons/year)
Ave. C&D debris disposed 150,000
prior to program (tons/year)
Ave. total waste recycled
prior to program (tons/year)
Ave. total waste disposed
prior to program (tons/year)
Ave. C&D debris recycled 6,899 150,000 56,750
during program (tons/year)
Ave. C&D debris disposed 3,454
during program (tons/year)
Ave. total waste recycled
during program (tons/year)
Ave. total waste disposed
during program (tons/year)
C&D debris recycling rate
before policy
C&D debris recycling rate
after policy
Total recycling rate before 21% 64% 55% 41%
policy
Total recycling rate after 29% 63% 65% 52%
policy
Direct cost to the public $100.00 $50.00 $25.00 $150.00
Initial equipment cost $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Annual operation & $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
maintenance costs
Administration costs $3,750.00 $187,500.00 $0.00 $0.00
Enforcement costs $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Revenues per year $40,000.00 $1,500,000 $0.00 $0.00
Revenues lost per year $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
155
Table B-1. Results of the city C&D debris recycling policy survey (continued).
City Burlingame Brawley Castro Valley Palo Alto
Policy Type % Recycling % Recycling % Recycling % Recycling
Requirement Requirement Requirement Requirement
Length of Program ~6 years ~2 years ~4 years ~2 years
Average C&D debris 50,000
recycled prior to
program (tons/year)
Average C&D debris 300,000
disposed prior to
program (tons/year)
Average total waste 48,097
recycled prior to
program (tons/year)
Average total waste
disposed prior to
program (tons/year)
Average C&D debris 12,072 220,000 1,476 10,000
recycled during program
(tons/year)
Average C&D debris 1,957 82,000 10,000
disposed during program
(tons/year)
Average total waste
recycled (tons/year)
Average total waste
disposed (tons/year)
C&D debris recycling rate
before policy
C&D debris recycling rate
after policy
Total recycling rate before 46% 42% 57%
policy
Total recycling rate after 49% 45% 62%
policy
Direct cost to the public $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Initial equipment cost $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Annual operation & $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
maintenance costs
Administration costs $42,000.00 $63,000.00 $1,800.00 $113,000.00
Enforcement costs $0.00 $23,000.00 $0.00 $0.00
Revenues per year $38,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $112,500
Revenues lost per year $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
156
Table B-1. Results of the city C&D debris recycling policy survey (continued).
City La Habra
Policy Type Government
recycling
requirement
Length of Program ~3 years
Average C&D debris
recycled prior to
program (tons/year)
Average C&D debris
disposed prior to
program (tons/year)
Average total waste
recycled prior to
program (tons/year)
Average total waste
disposed prior to
program (tons/year)
Average C&D debris
recycled during program
(tons/year)
Average C&D debris
disposed during program
(tons/year)
Average total waste
recycled during
program (tons/year)
Average total waste
disposed during program
(tons/year)
C&D debris recycling rate
before policy
C&D debris recycling rate
after policy
Total recycling rate before 49%
policy
Total recycling rate after 53%
policy
Direct cost to the public $0.00
Initial equipment cost $0.00
Annual operation & $0.00
maintenance costs
Administration costs $3,750.00
Enforcement costs $0.00
Revenues per year $40,000.00
Revenues lost per year $0.00
157
Table B-2. Results of the county C&D debris recycling policy survey.
Contra
County San Mateo Alameda Tulare
Costa
Policy Type % Recycling % Recycling % Recycling % Recycling
Requirement Requirement Requirement Requirement
Length of Program ~2 years ~4 years ~1 year ~4 years
Average C&D debris Too Recent to
recycled prior to Measure
program (tons/year) Results
Average C&D debris 160,000
disposed prior to
program (tons/year)
Average total waste
recycled prior to
program (tons/year)
Average total waste
disposed prior to
program (tons/year)
Average C&D debris 1,545 30,000
recycled during
program (tons/year)
Average C&D debris 35
disposed during
program (tons/year)
Average total waste
recycled during
program (tons/year)
Average total waste
disposed during
program (tons/year)
C&D debris recycling
rate before policy
C&D debris recycling
rate after policy
Total recycling rate Too Recent 48% 57%
before policy to Measure
Total recycling rate after Results 54% 60%
policy
Direct cost to the public $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Initial equipment cost $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Annual operation & $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
maintenance costs
Administration costs
Enforcement costs $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Revenues per year $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
Revenues lost per year $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
158
Table B-2. Results of the county C&D debris recycling policy survey (continued).
County Orange
Policy Type Disposal Restriction
Length of Program ~4 years
Average C&D debris 1,000
recycled prior to
program (tons/year)
Average C&D debris 35,000
disposed prior to
program (tons/year)
Average total waste
recycled prior to
program (tons/year)
Average total waste
disposed prior to
program (tons/year)
Average C&D debris 9,000
recycled during
program (tons/year)
Average C&D debris 26,000
disposed during
program (tons/year)
Average total waste
recycled during
program (tons/year)
Average total waste
disposed during
program (tons/year)
C&D debris recycling 3%
rate before policy
C&D debris recycling 22%
rate after policy
Total recycling rate 40%
before policy
Total recycling rate 63%
after policy
Direct cost to the $15/hauler for
public license, $0/ton
tipping fee
Initial equipment cost $1,3000,000
Annual operation & Included in
maintenance costs administration costs
Administration costs $150,000.00
Enforcement costs $0.00
Revenues per year $25,000
Revenues lost per year $210,000
159
LIST OF REFERENCES
Ackerman, F. and K. Gallagher, 2002. Mixed Signals: Market Incentives, Recycling, and
the Price Spike of 1995. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 30(4), 275-295.
Adalberth, K., 1997. Energy Use During the Live Cycle of Single-Unit Dwellings:
Examples. Building and Environment 32(4), 321-329.
Bailey, I., 2002. European Environmental Taxes and Charges: Economic Theory and
Policy Practice. Applied Geography 22, 235-251.
Bantillo, S., 2000. San Jose to Impose Recycling Deposits on C&D Waste, Construction
Materials Recycler, January.
Barnes, A., 2002. Feasibility of Recycling Scrap Gypsum Drywall from New
Construction Activities in Florida. Masters Thesis, University of Florida,
Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Barr, S. and A. Gilg, In Press. Conceptualising and analyzing household attitudes and
actions to a growing environmental problem: Development and application of a
framework to guide local waste policy. Applied Geography.
Blassino, M., Solo-Gabriele, H., and T. Townsend, 2002. Pilot scale evaluation of sorting
technologies for CCA treated wood waste. Waste Management & Research 20(3),
290-301.
160
161
Bolen, W., 2003. Sand and Gravel, Construction. Minerals Yearbook. United States
Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, USA.
Bolt, S. 1997. Roofing the Right Way, Third Edition. McGraw-Hill, New York City,
New York, USA.
Brick Industry Association (BIA), 2006. 2002 Sales and Marketing Report. Reston,
Virginia, USA.
Burns, R., 1997. Neighbors Raise Stink About Orange City Landfill, The Deland
Beacon, January 29: pp A1, A10.
Calcott, P. and M. Walls, In Press. Waste, Recycling, and Design for Environment: Roles
for Markets and Policy Instruments. Resource and Energy Economics.
California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), 1996. Market Status Report:
Urban Wood. 443-96-069. Sacramento, California, USA.
Chapman, R.E. and C.A. Izzo, 2002. Baseline Measures for Improving Housing
Durability. NISTIR 6870. US Department of Commerce, National Institute of
Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA.
Chevalier, J.L. and J.F. Le Teno, 1996. Requirements for an LCA-based Model for the
Evaluation of the Environmental Quality of Building Products. Building and
Environment 31(5), 487-491.
Clark, C., Jambeck, J., and T. Townsend, 2006. A Review of Construction and
Demolition Debris Regulations in the US. Critical Reviews in Environmental
Science and Technology 36, 141-186.
Cochran, K., 2001. Estimation of the Generation and Composition of Construction and
Demolition Debris in Florida. Masters Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville,
Florida, USA.
162
Cochran, K., Townsend, T., Reinhart, D., and H. Heck, 2006. Estimation of regional
building-related C&D debris generation and composition: Case study for Florida,
US. Waste Management.
Cole, R.J. and P.C. Kernan, 1996. Life Cycle Energy Use in Office Buildings. Building
and Environment 31(4), 307-317.
Duryea, M., 2001. Landscape Mulches: What Are The Choices in Florida? University of
Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute for Food and Agricultural
Sciences, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Eagle Crusher Co., Inc., 2005. Team Eagle: Partnerships for Profitability in Aggregate
and Recycling. Product brochure, Galion, Ohio, USA.
Energy Information Administration (EIA), 2003. Renewable Energy Annual 2002 With
Preliminary Data for 2002. DOE/EIA-0603(2002). US Department of Energy,
Washington, DC, USA.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), 2001. 1999 Annual Report for
a Construction and Demolition Debris Facility: Florida. Compiled by Jennifer
Caldwell-Kurka., Tallahassee, Florida, USA.
163
Founie, A, 2004. Gypsum. Minerals Yearbook. United States Geological Survey, Reston,
Virginia, USA.
Frangopol, D.M., Kong, J.S., and E.S Gharaibeh, 2001. Reliability-Based Life Cycle
Management of Highway Bridges. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering
15(1), 27-34.
Gabel, K., Forsberg, P., and A.M. Tillman, 2004. The design and building of a life cycle-
based process model for simulating environmental performance, product
performance and cost in cement manufacturing. Journal of Cleaner Production 12
(2004), 77-93.
Gardinier, B., September 12, 1998. Dump Critics Applaud Town Board. The Times
Union: B4.
Gonzalez, M.J. and J.G. Navarro, 2006. Assessment of the decrease of CO2 emissions in
the construction field through the selection of materials: Practical case study of
three houses of low environmental impact. Building and Environment 41(7), 902-
909.
Graedel, T., 1998. Streamlined Life-Cycle Assessment. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle
River, New Jersey, USA.
Hao, J.O., Jin, M.C., and H. Li, 1996. Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria. Critical Review in
Environmental Science and Technology 26, 155-187.
164
Hendrickson, C., Lave, L., and F. McMichael, 1995. Time to Dump Recycling? Issues in
Science and Technology 11(3), 79-84.
Horvath, A., Pacca, S., and E. Masanet, 2003. PaLATE. University of California,
Berekley, California, USA.
Howard, J. 2003. U.S. Timber Production, Trade, Consumption, and Price Statistics 1965
2002. FPL-RP-615. US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Madison,
Wisconsin, USA.
Iida, K., Pierman, J., Tolaymat, T., Townsend, T., and C.-Y. Wu, 2004. Control of
Chromated Copper Arsenate Wood Incineration Air Emissions and Ash Leaching
Using Sorbent Technology. Journal of Environmental Engineering 130(2), 184-
192.
Jambeck, J., Weitz, K., Solo-Gabriele, H., Townsend, T., and S. Thorneloe, In Press.
CCA-treated Wood Disposed in Landfills and Life-cycle Trade-offs with Waste-to-
Energy and MSW Landfill Disposal. Waste Management.
Jambeck, J., Townsend, T., Weitz, K., and H. Solo-Gabriele, 2005. CCA-Treated Wood
Disposed in Landfills and Life-cycle Trade-Offs With Waste-to-Energy and MSW
Landfill Disposal. 36th Annual Meeting of the International Research Group on
Wood Protection, Bangalore, India, April 24-28.
Jang, Y., and T. Townsend, 2001 Occurrence of Organic Pollutants in Recovered Soil
Fines from Construction and Demolition Waste. Waste Management 21(8), 703-
715.
Jang, Y., and T. Townsend, 2003. Effect of Waste Depth on Leachate Quality from
Laboratory Construction and Demolition Debris Landfills. Environmental
Engineering Science 20(3), 183-196.
165
Jonsson, A., Tillman, A-M, and T. Svensson, 1997. Life Cycle Assessment of Flooring
Materials: Case Study. Building and Environment 32(3), 245-255.
Kaplan, P., Barlaz, M., and S. Ranjithan, 2004. A Procedure for Life-Cycle-Based Solid
Waste Management with Consideration of Uncertainty. Journal of Industrial
Ecology 8(4), 155-172.
Katz, A., 2004. Environmental Impact of Steel and Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforced
Pavements. Journal of Composites for Construction 8(6), 481-488.
Kelly, T. and G. Matos, 2006. Historical Statistics for Mineral and Material Commodities
in the United States. Data Series 140, US Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia,
USA.
Keolian, G.A., Blanchard, S., and P. Reppe, 2001. Life-Cycle Energy, Costs, and
Strategies for Improving a Single-Family House. Journal of Industrial Ecology
4(2), 135-156.
Keoleian, G., Kendall, A., Dettling, J., Smith, V., Chandler, R., Lepech, M., and V. Li,
2005. Life Cycle Modeling of Concrete Bridge Design: Comparison of Engineered
Cementitious Composite Link Slabs and Conventional Steel Expansion Joints.
Journal of Infrastructure Systems 11(3), 51-60.
Landfills Odors Prompt Lawsuit in Virginia, 1996. The Washington Post. September 28:
F04.
Lavin, P., 2003. Asphalt Pavements: A Practical Guide to Design, Production and
Maintenance for Engineers and Architects. Spon Press, London, United Kingdom.
Li, Z. 2006. A New Life Cycle Impact Assessment Approach for Buildings. Building and
Environment 41(10), 1414-1422.
Lindert, L., 1993. Market Status Report: Pavement. California Integrated Waste
Management Board, Market Development Branch, Sacramento, California, USA.
Lollini, Barozzi, Fasano, Meroni, and Zini, 2006. Optimisation of opaque components of
the building envelope: Energy, economic and environmental issues. Building and
Environment 41(8), 1001-1013.
Lubo Screening and Recycling Systems B.V., 2004. Separation Plants. Product brochure,
Veenoord, The Netherlands.
Marceau, M.L., Nisbet, M.A., and M.G VanGeem, 2006. Life Cycle Inventory of
Portland Cement Manufacture. 2095b. Portland Cement Association, Skokie,
Illinois, USA.
166
Matos, G. and L. Wagner, 1998. Consumption of Materials in the United States, 1900-
1995. Annual Reviews of Energy and the Environment 23(1), 107-122.
McCauley-Bell, P., Reinhart, D., Sfeir, H., and B. OToole Ryan, 1997. Municipal Solid
Waste Composition Studies. Practice Periodical of Hazardous, Toxic, and
Radioactive Waste Management 1(4), 158-163.
McKeever, D., 1998. Wood Residual Quantities in the United States. Biocycle 39(1), 65-
68.
McKeever, D., 2003. Taking Inventory of Woody Residuals. Biocycle 44(7), 31-35.
Mithraratne, N. and B. Vale, 2004. Life cycle analysis model for New Zealand houses.
Building and Environment 39(4), 483-492.
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), 2003. BEES Version 3.0d.
Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA.
Newcomb, D.E., Stroup-Gardiner, M., Weikle, B.M., and A. Drescher, 1993. Properties
of Dense-Graded and Stone-Mastic Asphalt Mixtures Containing Roofing Shingles.
Use of Waste Materials in Hot-Mix Asphalt, ASTM STP 1193, H. Fred Waller,
Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Nishioka, Y., Yanagisawa, Y., and J.D. Spengler, 2000. Saving Energy versus Saving
Materials: Life-Cycle Inventory Analysis of Housing in a Cold-Climate Region of
Japan. Journal of Industrial Ecology 4(1), 119-135.
Park, K., Hwang, Y., Seo, S., and H. Seo, 2003. Quantitative Assessment of
Environmental Impacts on Life Cycle of Highways. Journal of Construction
Engineering and Management 129(1), 25-31.
Portland Cement Association (PCA), 2003. Apparent Use of Portland Cement and
Ready-Mix Concrete. Skokie, Illinois, USA.
Postgate, J.R., 1984. The Sulphate Reducing Bacteria. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK.
Reinhart, D., Townsend, T., Heck, H., Chakrabarti, S., Cochran, K., and S. Medeiros,
2003. Generation and Composition of Construction and Demolition Debris in
Florida. 03-08. Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management,
Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Rivela, B., Moreira, M.T., Munoz, I., Rieradevall, and G. Feijoo, 2006. Life cycle
assessment of wood wastes: A case study of ephemeral architecture. Science of the
Total Environment 357(1), 1-11.
Robinson, G., Menzie, W., and H. Hyun, 2004. Recycling of construction debris as
aggregate in the Mid-Atlantic Region, USA. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling 42(3), 275-294.
Sandler, K., 2003. Analyzing Whats Recyclable in C&D Debris. Biocycle 44(11), 51-54.
Schenk, R., 2000. Using LCA for Procurement Decisions: A Case Study Performed for
the US Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Progress 19(2), 110-116.
Scheuer, C., Keoleian, G., and P. Reppe, 2003. Life Cycle Energy and Environmental
Performance of a New University Building: Modeling Challenges and Design
Implications. Energy and Buildings 35(10), 1049-1064.
168
Sengal, B. and A. Topal, 2005. Use of asphalt roofing shingle waste in HMA.
Construction and Building Materials 19(5), 337-346.
Seo, S., Aramaki, T., Hwang, Y., and K. Hanaki, 2003. Evaluation of Solid Waste
Management System Using Fuzzy Composition. Journal of Environmental
Engineering 129(6), 520-531.
Sheridan, S., Townsend, T., Price, J., and J. Connell, 2000. Policy Options for
Hazardous-Building-Component Removal Before Demolition. Practice Periodical
of Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste Management 4(3), 111-117.
Solano, E., Ranjithan, S.R., Barlaz, M., and E.D. Brill, 2002a. Life Cycle-based Solid
Waste Management I: Model Development. Journal of Environmental Engineering
128(10), 981-992.
Solano, E., Dumas, R., Harrison, K., Ranjithan, S., Barlaz, M., and E. Brill, 2002b. Life
Cycle-based Solid Waste Management II: Illustrative Applications. Journal of
Environmental Engineering 128(10), 993-1005.
Solo-Gabriele, H.M., Townsend, T.G., Messick, B., and V. Calitu, 2002. Characteristics
of chromated copper arsenate-treated wood ash. Journal of Hazardous Materials 89
(2-3), 213-232.
Solo-Gabriele, H., Sakura-Lemessy, D.-M., Townsend, T., Dubey, B., and J. Jambeck,
2003. Quantities of Arsenic Within the State of Florida. 03-06. Hinkley Center for
Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Solo-Gabriele, H.M., Townsend, T.G., Hahn, D.W., Moskal, T.M., Hosein, N., Jambeck,
J., and G. Jacobi, 2004. Evaluation of XRF and LIBS technologies for on-line
sorting of CCA-treated wood waste. Waste Management 24(4), 413-424.
Stripple, H., 2001. Life Cycle Assessment of Road: A Pilot Study for Inventory Analysis,
2nd Revised Edition. IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, Gothenburg,
Sweden.
Tellus Institute, 2003. Waste Reduction Program Assessment and Analysis for
Massachusetts. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Boston,
Massachusetts, USA.
169
Tchobanoglous, G., Theisen, H., and S. Vigil, 1993. Integrated Solid Waste Management:
Engineering Principles and Management Issues. Irwin McGraw-Hill, Boston,
Massachusetts, USA.
Tepordei, V., 2003. Stone, Crushed. Minerals Yearbook. United States Geological
Survey, Reston, Virginia, USA.
Tepordei, V., 2004. Stone, Crushed. Minerals Yearbook. United States Geological
Survey, Reston, Virginia, USA.
Thomas, P., 1991. The Contractors Field Guide. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New
Jersey, USA.
Thormark, C., 2002. A low energy building in a life cycleits embodied energy, energy
need for operation and recycling potential. Building and Environment 37(4), 429-
435.
Tierney, J., June 30, 1996. Recycling Is Garbage. New York Times pp. 24-29, 44, 48, 51,
53.
Tolaymat, T., 2001. Leaching Tests for Assessing Management Options for Industrial
Solid Waste: A Case Study Using Ash from the Combustion of Wood and Tires.
Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida,
USA.
Townsend, T., Hicks, M., Royal, G., Davis, R., and B. Mercure, 1998. A Guide to Job
Site Recycling of Construction and Demolition Waste. Florida Center for Solid and
Hazardous Waste, Gainesville, Florida, USA.
Townsend, T., Barnes, A., Cochran, K., and J. Jambeck-Carlson, 2001. Recycling of
Discarded Gypsum Drywall in Florida. Florida Department of Environmental
Protection, Tallahassee, Florida, USA.
Townsend, T.G.; Jang, Y.C.; and L.G Thurn, 1999. Simulation of Construction and
Demolition Waste Leachate. Journal of Environmental Engineering 125(11), 1071-
1081.
Townsend, T.G., Solo-Gabriele, H., Tolaymat, T., and K. Stook, 2003. Impact of
chromated copper arsenate (CCA) in wood mulch. The Science of the Total
Environment 309(1-3), 173-185.
US Census Bureau, 2005a. New Privately Owned Housing Units Authorized by Building
Permits in Permit-Issuing Places: Annual Data
http://www.census.gov/const/www/newresconstindex.html (accessed October 10,
2006).
Wang, J., Touran, A., Christoforou, C., and H. Fadlalla, 2004. A Systems Analysis Tool
for Construction and Demolition Wastes Management. Waste Management 24(10),
989-997.
Weitz, K. Barlaz, M., Ranjithan, R., Brill, D., Thorneloe, S. and R. Ham, 1999. Life
Cycle Management of Municipal Solid Waste. International Journal of Life Cycle
Management 4(4), 195-201.
Weitz, K. and S. Thorneloe, 2003. EPA Applies MSW DST to Assess Its Own
Composting Options. MSW Management 12(4).
White, P.R., Franke, M. and P. Hindle, P. 1995. Integrated Solid Waste Management: A
Lifecycle Inventory. Blackie Academic & Professional, London, UK.
Wilburn, D.R. and T.G. Goonan, 1998. Aggregates from Natural and Recycled Sources:
Economic Assessments for Construction ApplicationsA Materials Flow
Analysis. Circular 1176. United States Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado, USA.
Zapata, P., and J. Gambatese, 2005. Energy Consumption of Asphalt and Reinforced
Concrete Pavement Materials and Construction. Journal of Infrastructure Systems
11(1), 9-20.
Zhang, Z., Wu, X., Yang, X., and Y. Zhu, 2006. BEPASa life cycle building
environmental performance assessment model. Building and Environment 41(5),
669-675.
BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH
Kimberly Marie Cochran has studied construction and demolition (C&D debris) for
the past six years. Although born in Bloomington, Indiana, she grew up primarily in
Orlando, Florida. She received both her bachelor of science and master of engineering
2001, she worked for two years for an environmental consultant, RW Beck, in Orlando,
Florida. Following her passion for research, she returned to academia to pursue a doctor
of philosophy degree at the University of Florida. During her studies, she has received a
National Science Fellowship that allowed her to co-teach sixth grade science.
Additionally, she has participated in an Engineers Without Borders project to help a small
172