vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(5305W)
EPA53O-R-9B-OJO
June 1998
www.epa.gov/osw
Characterization of
Building-Related
Construction and
Demolition Debris in
the United States
Printed on paper that contains at lest 2O percent postconsumer fiber
-------
-------
CHARACTERIZATION OF BUILDING-RELATED
CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION
DEBRIS IN THE UNITED STATES
Prepared for
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste Division
Office of Solid Waste
Report No. EPA530-R-98-010
by
Franklin Associates
Prairie Village, KS
under subcontract to
TechLaw, Inc.
Contract No. 68-W4-0006, Work Assignment R11026
June 1998
Printed on recycled paper
-------
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
^.This report was prepared by Franklin Associates, a subcontractor of
TechLaw, Inc., a prime contractor of the United States Environmental
Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste. Eugene Lee served as EPA's work
assignment manager. Marjorie A. Franklin was Franklin Associates'
Principal-in-charge and Jacob E. Beachey was the project manager and primary
author of the report.
We are pleased to acknowledge much valuable support and input from
some of the leading research organizations in construction and demolition
debris management. Peter Yost, of the NAHB Research Center, participated in
all phases of the project, providing input on methodology, data sources, and
analysis. Robert Brickner, of Gershman, Brickner and Bratton, Inc., reviewed
the entire report and made significant contributions, particularly in the
sections on C&D debris from road, bridges, and other non-building activities.
A large number of people, ranging from local governmental agencies
to large demolition contractors, provided waste assessment data for this
project. These people are identified in the reference sections at the end of the
chapters of this report.
We appreciate the efforts of the peer reviewers, who reviewed the
report and provided valuable comments and suggestions. The peer reviewers
for the report are:
William Turley
C&D Debris Recycling
Paul Reusch
USEPA Region V
Greg Norris
Sylvatica
Ken Sandier, Steve Levy, George Garland
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Robert Brickner
Gershman, Brickner and Bratton, Inc.
Peter Yost
NAHB Research Center
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Chapter
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES-1
1 INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY 1-1
Background i_i
Methodology 1_2
Peer Review and Data Sources 1-3
Defining C&D Debris 1-3
State definitions for construction and demolition debris 1-5
Construction and demolition debris in perspective 1-9
Definitions 1-10
Overview of this report 1-11
References 1-12
2 GENERATION OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS 2-1
Introduction 2-1
Building-related construction and demolition debris generation 2-1
Construction debris 2-1
Residential 2-1
Nonresidential 2-2
Demolition debris 2-4
Residential 2-4
Nonresidential 2-7
Renovation debris 2-7
Residential 2-8
Nonresidential 2-10
Summary of-building-related C&D debris generation 2-10
Construction and demolition debris generated from road, bridge, and other
non-building activities 2-12
State Construction and demolition debris generation rates 2-12
Composition of construction and demolition debris 2-13
References 2-19
3 MANAGEMENT OF C&D DEBRIS IN THE UNITED STATES 3-1
Introduction 3_1
Landfilling ,..,.. „, < ,..3-1
Recovery of C&D debris for recycling 3.3
Deconstruction 3.5
Asphalt and concrete recycling 3-6
Waste wood recycling 3.7
Metals recycling 3.3
Asphalt shingles 3_8
Drywall (Sheetrock, Gypsum) 3_8
Estimated recovery rate 3-8
Summary of C&D debris management practices 3-10
References 3_H
4 ADDITIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS 4-1
Introduction 4_1
MSW collected with C&D debris 4-1
IV
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Chapter
Page
4 C&D debris collected with MSW.
References
.4-2
.4-3
Appendix
A Calculations
B State Definitions for Construction and Demolition Debris
C Typical Construction and Demolition Debris Constituents
Bibliography
Table
LIST OF TABLES
Page
1 Representative generation sources of C&D sector materials 1-4
2 Typical components of construction and demolition debris 1-8
3 Estimated generation of residential construction debris 2-3
4 Estimated generation of nonresidential construction debris 2-4
5 Estimated generation of residential demolition debris 2-6
6 Estimated generation of nonresidential demolition debris 2-8
7 Empirical waste assessments for residential renovation debris 2-9
8 Summary of estimated building-related C&D debris generation 2-11
9 State regulatory schemes for C&D landfills •. 3-4
10 Estimated management of building-related C&D debris in the United States, 1996.... 3-10
A-l Residential Construction Debris Worksheet
A-2 Nonresidential Construction Debris Worksheet
A-3 Residential Demolition Worksheet
A-4 Nonresidential Demolition Worksheet
A-5 Residential Renovation Worksheet
A-6 Nonresidential Renovation Worksheet
A-7 Estimated Weight of Concrete Driveways Replaced each Year
A-8 Estimated Weight of Asphalt Roofs Replaced per Year
A-9 Estimated Weight of Wood Roofs Replaced per Year
A-10 Estimated Weight of. Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning Equipment Replaced
each Year
A-ll Construction Waste from Single Family Residential Construction
A-12 Riverdale Case Study
A-13 Residential C&D Debris Composition
A-14 Nonresidential C&D Debris Composition
A-15 Construction & Demolition Debris Composition
A-16 Composition of Building Construction & Demolition Debris
A-17 Composition of C&D Debris in Des Moines, Iowa
A-18 Average Composition of Waste from 19 Industrial/Commercial Demolition Projects in the
Northwest. Area
A-19 Number of Active Construction & Demolition (C&D) Landfills in the United States
A-20 Number of Active Wood Processing Facilities that also Accept C&D Waste, by State
C-l Typical Construction and Demolition Debris Constituents
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
1 C&D debris in perspective 1_9
2 Average size of new house construction 2-5
3 Generation of construction and demolition debris from buildings 2-11
4 Sample composition of residential new construction debris 2-15
5 Sample composition of residential new construction debris 2-16
6 Sample composition of residential renovation debris 2-16
7 Sample composition of residential demolition debris 2-17
8 Sample composition of multi-family demolition debris 2-17
9 Sample composition of demolition debris 2-18
10 Number of C&D debris landfills in the United States 3-2
VI
-------
CHARACTERIZATION OF BUILDING-RELATED
CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS
IN THE UNITED STATES
Executive Summary
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this report is to characterize the quantity and composition
of building-related construction and demolition (C&D) debris generated in the
United States, and to summarize the waste management practices for this waste
stream. C&D debris is produced when new structures are built and when existing
structures are renovated or demolished. Structures include all residential and
nonresidential buildings as well as public works projects, such as streets and
highways, bridges, piers, and dams. Many state definitions of C&D debris also
include trees, stumps, earth, and rock from the clearing of construction sites.
The focus of this report is on building-related wastes, including
construction, demolition, and renovation of residential and nonresidential
buildings. Road and bridge debris, land clearing debris, etc. are not covered in
detail in this report. They are, however, discussed briefly.
METHODOLOGY
The methodology used for this study combines national Census
Bureau data on construction industry activities with point source, waste
assessment data (i.e., waste sampling and weighing at a variety of
construction and demolition sites) to estimate the amount of building-related
C&D debris produced nationally.
It is important to recognize that this is a first attempt to use this
methodology. It is expected that as the trend towards better characterization of
C&D sites continues and more communities record their C&D debris quantities
and compositions, the national estimates as developed in this, report can be
tested and modified accordingly. Currently, the limited point source waste
assessment data may be a.source of considerable uncertainty in the analysis.
Since the method developed here makes use of readily available Census
Bureau data on national C&D activity, (e.g., construction and demolition permits
and construction value) the methodology should be well suited for periodic
updating. Waste assessment results should change very slowly over time because
construction materials used and building construction practices remain
relatively constant from year to year. Composition of waste from demolished
buildings, which have been built over a range of years, should change even more
slowly.
ES-1
-------
DEFINITIONS
(For purposes of this report, following is a working set of definitions)
Construction and Demolition (C&D) Debris is waste material that is produced in the process of
construction, renovation, or demolition of structures. Structures include buildings of all types (both
residential and nonresidential) as well as roads and bridges. Components of C&D debris typically
include concrete, asphalt, wood, metals, gypsum wallboard, and roofing. Land clearing debris, such
as stumps, rocks, and dirt, are also included in some state definitions of C&D debris.
Generation of C&D debris, as used in this report, refers to the weight of materials and products as
they enter the waste management system from the construction, renovation, or demolition of
structures, and before materials recovery or combustion takes place. Source reduction activities (e.g.,
on-site usage of waste wood mulch or the on-site use of drywall as a soil amendment) take place
ahead of generation, i.e., they reduce the amount of waste generated.
Recovery of materials, as estimated in this report, includes the removal of products or materials
from the waste stream for the purpose of recycling the materials in the manufacture of new
products.
Source reduction activities reduce the amount or toxicity of wastes before they enter the waste
management system. Reuse is a source reduction activity involving the recovery or reapplication of
a product or material in a manner that retains its original form and identity. Reuse of products such
as light fixtures, doors, or used brick is considered source reduction, not recycling.
Discards include the C&D debris remaining after recovery for recycling (including composting).
These discards would presumably be combusted or landfilled, although some debris is littered,
stored or disposed on-site, or burned on-site.
REPORT HIGHLIGHTS
Building-Related C&D Debris Generation Estimates
• An estimated 136 million tons of building-related C&D debris were
generated in 1996 (Table ES-1).
• The estimated per capita generation rate in 1996 was 2.8 pounds per
person per day.
• Forty-three percent of the waste (58 million tons per year) is
generated from residential sources and 57 percent (78 million tons
per year) is from nonresidential sources.
• Building demolitions account for 48 percent of the waste stream, or
65 million tons per year; renovations account for 44 percent, or 60
million tons per year; and 8 percent, or 11 million tons per year, is
generated at construction sites.
ES-2
-------
Table ES-1
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED BUILDING-RELATED C&D
DEBRIS GENERATION, 1996*
(Roadway, Bridge, and Land Clearing Debris not included)
(Thousand Tons)
Source
Residential
Nonresidential
Totals
Construction
Renovation
Demolition
Totals
Percent
Thou tons
6,560
31,900
19,700
58,160
43
Percent
11
55
34
100
Thou tons
4,270
28,000
45,100
77,370
57
Percent
6
36
58
100
Thou tons
10,830
59,900
64,800
135,530
100
Percent
8
44
48
100
* C&D debris managed on-site should, in theory, be deducted from generation.
Quantities managed on-site are unknown.
Source: Franklin Associates
Composition of C&D Debris from Buildings
The composition of C&D debris is highly variable and depends
critically on the type of activity where sampling is done. Whereas wood is
typically the largest component of waste material generated at construction
and renovation sites, concrete is commonly the largest component of
building demolition debris.
Road, Bridge, and Land Clearing Debris
Road, bridge, and land clearing wastes represent a major portion of
total C&D debris, and some of the materials produced are managed by the
same processors and landfills that manage building-related wastes. A
methodology was not developed in the scope of this project to estimate these
wastes. Point source waste assessment data were not available for these
projects.
Management Practices for C&D Debris
• The most common management practice for C&D debris is
landfilling, including C&D landfills, MSW landfills, and
unpermitted sites. An estimated 35 to 45 percent was discarded in
ES-3
-------
C&D landfills in 1996. An estimated 30 to 40 percent of C&D debris
is managed on-site, at MSW landfills, or at unperrnitted landfills.
• A 1994 survey done for the EPA identified about 1,900 active C&D
landfills in the United States.
• An estimated 20 - 30 percent of building-related C&D debris was
recovered for processing and recycling in 1996. The materials most
frequently recovered and recycled are concrete, asphalt, metals, and
wood.
• There is an trend toward increasing recovery of C&D debris in the
United States. C&D Recycling estimates there are about 3,500
operating facilities that process C&D debris materials in the United
States.
• Recent deconstruction demonstration projects show that high
diversion rates may be achieved. Deconstruction minimizes
contamination of demolition debris; however, it is labor intensive,
and generally requires more time than traditional demolition.
• Metals have the highest recycling rates among the materials
recovered from C&D sites. The Steel Recycling Institute estimates
that the recycling rate for C&D steel is about 85 percent (18.2 million
tons out of 21.4 million tons generated). These numbers include not
only scrap steel from buildings but also from roads and bridges.
• We estimate there are about 500 wood processing facilities in the
United States that derive wood from C&D debris. The leading states
for these wood processing plants are North Carolina, Oregon, and
California.
Peer Review and Data Sources
This first edition report underwent extensive internal and external
peer review of methodology and data sources. Major contributors of data
sources and peer review include the National Association of Home Builders
Research Center; Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc.; EPA Region 5, and the
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
As part of an ongoing effort to better characterize non-hazardous
wastes subject to regulation under Subtitle D of RCRA, USEPA encourages
public comment on this report, including additional methodological
considerations and data sources.
ES-4
-------
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY
BACKGROUND
The purpose of this report is to characterize building-related construction
and demolition (C&D) debris generated in the United States. Construction and
demolition debris is produced when new structures are built and when existing
structures are renovated or demolished. Structures include all residential and
nonresidential buildings as well as public works projects, such as streets and
highways, bridges, piers, and dams. Many state definitions of C&D debris also
include trees, stumps, earth, and rock from the clearing of construction sites.
National estimates of construction and demolition debris generation have
been limited in the past to extrapolation of local data, using population or
construction employment to make the extrapolations. Values for generation
rates reported in various locations across the country have ranged from 0.12 to
3.52 pounds per capita per day (Wilson 1977), a range too large for meaningful
extrapolations.
At least three studies in the past 30 years have made national generation
rate estimates. The first was a 1969 Public Health Service study, which reported a
national average of 0.66 pounds per person per day (ppd) (PHS 1969). The same
study reported an urban average generation rate of 0.72 ppd, a number which was
also reported in the 1986 EPA municipal solid waste characterization report as .an
estimate for the national average (EPA 1986). Based on the U.S. population in
1986 (240 million), the EPA report estimated 31.5 million tons per year of C&D
debris generation.
In a draft report prepared for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory in
1994 (Franklin 1994), Franklin Associates identified 22 cities, counties, or states
for which C&D debris data were reported. There was a weak but positive
correlation between C&D .debris generation and per capita construction
employment in each area. The national extrapolated estimate for C&D debris
generation using that methodology was 64.4 million tons per year.
The previous C&D debris estimates for the United States now appear to be
low, based on the results of this study. As discussed in the sections that follow,
we estimate that C&D debris generation for building-related wastes only (i.e.,
excluding wastes from roadways, bridges, land clearing, and excavation), was
about .136 million tons in 1996.
l-l
-------
METHODOLOGY
The initial objective of this study was to develop a methodology
somewhat parallel to EPA's material flows methodology used for MSW
characterization that would use readily available national data, which would be
suitable for periodic updates. The material flows methodology starts with
national production data by material and product, adjusts for imports, exports,
average lifetimes, and consumption, and then calculates national generation by
summing up all the materials and products that make up MSW. Because of the
long and extremely variable lifetimes of buildings, roads, and other structures,
the material flows method was determined to be infeasible for C&D debris.
Another approach—sampling and weighing at landfills—is often used for
determining local waste management system needs and would be the preferred
method for this study if sufficient time and funds were available. However, even
on the local level there may be significant barriers to this method. Sampling
from a mixed waste stream with statistical confidence is very difficult, time
consuming, and costly. Locating all the places where C&D debris is placed is not a
trivial matter in some localities, and obtaining permission to sample at private
landfills can be a major challenge. For a national study of this type, this method
would be both cost and time prohibitive.
The methodology used for this study combines national Census Bureau
data on construction industry project activity with point source waste assessment
data (i.e., waste sampling and weighing at a variety of construction and
demolition sites) to estimate the amount of. C&D debris produced nationally.
Because of the lack of point source waste assessment data from roadway, bridge,
and landclearing projects, this study was limited to building-related wastes.
It is important to recognize that this is a first attempt to use this
methodology. We expect that as the trend towards better characterization of C&D
sites continues where more communities record their C&D debris quantities and
compositions, the national estimates as developed in this report can be tested
and modified accordingly. Currently, the limited point source waste assessment
data may be a source of considerable uncertainty in the analysis.
Since the methodology developed here makes use of readily available
Census Bureau data on national C&D activity, (e.g., construction and demolition
permits and construction value) the methodology should be well suited for
periodic updating. Waste assessment results should change very slowly over
time because construction materials used and building construction practices
remain relatively constant from year to year. Composition of waste from
demolished buildings, which were built over a range of years, should change
even more slowly.
1-2
-------
PEER REVIEW AND DATA SOURCES
This first edition report underwent extensive internal and external peer
review of methodology and data sources. Major contributors of data sources and
peer review include the National Association of Home Builders Research
Center, Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc., EPA Region 5, and the U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census.
During the peer review process, a consensus was reached that this report
represents a credible attempt at estimating national generation of building-
related construction and demolition debris. However, the report could benefit
from additional waste sampling studies to strengthen the source category
(construction, demolition, and renovation) estimates. Further, future editions
will need to address roadway, bridge, and land clearing debris in order to present
a more complete picture of the national construction and demolition waste
stream. As part of an ongoing effort to better characterize non-hazardous wastes
subject to regulation under Subtitle D of RCRA, USEPA encourages public
comment on this report, including additional methodological considerations
and data sources.
DEFINING C&D DEBRIS
A broad definition of the representative projects and sources of C&D
debris is shown below (Table 1). This table shows that the generation sources of
C&D debris cover a broad segment of the U.S. economy. The sources range from
hpmebuilders and homeowners to general commercial developers, general
building contractors, highway and street contractors, bridge erectors/constructors,
bituminous pavement contractors, small home remodelers, site grading
contractors, demolition contractors, roofing contractors and drywallers, and
excavation specialists.
The amount of C&D debris generated and reported to regulatory agencies
around the country varies considerably from one community to another. This
variation is created, in part, by the difference in state-regulations on the subject
material, and also by the historical demographics and current growth and
development activity of the community.
Excerpts from a number of state definitions of C&D debris are presented in
this chapter, with more complete citations in Appendix B. This is a
representative sample of how states are defining C&D debris. It illustrates the
diversity of C&D debris terminology. Several states include land-clearing debris
as C&D; however, Massachusetts, New York, and North Carolina specifically
exclude these materials. Oregon excludes clean fill materials when separated
from other C&D wastes and used as fill materials or otherwise land disposed.
New York, Kansas, and Rhode Island's definitions specifically exclude some
1-3
-------
Table 1
REPRESENTATIVE GENERATION SOURCES OF C&D
SECTOR MATERIALS*
Site clearance materials
(Brush, tree, and stumpage materials)
Excavated materials
(Earth, fill, and other excavated rock and granular materials)
Roadwork materials
Concrete slabs and chunks from concrete road construction
Asphalt chunks and millings from asphalt pavement
Bridge/overpass construction/renovation materials
New construction materials
(Residential, commercial, and industrial project sources)
Renovation, remodeling or repair materials
(Residential, commercial, and industrial project sources)
Demolition materials . . . including wrecking, implosion,
dismantling, and deconstruction
(Residential, commercial, and industrial project sources)
Disaster debris
* Note that estimates for site clearance, excavated materials, and
roadwork materials are not included in this report.
Source: Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. Fairfax, Virginia
materials, even if resulting from C&D activities. Examples of exclusions include
garbage, carpeting, furniture, corrugated containerboard, and other containers.
The variance in state definitions affects the interpretation of the results of
this report. Corrections or adjustments may be required when comparing the
results of this report with state data, depending on the definition the state used.
Corrections may also be required when comparing data from any two states.
The amount of C&D debris available for discard in any region also
depends on the general economic conditions of the region, the weather, major
disasters, special projects, and local regulations. In fast growing areas, the C&D
waste stream from buildings consists primarily of construction debris, with
much smaller quantities of demolition debris. Demolition debris is produced
when older buildings are demolished to make way for the new developments.
By contrast, in many urban areas demolition debris dominates the C&D waste
stream.
1-4
-------
STATE DEFINITIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS
(A representative sample of definitions that points out the variability of definitions used)
California. Construction and demolition (C&D) debris includes concrete, asphalt, wood,
drywall, metals, and many miscellaneous and composite materials. C&D debris is generated by
demolition and new construction of structures such as residential and commercial buildings and
roadways.
Florida. "Construction and demolition debris" means discarded materials generally considered
to be not water soluble and non-hazardous in nature, including but not limited to steel, glass,
brick, concrete, asphalt material, pipe, gypsum wallboard, and lumber, from the construction or
destruction of a structure as part of a construction or demolition project or from the renovation of
a structure, including such debris from construction of structures at a site remote from the
construction or demolition project site. The term includes rocks, soils, tree remains, trees, and
other vegetative matter which normally results from land clearing or land development
operations for a construction project; clean cardboard, paper, plastic, wood and metal scraps
from a construction project... unpainted, non-treated wood scraps from facilities manufacturing
materials used for construction of structures or their components and unpainted, non-treated
wood pallets provided the wood scraps and pallets are separated from other solid waste; and
the commingling of wood scraps or pallets with other solid waste; and de minimis amounts of
other non-hazardous wastes that are generated at construction or demolition projects ....
Hawaii. "Construction and demolition waste" means solid waste, largely inert waste, resulting
from the demolition or razing of buildings, of roads, or other structures, such as concrete, rock,
brick, bituminous concrete, wood, and masonry, composition roofing and roofing paper, steel,
plaster, and minor amounts of other metals, such as copper. Construction and demolition waste
does not include cleanup materials contaminated with hazardous substances, friable asbestos,
waste paints, solvents, sealers, adhesives, or similar materials.
Kansas. "Construction and demolition waste" means solid waste resulting from the construction,
remodeling, repair and demolition of structures, roads, sidewalks and utilities; and solid waste
consisting of vegetation from land clearing and grubbing, utility maintenance, and seasonal or
storm-related cleanup. Such wastes include, but are not limited to, bricks, concrete and other
masonry materials, roofing materials, soil, rock, wood, wood products, wall covering, plaster,
drywall, plumbing fixtures, electrical wiring, electrical components containing no hazardous
materials and non asbestos insulation. It shall not include asbestos waste, garbage, cardboard,
furniture, appliances, electrical equipment containing hazardous materials, tires, drums and
containers even though such wastes resulted from construction and demolition activities. Clean
rubble, that is mixed with other construction and demolition waste during demolition or
transportation shall be considered to be construction and demolition waste.
Kentucky Construction/demolition debris ... results from the construction, remodeling,
repair, and demolition of structures and roads and ... uncontaminated solid waste consisting of
vegetation resulting from land clearing and grubbing, utility line maintenance, and seasonal and
storm-related cleanup. Such waste includes, but is not limited to bricks, shredded or segmented
tires, concrete and other masonry materials, soil, rock, wood, wall coverings, plaster, drywall,
plumbing fixtures, tree stumps, limbs, saw dust, leaves, yard waste, paper, paper products,
metals, furniture, insulation, roofing shingles, asphalt pavement, glass, plastics that are not
sealed in a manner that conceals other wastes, electrical wiring and components containing no
liquids or hazardous metals that are incidental to any of the above .... Asbestos . . . only if
approved by the division ....
1-5
-------
STATE DEFINITIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS (Continued)
Maricopa County, Arizona. Construction debris is a general term used to describe a large class of
solid wastes usually generated as a byproduct of the construction, demolition, or maintenance of
residences, commercial or industrial facilities and infrastructure. Construction debris includes
such materials as: broken concrete, asphalt, steel, aluminum, glass, brick, tile, paper, plastics,
wood products, sheet rock, street sweepings and canal dredgings.
Massachusetts. C&D waste is comprised of debris generated from construction, renovation,
repair, and demolition of roads, bridges, and buildings and includes wood, steel, concrete,
masonry, plaster, metal, and asphalt, but not wood from land-clearing, i.e. stumps, logs, brush,
and soil, nor rock from excavations.
Minnesota. Construction Wastes—Building materials, packaging, and rubble resulting from
construction, remodeling, repair, and demolition of buildings and roads.
Demolition Debris—Solid waste resulting from the demolition of buildings, roads, and other
man-made structures, including concrete, brick, bituminous concrete, untreated wood, masonry,
glass, trees, rock, and plastic building parts. Demolition debris does not include asbestos.
North Carolina. "Construction" or "demolition" when used in connection with "waste" or
"debris" means solid waste resulting solely from construction, remodeling, repair, or demolition
operations on pavement, buildings, or other structures, but does not include inert debris, land-
clearing debris or yard debris.
Nebraska. "Construction and demolition waste" shall mean waste which typically results from
construction or demolition projects and includes all materials which are the by-products of
construction work or which result from demolition of buildings and other structures, including,
but not limited to brick, concrete rubble, masonry materials, paper, gypsum board, wood, rubber
and plastics. Construction and demolition waste does not include friable asbestos-containing
materials, liquid waste, hazardous waste, putrescible waste or furnishings from demolished
structures.
New York. Construction and demolition (C&D) debris means uncontaminated solid waste
resulting from the construction, remodeling, repair and demolition of utilities, structures and
roads; and uncontaminated solid waste resulting from land clearing. Such waste includes, but is
not limited to bricks, concrete and other masonry materials, soil, rock, wood (including painted,
treated and coated wood and wpod products), land clearing debris, wall coverings., plaster,
drywall, plumbing fixtures,.non asbestos insulation, roofing shingles and other-roof coverings,
asphalt pavement, glass, plastics that are not sealed in a manner that conceals other wastes,
empty buckets ten gallons or less in size and having no more than one inch of residue remaining
on the bottom, electrical wiring and components containing no hazardous liquids, and pipe and
metals that are incidental to any of the above. Solid waste that is not C&D debris (even if
resulting from the construction, remodeling, repair and demolition of utilities, structures and
roads and land clearing) includes, but is not limited to asbestos waste, garbage, corrugated
container board, electrical fixtures containing hazardous liquids such as fluorescent light
ballasts or transformers, fluorescent lights, carpeting, furniture, appliances, tires, drums,
containers greater than ten gallons in size, any containers having more than one inch of residue
remaining oh the bottom and fuel tanks....
1-6
-------
STATE DEFINITIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS (Continued)
Oregon. "Construction and Demolition Waste" means solid waste resulting from the
construction, repair or demolition of buildings, roads and other structures, and debris from the
clearing of land, but does not include clean fill when separated from other construction and
demolition wastes and used as fill materials or otherwise land disposed. Such waste typically
consists of materials including concrete, bricks, bituminous concrete, asphalt paving, untreated
or chemically treated wood, glass, masonry, roofing, siding, plaster; and soils, rock, stumps,
boulders, brush and other similar material. This term does not include industrial solid waste
and municipal solid waste generated in residential or commercial activities associated with
construction and demolition activities.
Portland, Oregon Metropolitan Service District. Construction Waste - Waste materials
resulting from the construction, remodeling and repair of buildings and other structures.
Demolition Waste - Solid waste, largely inert, resulting from the demolition or razing of
buildings, roads, and other man-made structures. Demolition waste consists of, but is not limited
to, concrete, brick, bituminous concrete, wood, masonry, composition, roofing and roofing paper,
steel, and amounts of other metals like copper. Plaster (i.e., sheet rock or plasterboard), any
other non-wood material that is likely to produce gases or leachate during the decomposition
process, and asbestos wastes are not considered to be demolition wastes.
Rhode Island. "Construction and Demolition (C&D) Debris" shall mean non-hazardous solid
waste resulting from the construction, remodeling, repair, and demolition of utilities and
structures; and uncontaminated solid waste resulting from land clearing. Such waste includes,
but is not limited to wood (including painted, treated and coated wood and wood products), land
clearing debris, wall coverings, plaster, drywall, plumbing fixtures, non-asbestos insulation,
roofing shingles and other roofing coverings, glass, plastics that are not sealed in a manner that
conceals other wastes, empty buckets ten gallons or less in size and having no more than one inch
of residue remaining on the bottom, electrical wiring and components containing no hazardous
liquids, and pipe and metals that are incidental to any of the above. Solid waste that is not
C&D debris (even if resulting from the construction, remodeling, repair, and demolition of
utilities, structures, and roads and land clearing) includes, but is not limited to, asbestos waste,
garbage, corrugated container board, electrical fixtures containing hazardous liquids such as
fluorescent light ballasts or transformers, fluorescent lights, carpeting, furniture, appliances,
tires, drums, containers greater than ten gallons in size, any containers having more than one
inch of residue remaining on the bottom, and fuel tanks....
South Carolina. "Construction and demolition debris" means discarded solid wastes resulting
from construction, remodeling, repair and demolition of structures, road building, and land-
clearing. The wastes include, but are 'not limited to, bricks, concrete, and other masonry
materials, soil, rock, lumber, road spoils, paving material, and tree and brush stumps, but does
not include solid waste from agricultural or silvicultural operations.
Washington. "Demolition waste" means solid waste, largely inert waste, resulting from the
demolition or razing of buildings, roads and other man-made structures. Demolition waste
consists of, but is not limited to, concrete, brick, bituminous concrete, wood and masonry,
composition roofing and roofing paper, steel, and minor amounts of other metals like copper.
Plaster (i.e., sheet rock or plaster board) or any other material, other than wood, that is likely
to produce gases or a leachate during the decomposition process and. asbestos wastes are not
considered to be demolition waste ....
See Appendix B for complete texts and citations.
1-7
-------
The components that make up C&D debris also vary a great deal
depending on the type of construction and the methods used by the construction
industry. Table 2 shows typical contents of C&D debris by broad material types.
Table C-l in Appendix C shows a more detailed list of C&D debris components.
Construction debris from building sites typically consists of trim scraps of
construction materials, such as wood, sheetrock, masonry, and roofing materials.
There is typically much less concrete in construction debris than demolition
debris, although some construction projects produce considerable quantities of
concrete, depending on the technology used to build the concrete walls. Scrap
from residential construction sites typically represents between 6 and 8 percent of
the total weight of the building materials delivered to the site, excluding the
foundation, concrete floors, driveways, patios, etc. There is typically very little
waste concrete to dispose of from residential construction projects.
Table 2
TYPICAL COMPONENTS OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS
Material
Components
Wood
Drywall
Metals
Plastics
Roofing
Rubble
Brick
Glass
Miscellaneous
Content Examples
Forming and framing lumber, stumps, plywood, laminates,
scraps
Sheetrock, gypsum, plaster
Pipes, rebar, flashing, steel, aluminum, copper, brass,
stainless steel
Vinyl siding, doors, windows, floor tile, pipes
Asphalt & wood shingles, slate, tile, roofing felt
Asphalt, concrete, cinder blocks, rock, earth
Bricks and decorative blocks
Windows, mirrors, lights
Carpeting, fixtures, insulation, ceramic tile
When buildings are demolished, large quantities of waste may be
produced in a relatively short period of time, depending on the demolition
technique used. The demolition project duration can vary depending on the
technique used—implode a structure with explosives, use a crane and wrecking
ball technique, or deconstruct the structure. In actual practice, the vast majority
of demolition projects use a combination of the last two basic techniques
depending on the materials used in the original project, the physical size of the
structure, the surrounding buildings that cannot be disturbed or impacted, and
the time allocated for the project. One hundred percent of the weight of a
building, including the concrete foundations, driveways, patios, etc., may be
generated as C&D debris when a'building is demolished. On a per building basis,
demolition waste quantities may be 20 to 30 times as much as construction
debris.
1-8
-------
CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS IN PERSPECTIVE
C&D debris is generally a non-hazardous waste subject to regulation under
Subtitle D, as shown in Figure L Other non-hazardous wastes include municipal
solid waste (MSW), sludges from water and wastewater treatment plants,
nonhazardous wastes from industrial processes, agricultural wastes, oil and gas
wastes, mining wastes, spent automobiles, and trees and brush. MSW, which is
primarily the waste from residential and commercial sources, has been
characterized in more detail and for a longer period of time by the EPA than the
other non-hazardous wastes. A material flows methodology was developed for
MSW characterization in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and has been modified
and updated periodically since then. The latest of the EPA reports was published
in May of 1998 (EPA 1998).
Figure 1. C& D Debris in perspective
Universe of Non-Hazardous Wastes Subject
to Regulation under Subtitle D of RCRA
Construction & demolition debris
Municipal solid waste
Municipal sludge
Industrial nonhaz. process waste
Agricultural waste
Oil and gas waste
Mining waste
Auto bodies
Trees & brush
Construction & demolition debris
(1) Building related waste
Construction
Demolition
Renovation
(2) Roadway related waste
(3) Bridge related waste
(4) Landclearing & inert
debris waste
Although the C&D debris stream is usually described based on its origin as
outlined in Table 1 above, there are some potential overlaps with other waste
streams, in particular, MSW. For example, the MSW characterization includes
all postconsumer corrugated boxes, even though significant quantities, of these
boxes enter the waste stream from building construction sites. (See Appendix A,
Table A-ll.) To simply sum up the national quantities of MSW and C&D debris
could result in double counting. Other examples of MSW sometimes collected at
C&D sites include wood pallets, food and beverage containers, caulking tubes,
1-9
-------
and paint containers. On the other hand, building material wastes are frequently
collected by MSW waste management systems. However, EPA's material flows
methodology does not include them. Examples include pipes, plumbing fixtures,
and building materials that are replaced by residents and discarded with their
household trash. The overlap issues are discussed further in Chapter 4 of this
report.
The six activities that generate C&D debris from buildings include the
construction, demolition, and renovation (improvements and repair) of both
residential and nonresidential buildings. Residential buildings include single-
family houses and duplexes, up to and including high rise multi-family housing.
Nonresidential buildings include commercial, institutional, and industrial
buildings.
Construction activities generally produce cleaner materials than
demolition. Demolitions may produce several types of materials bonded together
or contaminated with hazardous materials, such as asbestos or lead paint.
Renovation projects can produce both construction and demolition type wastes.
DEFINITIONS
(For purposes of this report, following is a working set of definitions)
Construction and Demolition (C&D) Debris is waste material that is produced in the process of
construction, renovation, or demolition of structures. Structures include buildings of all types (both
residential and nonresidential) as well as roads and bridges. Components of C&D debris typically
include concrete, asphalt, wood, metals, gypsum wallboard, floor tile, and roofing. Land clearing
debris, such as stumps, rocks, and dirt, are also included in some state definitions of C&D debris.
Generation of C&D debris, as used in this report, refers to the weight of materials and products as
they enter the waste management system from the construction, renovation, or demolition of
structures, and before materials recovery or combustion takes place. Source reduction activities (e.g.,
on-site usage of waste wood mulch or the on-site use of drywall as a soil amendment) take place
ahead of generation, i.e., they reduce the amount of waste generated.
Recovery of materials, as estimated in this report, includes the removal' of products or materials
from the waste stream for the purpose of recycling the materials in the manufacture of new
products.
Source reduction activities reduce the amount or toxicity of wastes before they enter the waste
management system.. Reuse is a source reduction activity involving the recovery or reapplication of
a product or material in a manner that retains its original form and identity. Reuse of products such
as light fixtures, doors, or used brick is considered source reduction, not recycling.
Discards include the C&D debris remaining after recovery for recycling (including composting).
These discards would presumably be combusted or landfilled, although some debris is littered,
stored or disposed on-site, or burned on-site.
1-10
-------
OVERVIEW OF THIS REPORT
Chapter 1 contains background information on the methodology used for
this report, examples of state definitions for C&D debris, and perspectives on the
components of C&D and its relationship to other non-hazardous wastes. Chapter
2 contains estimates of the national generation of the building fraction of C&D
debris from each of six major building C&D activities, i.e., residential
construction, demolition, and renovation, and nonresidential construction,
demolition, and renovation. Examples of locally generated data for the other
C&D related generating sectors, e.g., roadway, bridge, and land clearing debris are
presented for illustrative purposes. Also included in Chapter 2 are some data
showing the composition of C&D debris from the various C&D activities.
Chapter 3 of the report discusses the options for management of C&D
debris in the United States, including landfilling and recovery for recycling.
Chapter 4, Perspectives, discusses the overlap of the C&D debris waste
stream and the MSW waste stream.
1-11
-------
Chapter 1
REFERENCES
Franklin Associates, Ltd. Waste Stream Characterization for the RDF-to
Ethers Process. Prepared for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory. July
1994.
Public Health Service, Bureau of Solid Waste Management. Technical and
Economic Study of Solid Waste Disposal Needs and Practices. 1969.
(Referenced in Handbook of Solid Waste Management).
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency
Response. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States,
1960 to 2000. July 1986.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of Municipal Solid
Waste in the United States: 1996 Update. EPA530-R-97-015. June 1998.
Wilson, David Gordon, ed. (Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Handbook
of Solid Waste Management. Von Nostrand Reinhold Company. 1977.
1-12
-------
Chapter 2
GENERATION OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS
INTRODUCTION
For the purposes of this initial national report, emphasis has been placed
on the generation of construction and demolition (C&D) debris from building
construction, demolition, and renovation activities. Examples of locally
generated data for the other C&D-related generating sectors, e.g., roadway, bridge,
and land clearing debris, are presented.
BUILDING-RELATED CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS
GENERATION
For analysis purposes, building C&D debris is divided into six categories:
residential construction, demolition, and renovation and nonresidential
construction, demolition, and renovation. These categories were selected based
on the relationship between available Census data and empirical composition
factors.
The following sections describe the data used and the methods for
estimating the amount of building-related C&D debris generated, on a weight
basis. Tables A-l through A-6 in Appendix A are worksheets that provide details
of the calculations used to arrive at.generation for each component of the C&D
debris stream.
Construction Debris
Residential. Empirical data for new residential construction have been
identified from five sources: The NAHB Research Center; METRO in Portland,
Oregon; Woodbin 2 in Cary, North Carolina; McHenry County, Illinois; and
Cornell University. Each of these groups has conducted waste assessments at new
construction sites.
The National Association of Homebuilders (NAHB) Research Center
has developed a detailed methodology for conducting waste assessments at
construction sites. Assessment data have been analyzed for single-family
residential construction debris at four sites, including Largo, Maryland; Anne
Arundel County, Maryland; Portland, Oregon; and Grand Rapids, Michigan.
The NAHB Research Center also conducted a waste assessment at a 36-unit
condominium construction project in Odenton, Maryland.
2-1
-------
The Metropolitan Service District in Portland, Oregon (METRO)
conducted a series of sampling projects at a large number of residential
construction sites in Oregon over the last 5 or more years.
Wake County, North Carolina and the North Carolina Division of
Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance conducted five
residential construction waste assessments in the Raleigh, North Carolina
area. Woodbin 2, a non-profit organization of the County, organized the
assessments.
McHenry County, Illinois conducted waste audits at a single-family
construction site and a 6-unit apartment building, and Cornell University
conducted a waste audit at a single-family residence in New York.
The data from the five sources are summarized in Table 3. A total of 93
dwelling units are represented on this table. Generation rates ranged from
2.41 to 11.3 pounds per square foot of floor space. Geography does not appear
to be the reason for the spread in data; it is more likely the types of houses, the
specific practices of the builders, and the lack of uniform standards for the
collection and storage of the sampled materials. The weighted average value
from the five sources is 4.38 pounds per square foot.
Extrapolation factors are Census Bureau data that record the number of
construction permits and the total square feet of new construction. According to
the Department of Commerce Current Construction Reports (C-30), in 1996 the
value of new private and public residential construction put in place totaled
$181.795 billion. Data from areas where permits are required were used to
calculate an average dollars per square foot. Total value in areas where permits
are required was $127.9 billion for a total of 2,172 million square feet of floor
space (1995). This amounts to $58.89 per square foot. Applying this factor to the
total C-30 value and correcting 3 percent for inflation results in a total of 2,997
million square feet of new residential construction in 1996. At 4.38 pounds per
square foot (Table 3), total generation is 6.56 million tons per year.
Nonresidential. The methodology for nonresidential construction debris
is similar to that for residential construction debris. However, nonresidential
buildings are much more varied than residential buildings and fewer waste
assessments have been done, making the quantity estimates more uncertain.
Nonresidential buildings include private industrial, office, hotels/motels,
other commercial, religious, educational, hospital and institutional, and
miscellaneous buildings plus public industrial, educational, hospital, and other
categories.
Table 4 shows the results of six nonresidential waste assessments. Ranging
from 1.61 to 4.21 pounds per square foot, the average generation rate of the
2-2
-------
Tables
ESTIMATED GENERATION OF RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS
EMPIRICAL WASTE ASSESSMENTS
Date
1992
1994
1994
1995
Research
Group
NAHB
NAHB
NAHB
NAHB
Type of data
Single-family
Single-family
Single-family
Single-family
Totals
Location
Building Total Generation
No. of Size Waste rate
Units (Sqft) (Pounds) (Lb/sqft)
Portland, OR 1
Grand Rapids, MI 1
Largo, MD 1
AnnArundelCty,MD 1
3,000
2,600
2,200
2,450
10,250
13,684
12,182
10,210
9,436
45,512
1993
1994
1994
METRO
METRO
METRO
Single-family
Single-family
Single-family
Totals
Portland, OR
Portland, OR
Portland, OR
<1994 METRO (1) Single family Portland, OR
1
1
1
37
2,800
1,290
1,290
5,380
2,080
13,800
8,600
10,600
33,000
7,720
1996-97
1996-97
1996-97
1996-97
1996-97
1993
1996
1993
Woodbin2 (2) Single-family
Woodbin2 Single-family
Woodbin2 Single-family
Woodbin 2 Single-family
Woodbin2 Single-family
County (3)
Cornell U.
NAHB
County (3)
Single-family
Single-family
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
North Carolina
McHenryCo. IL
Highland Mills, NY
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3,250
3,250
3,250
3,250
3,250
16,250
2,000
1,890
19,382
36,722
25,296
28,805
23,122
133,326
14,880
4,556
Multi-family (4) Odenton, MD
Multi-family (5) McHenry Co. IL
36
6
50,400 204,000
9,000 33,580
59,400 237,580
4.56
4.69
4.64
3.85
4.93
6.67
8.22
3.71
5.96
11.30
7.78
8.86
7.11
7.44
2.41
4.05
3.73
Average
generation
(Lb/sq ft)
4.44
6.13
3.71
8.20
Totals for 93 dwelling units
EXTRAPOLATION
Value of new private and public construction put in place (6)
Average cost of construction (7)
Total square feet of new construction
Average C&D debris generation rate
Total Generation of Residential Construction Debris
93 172,130 754,494
181,795 million
$60.66 per square foot
2,997 million square feet
4.38 pounds per square foot
6.56 million tons
4.00
4.38
'(1) Average of 37 residential construction sites. Metro Report, 1994.
(2) Wake County SWM & NC DiV of Pollution Prevention. Coordinated by Woodbin 2, a non-profit organization.
Five sites were between 3000 and 3500 square feet each.
(3) Audit by McHenry County, assisted by Cornerstone Material Recovery.
(4) 36-unit condominium, average 1400 square feet.
(5) 6-unit apartment building.
(6) Department of Commerce, Current Construction Reports.
(7) Based on 1995 construction permits, 3% adjustment to 1996 for inflation.
Source: Franklin Associates
individual sampling studies is 3.89 pounds per square foot. These buildings
include a retail store, restaurant, institutional building, and two office buildings.
2-3
-------
Table 4
ESTIMATED GENERATION OF NONRESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS
EMPIRICAL WASTE ASSESSMENTS
Date
1995
1995
1992
1994
1997
Research Group Type of data Location
Turner Construction Retail Store Construction Seattle, WA
Building Total Generation
Size Waste Rate
(Sq ft) (Pounds) (Lb/sq ft)
37,000 148,000 4.00
METRO
METRO
County Justice Center
Restaurant
Portland, OR
Portland, OR
41,850
5,000
176,000
10,940
4.21
2.19
METRO Office construction (1)
Sellen Construction Office construction
Portland, OR 7,452 12,000 1.61
Seattle, WA 297,115 1,163,560 3.92
Totals
Average
388,417 1,510,500
3.89
EXTRAPOLATION
Value of new private and public construction put in place (2)
Average cost of construction (3)
Total square feet of new construction
Average C&D debris generation rate
Total Generation of Nonresidential Construction Debris
198,700 million dollars
$90.40 per square foot
2,198 million square feet
3.89 pounds per square foot
4.27 million tons
(1) Two office buildings.
(2) Department of Commerce Current Construction Reports.
(3) Based on 1995 construction permits, with 3% adjustment to 1996 for inflation.
Source: Franklin Associates
The 1996 value of nonresidential buildings, as reported in Current
Construction Reports, is $198.7 billion. Average construction costs in 1995 were
$87.77 per square foot, resulting in an estimated 2,197.7 million square feet of
new construction, after making a 3 percent correction for inflation. Multiplying
by 3.89 pounds per square foot results in a total estimated generation of 4.27
million tons per year.
Demolition Debris
Residential. Demolition debris is estimated, starting with the number of
residential demolitions per year, estimating the average house size when
demolished, and then multiplying by the waste material per square foot, from
empirical demolition waste assessments.
The NAHB economists have estimated the number of demolitions per
year, based on Component of Inventory Change (CINCH) data (Carliner 1996).
They estimate that the units actually destroyed through intentional demolitions
or disasters such as fires or weather-related incidents between 1980 and 1993
averaged 245,000 per year. This is about three times the number reported by the
2-4
-------
Census Bureau based on permit data. Reasons for the higher number include
unpermitted demolitions, municipalities that do not require permits, and
demolition permits that are handled by municipal offices other than building
departments. Although CINCH data have been discontinued in 1995 due to
federal budget cuts, these data are expected to be available through the American
Housing Survey (AHS).
Houses of all ages and sizes may be demolished, but on average it is
recognized that older houses are demolished more frequently, and older houses
are on average smaller than new ones. New single-family housing units and
multi-family housing units (including apartments and condominiums) built in
1995 averaged 2,100 square feet and 1,050 square feet, respectively. Figure 2 shows
how average new house sizes have increased over the last 20 years. Multi-family
houses have remained nearly the same, while new single-family houses grew
from 1,600 square feet to 2,100 square feet. For this analysis, we assumed the
average single-family and multi-family house sizes are 1,600 and 1,000 square
feet, respectively, when demolished.
Figure 2. Average size of new house construction
2,000 .
1,250 -
1,000
750
500
250
0
-Single family
-Multi-family
-Weighted Average
-H
-4 1
1975 1977 1979
Source: Bureau pf the Census
1981
1983
1985
1987
1989
1991
1993
1995
Table 5 shows three single-family house demolition assessments and one
multi-family deconstruction assessment. The weight of houses when
demolished depends critically on whether the houses have concrete foundations
and basement walls or not. The use of masonry in exterior cladding also affects
the house weight significantly. None of the three single-family houses in Table 5
had full basements. Therefore, we made adjustments to the sampling data to
develop an estimate of residential demolition debris which reflects the likely
impact of some of the demolished houses having basements.
2-5
-------
Table 5
ESTIMATED GENERATION OF RESIDENTIAL DEMOLITION DEBRIS
EMPIRICAL WASTE ASSESSMENTS
Research Building Size C&D Debris
Date Group Type of data Location (Square feet) (Pounds)
1992 METRO SF Demolition (!) Portland, OR
1994 METRO SF Demolition (2) Portland, OR
1994 METRO SF Demolition (3) Portland, OR
Total Single-family, without foundations
Adjustment for concrete (4)
Total Single-family, including concrete
1997 NAHB 4 unit MF Deconstruction Maryland
1,280
1,200
750
3,230
3,230
2,000
66,000
63,000
31,000
160,000
197,000
357,000
254,400
Weighted average for single-family and multi-family (Appendix A-3)
EXTRAPOLATION
Estimated number of residential demolitions per year
Estimated average size of residences demolished (sq ft)
Average C&D debris generation rate (pounds per square foot)
Total Generation of Residential Demolition Debris (tons/yr)
(1) 1920s house. Concrete rubble not included.
(2) Concrete rubble not included.
(3) Small house without basement.
(4) Franklin Associates estimate. See Table A-3 for calculation of amount of concrete,
(Assumes a composite house, i.e., partial basement, garage, etc.)
Source: Franklin Associates
in Ib/sq ft.
Generation
rate
(Lb/sq ft)
52
53
41
50
61
111
127
115
245,000
1,396
115
19,700,000
The Census Bureau provides data on the types of foundations in existing
houses in Current Housing Reports. Forty-five percent of single-family houses
have basements, 26 percent are on concrete slabs, and the remainder have crawl
spaces. Table A-3 in the appendix describes an analysis using these percentages to
estimate that-on average the amount of concrete in a 1,600 square foot single
family house is 61 pounds per square foot. The amount can range from zero for
houses without basements, garages, or driveways to more than 150 pounds per
square foot.
We estimate the total C&D debris generated when single-family houses
are demolished is 111 pounds per square foot. For multi-family housing, NAHB
Research Center's value of 127 pounds per square foot (Table 5) was used,
resulting in an average for all residences of 115 pounds per square foot. Applying
this rate to the 245,000 housing units demolished per year results in a waste
generation estimate of 19.7 million tons per year, as shown in Table 5.
2-6
-------
Nonresidential. The method used to estimate the generation of
nonresidential demolition debris is to first determine the number of demolitions
per year, then estimate the average size (in square feet) of buildings being
demolished. The number of square feet is then multiplied by the generation per
square foot, as determined by empirical waste assessments.
The Census Bureau has, until 1995, monitored the number of
demolitions, based on permits issued by permit issuing entities. This data series
is now discontinued because of federal budget cuts. In 1995, a total of 43,795
nonresidential demolition permits were issued. That number is used in this
study as an estimate for 1996. In 1994 there were 45,061 permits issued, which
suggests that using the 1995 number for 1996 is a reasonable estimate. Data were
not found indicating that the number of demolitions is actually larger than the
permits would indicate. Therefore, no correction was made, as was done for
residential demolitions. It is less likely that nonresidential demolitions escape
the permitting requirements than residential demolitions, because
nonresidential demolition is more closely regulated.
We estimated the average nonresidential building size at 13,300 square feet
by the following method. The 1996 Statistical Abstract characterizes existing
commercial buildings by type, including the number of buildings, and total
square feet based on the time period (decade) when the buildings were built (EIA
1992). Based on those data, we determined that buildings now standing that were
built between 1920 and 1969 average 13,300 square feet per building.
Table 6 shows the results of waste assessments at 23 nonresidential
buildings over the last several years. The average generation rate is 155 pounds
per square foot. Multiplying by the square feet per building and the total number
of demolition permits results in a nonresidential demolition debris generation
of 45.1 million tons per year.
Renovation Debris
Renovation (or remodeling) includes improvements and repairs to
existing buildings. Renovation debris consists of both construction and
demolition materials. Remodeling waste quantities are even more variable than
construction or demolition waste. Renovation debris ranges from single
materials being generated, such as when driveways or roofs are replaced, to
multiple material generation, such as when buildings are modified or enlarged.
For this analysis, we made estimates for wastes generated when major
improvements are made.
2-7
-------
Table 6
ESTIMATED GENERATION OF NONRESIDENTIAL DEMOLITION DEBRIS
EMPIRICAL WASTE ASSESSMENTS
Research
Date Group
1991 NAHB
1994-1995METRO
1992 METRO
1994 METRO
1997 Aigonne
1997 W. County
1995-1996 R.W. Rhine
EXTRAPOLATION
Type of
Building
Prison shop
Warehouse
Department store
Institutional building
Office building
Cold storage building
17 Industrial buildings
Totals
Average
Location
Oakalla, BC
Portland, OR
Portland, OR
Portland, OR
Chicago, IL
Washington Co., OR
Northwestern U.S.
Building
Size
Square feet
12,000
86,400
44,000
60,000
5700
73,600
2,204,000
2,485,700
Total
Waste
Tons
1,301
1,566
3,639
5,454
289
13,163
167,200
192,612
Generation
rate
Lb/sqft
217
36
165
182
101
358
152
155
Total demolitions (1)
Average building size (2)
Average C&D debris generation rate
Total nonresidential demolition debris
43,795
13,300 sqft
155 pounds per square foot
45,100,000 tons/year
(1) U.S. Census Bureau, Manufacturing and Construction Division, 1995.
(2) U.S. Energy Information Administration, 1992. From 1996 Statistical Abstract.
Source: Franklin Associates
Residential. In 1996, the value of residential improvements and repairs
amounted to $114.3 billion (Census 1997). Of this, 68 percent (or $77.7 billion) was
for improvements and 32 percent (or $36.6 billion) was for repairs.
Improvements are defined by the Census Bureau to include additions,
alterations, and major replacements which add to the value or useful life of a
property, or adapt a property to a new or different use. Repairs include incidental
maintenance and repairs to keep a property in ordinary operating condition (C-
Series Reports).
Because of the wide variation in remodeling projects, waste assessments to
determine generation per square foot are not very useful for estimating total
generation. More important is the amount of material produced per job, e.g., per
kitchen addition or bath remodeling or roof replacement. Table 7 shows the
results of five waste assessments that have been made at residential sites,
showing a wide variation in generation rates on a square foot basis. Remodeling
typically generates more waste per square foot than new construction, largely
because of the demolition that accompanies remodeling. However, some
remodeling jobs, like roof replacement, 'produce relatively low amounts of
material on a square foot basis.
2-8
-------
Table?
EMPIRICAL WASTE ASSESSMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL RENOVATION DEBRIS
Date
1997
1997
1993
1993-1994
1997
Research
Group
NAHB
NAHB
METRO
METRO
NAHB
Type of data
SF Remodel (Kit & rm add.)
SF Remodel (bathroom)
Totals
Kitchen remodel
House remodel
Totals
SF Remodel (New roof)
Location
Maryland
Chapel Hill, NC
Portland, OR
Portland, OR
•
Maryland
Size of
Project
(Sqft)
560
40
600
150
1,330
1,480
1,400
Total Generation Average
Waste rate generation
(Pounds) (Lb/sqft) (Lb/sqft)
11,020
2,883
13,903
9,600
26,000
35,600
4,640
19.68
72.10
64.00
19.55
3.31
23.17
24.05
3.31
Source: Franklin Associates
We estimated renovation debris generation for this analysis by reviewing
the number of major home improvements, then estimating the amount of
material produced by each type of improvement. Although all home
improvement projects cannot be included in a study of this type, selection of the
major projects can be useful for making first estimates.
Appendix A Tables A--7, A-8, A-9, and A-10 show some of the assumptions
made and the results of estimating the amount of material produced when
driveways are replaced, when asphalt and wood roofs from residences having
one to four units per structure are replaced, and when residential heating and
cooling equipment is replaced. Based on the assumptions made, replacement of
these categories produces 13 million tons of concrete from driveways, 6.4 million
tons of asphalt roofs, 1.4 million tons of wood roofing, and 1.6 million tons of
heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment.
The analysis above assumes that 60 percent of residential driveways are
made of concrete and are on average 45 feet long (NAHB 1995). Asphalt
driveways are also very common, but replacement generates much less waste
than concrete, since asphalt driveways are usually overlaid with new asphalt
rather than being replaced.
Approximately 67 percent of residences have asphalt roofs (NAHB 1997a).
For this analysis, 25 percent were assumed to have wood roofs. Other residential
roofing materials include slate, tile, metal, and concrete. These materials are used
much less than asphalt and wood, and generally are used over long periods
before being replaced.
The NAHB Research Center has compiled estimates of waste generation
rates by type of remodeling projects (Yost 1998). The major waste generation
remodeling activities involve kitchens, bathrooms, and room additions.
Generation from these job types are shown in Table A-5 in Appendix A.
2-9
-------
Annually there are approximately 1.25 million major kitchen remodeling jobs
(complete tear-out), with an average generation of 4.5 tons per job, and 1.25
million minor kitchen remodeling jobs (facelift, e.g., cabinet replacement) at 0.75
tons per job. Major bath remodelings (1.2 million per year) produce on average
one ton of waste material each, and 1.8 million minor bath remodeling jobs
produce on average 0.25 tons of waste each. Room additions, estimated at 1.25
million per year, produce on average 0.75 tons apiece. On this basis, we estimated
total residential renovation generation, from the improvement or replacement
projects itemized above, to be 31.9 million tons per year.
Nonresidential. Based on Census Bureau data, total dollars spent for
nonresidential renovation projects in 1996 was $100.4 billion. We calculated this
number by assuming the ratio of residential to nonresidential dollars is the same
in 1996 as in 1992. We could not find any information on total renovation
dollars for 1996.
Very few waste assessments are available for nonresidential renovation.
Therefore, the previous methodology cannot be used to estimate this amount.
Lacking specific assessment data, we compared total dollars spent on
nonresidential and residential renovation and assumed that the amount of
waste generated is proportional to dollars spent in these two sectors. (See Table
1 A-6 for more details of this analysis.)
Based on the assumption that waste generation per dollar is equal to the
residential rate, total nonresidential renovation is equal to 28.04 million tons per
year, less than residential generation by the ratio of dollars spent.
Summary of Building-Related C&D Generation
Table 8 summarizes the estimates for C&D debris generation from the
construction, demolition, and renovation of residential and nonresidential
buildings in the United States. The estimated total for 1996 is almost 136 million
tons, with 43 percent coming from residential and 57 percent from
nonresidential sources. Forty-eight percent of the C&D debris generated is from
building demolitions, 44 percent is from renovation, and 8 percent is from
building construction.
Figure 3 provides a breakdown, in percent of total, of the six building
sectors that generate C&D debris. The largest sector is nonresidential demolition
at 33 percent. Residential and nonresidential renovation debris make up 23 and
21 percent, respectively, followed by residential demolition at 15 percent. New
construction represents 8 percent of total C&D debris, with residential at 3.4
percent and nonresidential at 4.8 percent.
The estimate of 136 million tons per year is equal to 2.8 pounds per capita
per day (pcd). This compares to 4.3 pcd'of MSW generation. Note that the 2.8 pcd
2-10
-------
TableS
SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED BUILDING-RELATED C&D
DEBRIS GENERATION, 1996*
(Roadway, Bridge, and Land Clearing Debris not included)
(Thousand Tons)
Source
Residential
Nonresidential
Totals
Construction
Renovation
Demolition
Totals
Percent
Thou tons
6,560
31,900
19,700
58,160
43
Percent
11
55
34
100
Thou tons
4,270
28,000
45,100
77,370
57
Percent
6
36
58
100
Thou tons
10,830
59,900
64,800
135,530
100
Percent
8
44
48
100
* C&D debris managed on-site should, in theory, be deducted from generation.
Quantities managed on-site are unknown.
Source: Franklin Associates
does not include C&D debris from roadway and bridge construction and
demolition or from land clearing projects. These wastes are discussed briefly in
the following section.
Figure 3. Generation of construction and demolition debris from buildings
Residential new
construction 5%
Nonresidential new
construction 3%
2-11
-------
CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS GENERATION FROM ROAD,
BRIDGE, AND OTHER NON-BUILDING ACTIVITIES
In this initial characterization study, we developed a methodology to
estimate C&D debris generation from building construction, demolition, and
renovation. However, because point source data were not available, we did not
estimate the generation of site clearance materials, excavated materials, and
roadwork materials. These are waste streams that will require further
investigation in future editions of EPA's C&D work. These other wastes are
typically managed by many of the same processors and landfills that manage
building-related wastes.
We have made attempts, however, to provide certain cameo examples of
locally generated data on most of these other generating sectors within the
context of this report. Most communities and states that report C&D debris
include the total C&D debris stream, which of course varies according to
applicable regulations and definitions.
In 1995, a report was completed for Anne Arundel County, Maryland (part
of the Metro Washington, DC area) that attempted to quantify total C&D debris
generated and/or disposed in that County (GBB 1995). The report concluded that
138,000 tons per year of in-County generated C&D waste was being disposed at
area C&D landfills (called "rubblefills" in the State of Maryland), while 435,000
tons per year of C&D debris materials were processed/recycled. This latter figure
was reported to be about 12 percent wood waste and 88 percent concrete, asphalt,
brick, block and porcelain waste generated in the County. This particular report is
significant in the sense that it represents an example of total C&D generation in a
large developing community.
STATE CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS GENERATION RATES
We identified six states that have C&D debris generation records available.
They are California, Florida, Massachusetts, Oregon (Portland metropolitan area),
South Carolina, and Vermont. Generation of C&D debris from these states
ranged from 1.43 pcd in South Carolina to 3.41 pcd for Massachusetts.
All of these states except Massachusetts report rates lower than 2.8 pcd,
which is our estimate for building-related debris alone. The state data may
include road debris as well. There are several reasons some of the states'
estimates may be low. The six states' data reflect reports from facilities receiving
C&D debris. Some of the many locations typically accepting C&D debris—ranging
from established landfills to processors to sites with temporary permits (or no
permits)—may be missed when C&D debris quantities are reported. Also, C&D
debris mixed with MSW may be missed. In some states, road debris (asphalt and
concrete) is mostly reused or recycled; it either remains on site or is incorporated
2-12
-------
into other roads. Thus, very little road debris would be expected in the states'
quantities.
It is important to note that the methodology used in this report includes
all building-related C&D debris, whether managed in C&D or MSW landfills,
processing centers, land clearing landfills, or unpermitted landfills. It also
includes on-site managed waste, if any, e.g., concrete or asphalt that is used as fill
material, since no method was determined for making a correction. An
important feature of the methodology used for residential demolition debris
estimation, i.e., changes in housing inventory, is that residential buildings
destroyed by natural disasters are included in this estimate.
We contacted two of the states by phone to discuss their C&D debris
generation estimates. Florida reported a generation rate in 1995 of 2.01 pounds
per capita per day. This rate was determined from reports to the state by each of
the counties. The waste reported consists primarily of building waste, and is
thought by the official contacted to be under-reported by many of the counties
(Moreau 1997).
South Carolina has a reported generation rate of 1.43 pcd. The person
contacted thinks that number is also grossly under-reported (Pitt 1997). C&D
debris landfills for utilities and manufacturing and short term landfills are not
required to report their quantities in South Carolina, and are not monitored by
the State.
COMPOSITION OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS
Six sets of C&D sorting data that provide some empirical measurements of
the composition of C&D debris were identified. Each of the sampling studies was
conducted with the specific goal of developing composition data for C&D debris.
Probably the most rigorous assessments have been conducted at residential
construction sites. These waste assessment projects are:
1. The National Association of Homebuilders (NAHB) Research Center
conducted waste assessments at four residential construction sites:
Largo, Maryland; Anne Arundel County, Maryland; Portland, Oregon;
and Grand Rapids, Michigan. The Research Center also conducted a
waste assessment at a four-unit multi-family demolition (or
deconstruction) site (NAHB 1997b).
2. The Metropolitan Service District in Portland, Oregon (METRO)
conducted a series of sampling projects at a number of. residential and
nonresidential construction, demolition, and renovation sites in
Oregon.
2-13
-------
3. Cunningham Environmental Consulting and the Cascadia Consulting
Group sampled loads of C&D debris at disposal sites and transfer
stations. Loads of residential and commercial construction, demolition,
and remodeling debris from the Seattle area were selected
(Cunningham 1996). Detailed sorting of these loads was done.
4. Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. (GBB) conducted a C&D sorting
study for the Town of Babylon, New York that was funded by the New
York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA).
The three-week study included C&D samples from waste loads from all
or parts of 16 residential and nonresidential construction, demolition,
and renovation projects (Brickner 1993). A total of 161.5 tons were
sorted.
5. GBB, in association with the Metro Waste Authority, also sampled
C&D debris from residential and commercial construction, demolition,
and remodeling projects in Des Moines, Iowa for a one-week period
(Brickner 1995).
6. R.W. Rhine, Inc. of Tacoma, Washington, a demolition contractor,
provided waste assessment data from the demolition of 19
nonresidential (industrial/commercial) buildings in the greater
Northwest area.
In addition to the analyses listed above, the University of Florida is
conducting waste audits at Florida residential construction sites. Data from these
studies are expected to be available soon.
The detailed composition data from the sampling studies are shown in
Tables A-ll through A-18 in Appendix A of this report. A review of these tables
demonstrates that the composition of C&D debris is highly variable, as may be
expected because of the many different types of buildings and construction
practices in existence. The data collections were done under many different
conditions and levels of detail. Therefore, we made no-attempt to average all the
compositions. Although different, there are some observations that can be made.
The first two (Tables A-ll and A-12) and sixth (Table A-16) sets of data
characterize waste at the source, i.e., at specific construction or demolition sites.
The other three data sets (Cunningham in the Seattle area and GBB in Babylon,
New York and Des Moines, Iowa) characterize debris as disposed at the landfills.
The sectors (or sources) for each load of C&D debris that was sorted are identified,
but the specific phase of construction or demolition is. not identified.
NAHB and Metro examined both composition and quantity per square
foot of floor space for single-family housing. Both of these groups developed data
from well-defined construction projects, i.e., the materials consist of trim scraps
2-14
-------
Figure 4. Sample composition of residential new construction debris
(Average of assessments in four locations)
Brick 6%
Roofing 6%
Plastics 2%
Metals 2%
Source: NAHB Research Center * Refuse, dirt, sweepings, and aggregate
from beginning to end of the residential construction process, without serious
contamination from other sources. Figures 4 and 5 show these data in percent by
weight. Figure 4 shows the average composition for four single-family houses,
two in the East, one in the Midwest, and one in the Northwest. Wood is the
largest component, followed by drywall.
Figure 5 shows the composition from three new residential construction
sites in the Portland, Oregon area. The percentage of wood in the Northwest
samples is considerably higher, as may be expected, because a large fraction of
homes in the Northwest have wood roofs. Residential construction debris in the
Southwest and southern United States is expected to contain a lower percentage
of wood than in the East and Midwest, and more brick and cinder blocks. As
waste assessment data become available in other regions of the country, it will be
possible to develop an overall composition for residential construction debris
and to relate composition to total generation, i.e., estimate total C&D debris
generation by material type.
Figure 6 shows the composition of residential renovation debris in the
Northwest. This stream is similar to the construction debris stream, but with an
obvious difference, an increase in the amount of roofing materials. Only trim
pieces of roofing are included in new construction debris.
Concrete is missing from the renovation stream of Figure 6. Obviously
these two projects did not include projects like driveway replacement. This
demonstrates that many samples are required before we can report an overall
composition that represents.the U.S. average with confidence.
2-15
-------
Figure 5. Sample composition of residential new construction debris
(Average of three sites, Portland, Oregon)
Miscellaneous
8%
Metals 0.4%
Concrete 5%
Source: METRO Portland, Oregon
Figure 6. Sample composition of residential renovation debris
(Average of two sites, Portland, Oregon)
Miscellaneous 6%
Metals 1%
Source: METRO Portland, Oregon
Figure 7 displays the composition of residential demolition debris.
Concrete is an obvious component of this stream, as it is in Figure 8, which
shows the composition of a 2,000 square foot two story four-plex that was
disassembled by NAHB in a demonstration project for the USEPA.
2-16
-------
Figure 7. Sample composition of residential demolition debris
(Average of three sites, Portland, Oregon)
Metals 2%
Source: METRO Portland, Oregon.
Figure 8. Sample composition of multi-family demolition debris
Miscellaneous 1%
Roofing 3%
Source: NAHB Research Center, Inc.
Figure 9 shows the average composition of 19 nonresidential buildings
that were demolished in the Northwest area. These were large industrial/
commercial type buildings that ranged in weight from 891 tons to 37,500 tons.
While this figure represents the average composition, the percentage of wood
ranged from 0.03 percent to 88 percent in the 19 buildings. This demonstrates the
huge variability of building types.
2-17
-------
Figure 9. Sample composition of demolition debris
(19 nonresidential projects in the Pacific Northwest)
Brick 1%
Scrap iron 5%
Asphalt 2%
Landfill debris 9%
'».* .
Roofing 1%
Source: R.W. Rhine, Inc., Tacoma, WA
Some general observations can be made from these figures. Residential
construction and renovation projects tend to yield significant quantities of wood
and drywall, whereas demolition sites are heavily weighted toward concrete and
rubble. The debris from 19 nonresidential demolition projects of Figure 9
averaged 66 percent concrete.
2-18
-------
Chapter 2
REFERENCES
Brickner, Robert. Demolition Age. October 1993.
Brickner, Robert. Scrap Processing and Recycling. March/April 1995.
Carliner, Michael. "Replacement Demand for Housing." Housing Economics.
December 1996.
Cunningham Environmental Consulting and the Cascadia Consulting
Group. Construction and Demolition Debris Study. City of Seattle. 1996.
Gershman, Brickner & Bratton Inc. Construction and Demolition (C&D)
Debris Generation and Disposal in Anne Arundel County, Maryland.
Prepared for Anne Arundel County Department of Public Works, Annapolis,
Maryland. March 1995.
Sellen Construction Co. Communications with Lynn King. 1997.
Metro Regional Environmental Management. Portland, Oregon. 1997.
Moreau, Ray, Environmental Manager for Recycling, Florida Department of
Environmental Protection. Personal communication. October 1997.
NAHB Research Center survey results for 1995.
NAHB Research Center, Inc. Deconstruction - Building Disassembly and
Material Salvage: The Riverdale Case Study. Prepared for the US
Environmental Protection Agency. June 1997.
NAHB Research Center. "Waste Management Update 2: Asphalt Roofing
Shingles." October 1997.
Pitt, Charlotte, Environmental Quality Manager, South Carolina Department
of Health and Environmental Control. Personal communication. October
1997.
R.W. Rhine Inc., Seattle, Washington. Communications with Chris Christich,
1997.
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. "Highlights from the
Expenditures for Residential Improvements and Repairs." Press Release."
August 4,1997.
2-19
-------
U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. C-Series (Construction)
Reports.
U.S. Energy Information Administration. Commercial Building
Characteristics, 1992.
Washington County, Oregon. Communication from Department of Health
and Human Services. Hillsboro, Oregon. August 1997.
Yost, Peter, NAHB Research Center. Communication. July 1998.
2-20
-------
Chapter 3
MANAGEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS
IN THE UNITED STATES
INTRODUCTION
Construction and demolition (C&D) debris is managed in a variety of
ways, ranging from reuse to recycling to disposal in landfills or combustion
facilities. The most common management method is landfilling, including
specially permitted C&D landfills and municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills, as
well as unpermitted inert debris sites.
In most states there is no formal reporting mechanism that documents
C&D debris disposal, recovery, or recycling activities. The information collected
by many state agencies is largely anecdotal. In addition, information from private
companies is generally considered to be proprietary and not available for public
dissemination.
LANDFILLING
A large fraction of C&D debris generated in the United States ends up in
C&D landfills. Since much of this waste stream is inert, solid waste rules in most
states do not require the landfills to provide the same level of environmental
protection (liners, leachate collection, etc.) as landfills licensed to receive MSW.
Therefore, C&D landfills generally have lower tipping fees, and handle a large
fraction of the C&D debris.
A 1994 survey done for the EPA identified about 1,900 active C&D landfills
in the United States (ERG 1994). Florida had the largest number (280), followed by
six other states (Louisiana, North Carolina, Ohio, Kentucky, Mississippi, and
South Dakota) with over 100 C&D landfills apiece. (See Appendix A, Table A-19
and Figure 10.)
A recent survey of 850 randomly selected C&D landfills in the United
States (40 percent response rate) found that on average, C&D landfills received
29,300 tons of material in 1995 (Bush 1997). Assuming that average holds true for
the 1,900 active landfills, 55.6 million tons per year are disposed of in permitted
C&D landfills. This amount is equal to about 41 percent of the estimated 136
million tons of building related C&D debris, as estimated in the previous
chapter. However, this 55.6 million tons is likely to contain significant amounts
of non-building C&D debris.
The amount of C&D debris disposed of in MSW landfills is not known. It
is significant, however, because in many areas, particularly where landfill tipping
3-1
-------
Figure 10. Number of C&D debris landfills in the United States
Florida
Louisiana
North Carolina
Ohio
Kentucky
Mississippi
South Dakota
Minnesota
Kansas
Maine
South Carolina
Georgia
Wisconsin
North Dakota
Virginia
Tennessee
Alabama
Montana
Texas
Washington
Arkansas
Connecticut
Alaska
New York
Massachusetts
California
Maryland
Indiana
Utah
Missouri
Idaho
Oklahoma
Nevada
Nebraska
Arizona
Michigan
Colorado
Wyoming
Pennsylvania
New Mexico
New Jersey
Illinois
West Virginia
Vermont
Oregon
Rhode Island
Iowa
Hawaii
Delaware
New Hampshire
District of Columbia
50
100
150
200
250
300
Source: ERG List prepared for USEPA, September 30,1994.
3-2
-------
fees are low, disposal in MSW landfills is the most common management
method for C&D debris.
A significant fraction of residential renovation debris is discarded by
homeowners into the household trash and disposed of in MSW landfills.
Discarded items include replacement plumbing and electrical fixtures, lumber,
and other building materials used in home repair or improvement projects.
Unpermitted landfills for C&D debris are also very common in many
states. These are fill areas for inert materials, with little or no control or record
keeping by the state or local governments. Some of these are on-site facilities that
are used only for the disposal of C&D debris generated at a specific site and may
be closed following completion of the activity. Little data exists on the number of
unpermitted C&D landfills nationwide. Georgia, the only state known to count
them, has about 900 such sites (ICF 1995).
Open burning of C&D debris at construction sites is practiced in many
rural areas as well as in many small to medium size cities. The amount of
material burned is unknown.
Regulatory schemes used by states for C&D landfills have been divided
into four categories as summarized in Table 9. Eleven states require C&D
landfills to meet state MSW landfill requirements or requirements similar to
these. Twenty-four states regulate C&D landfills separately from MSW landfills.
In addition to the 24 states that regulate all C&D landfills as a landfill unit
separate from sanitary landfills, eight states have defined further separate
requirements for on-site and off-site C&D landfills. Of those eight states, Maine
requires both off-site and on-site landfills to meet MSW landfill rules if they are
greater than six acres. Seven states exempt all on-site landfills from regulatory
requirements. Of these seven, sanitary landfill regulations apply to all off-site
landfills in Colorado and New Mexico.
In summary, disposal in landfills is the major waste management option
for C&D debris from buildings. We estimate that C&D, MSW, and other landfills
account for roughly 65 to 85 percent of that waste stream.
RECOVERY OF C&D DEBRIS FOR RECYCLING
The six major constituents of C&D debris, if not too severely
contaminated, have all been recovered and processed into recycled-content
products that have been marketed somewhere in the United States. The
materials most frequently recovered and recycled are concrete, asphalt, metals,
and wood. To a much lesser degree, gypsum wallboard and asphalt shingles have
been processed and recycled. The technologies to recover and process these
materials for reuse are available. The major barriers to increased recovery rates at
this time are:
3-3
-------
Table 9
STATE REGULATORY SCHEMES FOR C&D LANDFILLS
State
Must meet MSW
Landfill Requirements
Separate C&D Debris
Regulations
Separate
Requirements for
On-Site and Off-
Site Landfills
Exempt On-Site
C&D Debris
Landfills from
Regulation
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisana
Maine
Maryland
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missoun
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
New York
New Mexico
North Carolina
North Dakota
iio
Yes
Ohic
Okla
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Total Number
II
Source: ICF Incorporated. "Construction and Demolition Waste Landfills." February 1995.
3-4
-------
• the cost of collecting, sorting, and processing;
• the low value of the recycled-content material in relation to the cost
of virgin-based materials, and
• the low cost of C&D debris landfill disposal.
Responses to a survey of North American aggregate producers indicated
that plant permitting issues, as well as product specifications that favor the use of
virgin materials, were also problems facing recyclers (Deal 1997).
The number of recycling facilities for C&D debris has been growing rapidly
in the last few years. In 1996, it was estimated there were at least 1,800 operating
C&D recycling facilities (Brickner 1997). That number includes more than 1,000
asphalt and concrete crushing facilities, 500 wood waste processing plants, and
300 mixed-waste C&D facilities. No information is available on the average
throughput of these facilities.
The estimate of 1,800 C&D facilities does not include quarry rock crushing
plants, brush/tree tub grinding plants, or pallet grinding operations. The asphalt
and concrete crushing plants handle large quantities of road debris, but also
concrete recovered from building construction, renovation, and demolition.
The largest number of C&D recycling facilities were reported to be in the
Western States (28 percent) and the Mid-Atlantic states (27 percent). The
Southwestern and Rocky Mountain States each have only three percent of the
total, and the Southeastern, Upper Midwestern, and New England states have 12,
13, and 14 percent of the facilities, respectively.
Because of the effort being exerted to develop markets for recovered
materials, the number of C&D recycling facilities is continuing to grow. A July
1997 status update lists 37 new recycling plants or equipment additions in the
United States, including planned projects for the rest of 1997 (Leiter 1997). The
editor of C&D Debris Recycling estimates there are now more than 3,500 C&D
debris recycling facilities in operation (Turley 1998).
Deconstruction
Deconstruction is a new expression to describing the process of selective
dismantling or removal of materials from buildings before or instead of
demolition (NAHB 1996a). A common practice in the United States is to remove
materials of value from buildings prior to and during demolition for recycling or
reuse. Reuse and recycling examples include, electrical and plumbing fixtures that
are reused, steel, copper, and lumber that are reused or recycled, wood flooring
that is remilled, and doors and windows that are refinished for use in new
construction.
3-5
-------
Demolition contractors have been practicing deconstruction in varying
degrees for a number of years to remove some of the more valuable materials
prior to demolition by conventional methods. This activity, along with recovery
of demolition materials after the building has been knocked down, has increased
significantly since the 1970s and 1980 (Taylor 1997). Deconstruction minimizes
contamination of demolition debris, thus increasing the potential for marketing
the recovered materials. It is, however, labor intensive, and may require more
time than traditional demolition.
Several deconstruction demonstration projects have been completed
recently, showing that high diversion rates may be achieved. The NAHB
Research Center completed the deconstruction of a two-story, four-unit
apartment building in Maryland (NAHB 1997). The Research Center measured
the volume and the weight of all materials on site, whether salvaged, recycled, or
landfilled. The diversion rate was 76 percent by weight and 70 percent by
volume.
In another recent demonstration project, three buildings were
deconstructed at the recently closed Fort Ord Army Base, located in Monterey
County, California (Schneider 1997). The buildings included a one-story clinic, a
single-story administration building, and a two-story barracks. Goals of this
project include the evaluation of costs and potential recovery.
Asphalt and Concrete Recycling
Concrete is made up of cement, water, and aggregate, such as crushed
stone, sand, or grit. Concrete can be recycled by first crushing it to remove any
metals. The primary use of crushed concrete is as a replacement for road-base
gravel. Other applications include use as an aggregate in asphalt or concrete.
Concrete recycling is practiced in most areas of the country. The practice is most
prevalent in areas where landfill tipping fees are high or aggregate is in short
supply.
Asphalt pavements are made of asphalt concrete (AC), which consists of
asphalt (the bituminous binder) and aggregate. The aggregate makes up the bulk
of the asphalt concrete, while the asphalt binder comprises about 5 to 7 percent
CIWMB 1997).
While no reports have been identified showing the amount of asphalt and
concrete recycled, some datapoints that provide indications of the amounts
recycled are discussed below (Brickner 1997).
As stated above, it is estimated there are more than 1,000 asphalt and
concrete crushing facilities in the United States. GBB estimates that potentially 50
million tons per year of milled pavement in the United States is reused. Twenty
to 50 percent goes back into pavement as Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP),
3-6
-------
with the remainder finding its way into aggregate base or subbase. GBB research
in the Pacific Northwest, for example, has estimated that for the State of
Washington alone, the use of RAP is between 650,000 and 1,000,000 tons per year.
Based on data collected for the State of Washington from waste concrete
processors/recyclers, GBB has estimated that 1.4 to 1.5 million tons of waste
concrete in that state are recovered, crushed, and recycled on an annual basis.
In Anne Arundel County; Maryland, an area between Washington, DC
and Baltimore, Maryland, GBB field work in 1995 indicated that the concrete and
asphalt processors in that County alone were receiving, crushing and recycling
over 850,000 tons per year of these two types of materials (includes out-of-county
generation).
In California, asphalt pavement and concrete are not reported separately.
The state estimated generation of "inert solid waste," which consists of concrete,
asphalt, dirt, brick and other rubble, at 8.2 million tons per year. The estimated
recycling rate for inert solid wastes is 57 percent; the remainder is disposed of
(CIWMB 1997).
Waste Wood Recycling
Wood waste produced at construction sites generally has a better potential
for reuse than wood from demolition sites due to the ease of separating the
materials. Demolition wood is often less desirable because of contamination and
because of the difficulty in separating the wood from other building materials.
Wood processing facilities have sprung up in many areas of the United
States in recent years, particularly in areas with high landfill costs. Many of these
facilities accept wood from C&D debris as well as other wood. Processed (chipped)
wood is used as mulch, composting bulking agent, animal bedding, and fuel.
Wood waste from construction or demolition is attractive as a fuel because of its
low moisture content. Depending on the wood waste boiler system design and
the state/regional air pollution permit requirements for the facility, a level of
quality control may be necessary at the wood processing plant to reduce and/or
avoid the processing of treated and/or painted wood if used as a fuel source in a
combustion process.
The American Forest & Paper Association (AF&PA) has located 315 wood
processing facilities in the United States that process C&D debris, as shown in
Table A-20 of the Appendix. These facilities were included in the estimate of 500
wood processing plants as discussed above. The leading, states for these wood
processing plants are North Carolina (44), Oregon (35), and California (34).
Quantities of wood processed are not given in the AF&PA report.
3-7
-------
Metals Recycling
Metals have the highest recycling rates among the materials recovered
from C&D sites. Good markets for ferrous metals, as well as copper and brass,
have existed for many years. The Steel Recycling Institute estimates the recycling
rate for C&D steel is about 85 percent (18.2 million tons out of 21.4 million tons
generated). These numbers include not only scrap steel from buildings but also
from streets, bridges, and highways (Heenan 1996). The percentage of metals
coming from roads and bridges is unknown.
A 1997 survey of North American aggregate producers by Vanderbilt
University and C&D Recycling Magazine found that the markets for waste rebar
removed from the concrete rubble appear to have increased from 1994 to 1997
(Deal 1997). Twenty-one percent of the 1994 recyclers depended on disposal for
their rebar compared to 4 percent in 1997.
Asphalt Shingles
Asphalt shingles are most commonly used on slanted residential roofs.
Built-up roofing, which consists of roofing felt between layers of tar and gravel, is
traditionally used on flat commercial roofs. These two materials represent the
majority of the waste coming from roof replacement or repair. About two-thirds
of the residential roofing market is made up of asphalt shingles (NAHB 1996b).
Other roofing materials include wood, tile, and concrete.
The common uses for recycled roofing asphalt include hot mix asphalt for
paving, cold mix asphalt paving product, and new roofing materials. Meeting the
specifications for paving and roofing materials is still limiting the growth of
these applications. Preconsumer manufacturing scrap (approximately one
million tons per year) is currently being used in hot mix asphalt; however,
postconsumer scrap (estimated at 8 to 10 million tons per year), which is less
uniform in composition, is not nearly as widely used or recommended for use in
hot mix asphalt (Button 1997).
Drywall (Sheetrock, Gypsum)
Drywall is being recycled in several locations by first separating the paper
backing, which is recycled into new paper backing, and then remixing the
gypsum and using it in the manufacture of new drywall. Recovered drywall has
also been used as animal bedding, cat litter, and as a soil amendment.
Estimated Recovery Rate
Because of the relatively benign nature of C&D debris (i.e., much of it is
inert), there has been no concerted effort in the past to track and quantify the
generation or recovery rate from a national perspective. Therefore, only general
3-8
-------
estimates can be made based on data from those local communities and states
that monitor the waste stream.
A total survey of states was not feasible for this project, but several states
were contacted in an attempt to estimate of the national recovery rate for C&D
debris. States representing more than 50 percent of the U.S. population were
contacted. Most states contacted have no statewide records available on the
quantity of C&D debris generated or recovered for recycling. We identified five
states that report recycling rate data for C&D debris. The recovery rates in the five
states range from 37 percent to 77 percent. The five states and their reported
recovery rates are:
Massachusetts
Florida
Vermont
Oregon (Metro)
South Carolina
Average
77 percent
46 percent
37 percent
42 percent
40 percent
48 percent
These data confirm that there is significant recovery of C&D debris for
recycling in these locations. However, it is not likely that these five states are
representative of the United States as a whole. We expect that the states that keep
records have higher recovery rates than the national average.
The definitions of what constitutes C&D debris and what constitutes
recycling among the states are not standardized, as was discussed earlier,
although most C&D debris definitions include both building-related wastes and
as road and bridge debris. Massachusetts includes asphalt and concrete from
roads in both the numerator and denominator of the recovery rate calculation,
but does not include land clearing debris, (i.ev stumps, soil, rock, etc.). Florida's
recovery numbers include primarily building debris and land clearing debris.
Road debris is generally not counted (Moreau 1997). .
Several methods were explored for estimating a national recovery rate for
C&D debris. The first is to look at the relationship of recovery rate and landfill
tipping fees. It might be expected that states with low C&D landfill tipping fees
have lower recovery rates.
Lowest C&D landfill tipping fees are generally in the lower population
density states, such as the Midwest, where the average has been reported at $19.70
per ton, compared to $46 and $42.60 per ton in the Northeast and West,
respectively (Bush 1997). A large number of states in the Midwest do not have
recovery rate records. In the South, the average is $27.10 per ton. Using tipping
fees as a guide, a conservative estimate would be that the average recovery rate
might be about half of the average of the five states reporting recovery rates, or 20
to 30 percent of generation.
3-9
-------
To test how reasonable the 20 to 30 percent estimate is, consider the 1,800
C&D debris recovery facilities referred to above. Assuming the 1,000 concrete and
asphalt plants handle primarily road debris, there are 800 or more wood and
mixed waste processors that are thought to handle primarily building debris.
Recycling rates of 20 to 30 percent (27 to 41 million tons per year) would result in
an average throughput of 90 to 140 tons per day, which appears to be a reasonable
average size.
SUMMARY OF C&D DEBRIS MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
Over the past 10 years a significant amount of data has been collected on
the amount of C&D debris disposed of at C&D and MSW landfills and the
amount processed at recycling facilities. The studies were conducted at the
municipal, county, or state levels. Research has also been conducted on title
number of C&D landfills and processing facilities in operation on the national
level. This foundation of new research was used to estimate how C&D debris is
managed on a national level.
Table 10 summarizes our estimated C&D debris management practices in
the United States in 1996. These quantity estimates apply to building-related
wastes, as estimated in Chapter 2. An estimated 35 to 45 percent of the waste
generated is managed in C&D landfills, 20 to 30 percent is recovered for recycling,
and 30 to 40 percent is disposed of in MSW landfills and other disposal sites, such
as unpermitted landfills or combustion facilities.
Table 10
ESTIMATED MANAGEMENT OF BUILDING-RELATED
C&D DEBRIS IN THE UNITED STATES, 1996
Management Option
Recovered for recycling
C&D landfills
MSW landfills and other*
Totals
Million
tons/year Percent of Total
25-40
45-60
40-55
20-30
35-45
30-40
136
100
* Includes combustion and disposal in unpermitted sites.
Source: Franklin Associates
3-10
-------
Chapters
REFERENCES
Brickner, Robert H., Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. Fairfax, VA. Personal
communication. December 1997.
Brickner, Robert. "Overview of C&D Debris Recycling Plants." C&D Debris
Recycling. January/February 1997.
Bush, Robert J., Vijay Reddy, and Philip Araman. Construction & Demolition
Landfills and Wood-Pallets - What's Happening in the U.S. Pallet Enterprise.
March 1997.
Button, Joe W.; Williams, Devon; and James A. Scherocman. "From Roofing to
Roads: the Use of Recycled Shingles in Hot-Mix Asphalt." C&D Debris Recycling.
July 1997.
California Integrated Waste Management Board. Construction & Demolition
Recycling Program. Publication #431-95-067. July 1997.
Deal, Tara A. "What it Costs to Recycle Concrete." C&D Debris Recycling.
September/October 1997.
Eastern Research Group, Inc. List of Industrial Waste Landfills and Construction
and Demolition Waste Landfills. Prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. September 30,1994.
Heenan, Bill, Steel Recycling Institute. Personal communication. November
1996.
ICF Incorporated. Construction and Demolition Waste Landfills. Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. February 1995.
Leiter, Sharon. "C&D Project Activity." C&D Debris Recycling. July 1997.
Moreau, Ray, Florida Department of Environmental Protection. Personal
communication. October 1997.
NAHB Research Center. Deconstruction - "Building Disassembly and Material
Salvage: The Riverdale Case Study. June 1997.
NAHB Research Center. Waste Management Update 4: Deconstruction. October
1996a.
3-11
-------
NAHB Research Center. Waste Management Update 2: Asphalt Roofing
Shingles. October 1996b.
Schneider/ Ann, University of California, Santa Cruz. "The Fort Ord
Deconstruction Pilot Project." Presentation at the 5th Annual Construction
Materials Recycling Seminar. October 1997.
Taylor, Mike, National Association of Demolition Contractors. Personal
communication. November 1997.
Turley, William, Editor. C&D Debris Recycling. Personal communication. Mav
1998.
3-12
-------
Chapter 4
ADDITIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON CONSTRUCTION AND
DEMOLITION DEBRIS
INTRODUCTION
The solid waste industry usually identifies wastes according to the source
and predominant method of solid waste management. Waste materials defined
as municipal solid waste (MSW) are normally discarded from residences or
commercial establishments and managed in municipally controlled landfills or
processing facilities. Construction and demolition (C&D) debris is generated at
construction and demolition sites, and managed in C&D landfills or processing
facilities.
However, the lines separating the various sectors of solid waste are
sometimes blurred. Data sources for the production of some components of
MSW (e.g., paper products) are developed from trade association data. These
sources tabulate the entire production, without regard to the final discard point;
i.e., some paper products are not discarded from residences or commercial
establishments, but are collected from construction sites. Conversely, some
wastes that are classified as C&D debris by the methods developed in this report,
because they are building materials, are placed into the household trash and end
up in MSW landfills.
While this blurring of lines may not be an issue of great importance
because of the relatively small amounts of crossover, it could potentially result
in double counting of some fractions when estimating the national generation.
MSW COLLECTED WITH C&D DEBRIS
Definitions for some components that make up MSW are affected by the
data that are available. For example, postconsumer old corrugated containers
(OCC) are included in EPA's MSW characterization, even though some of them
are discarded from construction sites. Light fixtures, major appliances, vinyl
siding, and other items are often delivered to construction sites in corrugated
boxes. As a result, nearly all construction site waste assessments include OCC as a
waste category. On a volume basis, up to 20 percent of wastes collected at
residential construction sites may be OCC. By weight, OCC ranged from 2 percent
to 10 percent in the waste audits performed by NAHB.
An extensive year-long demonstration project conducted by CornerStone
of Wisconsin, Inc. was monitored on a quarterly basis by GBB (Brickner 1997).
GBB reported that through the use of specialized collection vehicles serving new
residential construction in Southeast Wisconsin, the amount of collected and
4-1
-------
marketed OCC averaged about 25 percent of the total collected volume of
material. Since the loose corrugated containers were estimated to occupy about 30
cubic yards per ton, the actual weight recovered was estimated to be 7 percent of
the total average weight of material generated from each of the residential units
serviced by the unique CornerStone system. Additional data on several other
C&D debris sorts that also quantified OCC are presented in Appendix A of this
report.
Although the amount of OCC collected at C&D sites can be a significant
fraction of residential construction wastes, it is a small fraction of the total OCC
discarded, and on a weight basis it represents a very small fraction of the total
C&D debris stream.
Other common MSW items typically collected at C&D sites include food
and beverage containers, appliances, and carpeting. Containers discarded by
workers at construction and demolition sites typically show up in C&D debris.
Major appliances and carpeting also frequently remain in houses that are
demolished, and are included with mixed C&D debris.
C&D DEBRIS COLLECTED WITH MSW
Significant quantities of building materials, particularly renovation scraps,
are also discarded in the municipal waste stream. Examples include pipes,
plumbing fixtures, and building materials that are replaced by the residents and
discarded with their household trash. The amount of these types of wastes in
MSW is not known. However, this "overlap" of MSW and C&D may account for
some of the discrepancies that have been experienced between expected MSW
quantities and actual weights.
At the current level of refinement of C&D generation and recovery data,
the overlap of MSW and C&D debris is not expected to be a cause for concern at
the national level in the near future.
4-2
-------
Chapter 4
REFERENCES
Brickner, Robert H., Gershman, Brickner & Bratton Inc. (GBB), Fairfax, VA.
Communication. 1997.
4-3
-------
-------
Appendix A
CALCULATIONS
-------
-------
Table A-l
Residential Construction Debris Worksheet
Method to Use
(1) Start with total dollars of new construction, from. Census Bureau. Current Constr Reports, C-30.
(2) Calculate sq ft of new construction from total dollars and $/sq ft construction cost.
(3) From empirical waste assessment, estimate Ib/sq ft of new construction.
(4) Calculate total generation.
Calculation
(1) C-30, Residential Construction (1996)= $181,795,000,000
(Includes private new housing units and public housing & redevelopment)
(2) 1995 Census data, Table 1175 of 1996 Stat Abs. (Note: whole industry not included)
Residential Construction $127,900,000,000
Residential sq ft of new constr 2,172,000,000 sq ft
Cost of new construction $58.89 persqft
Total sq ft of new constr = 181,795,000,000/58.89/1.03
(Includes 3 percent inflation factor)
(3) See sampling waste assessment results:
2,997,326,036 sq ft
Average Generation =
(4) Total new residential construction debris =
4.38 Ib/sq ft
6,564,000 tons/year
Table A-2
Nonresidential Construction Debris Worksheet
Nfethod to Use
(1) Start with total dollars of new construction, from Census Bureau. Current Constr Reports, C-30.
(2) Calculate sq ft of new construction from total dollars and $/sq ft construction cost.
(3) From empirical waste assessment, estimate Ib/sq ft of new construction.
(4) Calculate total generation.
Calculation
(1) C-30, Nonresidential Construction (1996) $198,694,000,000
(Includes all private nonres and public industrial, educ, hosp & other)
(2) 1995 Census data, Table 1175 of 1996 Stat Abs. (Note: whole industry not included)
Nonresidential Construction $112,000,000,000
Nonresidential sq ft of new construction 1,276,000,000 Sq ft
Cost of new construction $87.77 persqft
Total sq ft of new construction = 198,694,000,000/87.77/1.03
(Includes 3 percent inflation factor) . 2,197,759,570 sq ft
(3) See sampling waste assessment results:
Generation = 4.02 Ib/sq ft
(4) Total new residential construction debris =
4,417,000 tons/year
A-l
-------
Table A-3
Residential Demolition Worksheet
Method to Use
(1) Start with the number of residences demolished per year.
(2) Estimate the average size of residences that are demolished (single-family (SF) and multi-family (MF)).
(3) Estimate pounds of waste generated per sq ft, from sampling studies.
(4) Calculate total generation.
245,000 residential demolitions per year, per NAHB Economics Dept.
(1) Estimate:
(2) Smaller than the average size of new residences, because it is older.
See graph of sizes of houses built, in Figure 2:
New houses built in 1995 are 2,100 sq ft (SF), and 1,050 sq ft (MF)
New MF house sizes are unchanged since 1975, while new SF houses grew from 1,600 sq ft to 2,100 sq ft
Ave size is 1,396 sq ft from 1975 to 1986, then climbs to 1,900 sq ft/house
Demolitions: use 1600 sq ft for SF houses and 1000 sq feet for MF houses
(3) METRO sampling of three SF houses = 49.5 Ib/sq ft without concrete 39.6 tons
Estimated wt of foundation, 30' X 30' house w/8" thick basement walls
30'X8'X0.671X4X150 Ib/cu ft/2000 = est. tons of foundation 48.2 tons
(assumes 8 in. wall thickness and concrete density of 150 Ib/cu ft)
Basement floor
30'X30'/3X150 Ib/cu ft/2000 * tons of floor 22.5 tons
Garage floor & driveway 10X(20+45)/3X150/2000 16.3 tons
Total for 1600 sq ft single family with full basement & garage 126.6 tons
Total in Ib/sq ft 158.2 Ib/sq ft
Concrete only 108.7 Ib /sq ft
For house on slab (basic house) 39.6 tons
Concrete slab (same as basement floor) 22.5
Garage floor & driveway (same as above) 16.3
Total for SF on slab ~~
Total in Ib/sq ft
31%
38%
18%
13%
100%
51%
29%
21%
Concrete only
For house with crawl space (no bsmt, garage, or driveway)
Total for SF with crawl sp
Concrete only
For MF housing (per NAHB MF (Table 5))
78.35 tons
97.9 Ib/sq ft
48.4 Ib/sq ft
39.6 tons
49.5 Ib/sq ft
0.0 Ib/sq ft
127 Ib/sq ft
(4) Fraction of total units in U.S. from 1996 Statistical Abstract, Table 1194, Existing housing (1993)
Single family residences:
Fraction
of total
Foundation type units
Basement 0.30
Concrete slab 0.17
Crawl sp & other 0.19
0.66
Weighted ave. SF residence
100%
Multi-family (>1)
Totals
0.34
1.00
Est units
C&D debris
(Ib/sq ft)
158.2
97.9
49.5
111.3
127.0
Sq ft/unit
1,600
1,600
1,600
1,600
1,000
demol-
ished
72,426
42,406
46,865
161,697
83,303
Generation
Total Sq ft
115,882,000
67,850,000
74,983,000
258,715,000
83,303,000
(tons)
9,200,000
3,300,000
1,900,000
14,400,000
5,300,000
Percent
of waste
47%
17%
10%
73%
27%
Total residential demolition generation =
Average pounds per sq ft of house demolished =
Average tons per dwelling unit demolished =
245,000 342,018,000
100%
19,700,000 tons
115 Ib/sq ft
80.4 tons/unit
Source: Franklin Associates
A-2
-------
Table A-4
Nonresidential Demolition Worksheet
Method to Use
(1) Start with the number of demolitions per year.
(2) Estimate the average size of nonresidential buildings demolished,
assuming buildings demolished were built between 1920 and 1969.
(3) Estimate pounds of waste generated per sq ft, from sampling studies.
(4) Calculate total generation.
Calculation
(1) Use demolition permits data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census.
Note: Census permits data are discontinued as of 1995.
Census no. for 1994 = 45,061 buildings
Census no. for 1995 = 43,795 buildings
(2) Calculation of the average size of nonresidential buildings
built between 1920 and 1969
Number of
No. of yrs Bldgs built in
in period period
3
10
10
10
14
26
20
(thou)
128
884
982
783
880
724
255
169
Million sq
ft
2,502
14,287
14,014
12,612
10,421
8,712
3,608
1,721
Average
bldg size
Sq ft/bldg
19,547
16,162
14,271
16,107
11,842
12,033
14,149
10,183
Construction period
1990 1992
1980 1989
1970 1979
1960 1969
1946 1959
1920 1945
1900 1919
Before 1989
1920 1969 50 2,387 31,745
The average size of buildings built between 1920 and 1969 =
13,299
13,299
Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, "Commercial Buildings
Characteristics,1992". From 1996 Statistical Abstract, Table 1206.
(Excludes buildings 1,000 square feet or smaller).
(3) Average generation from sampling (Table 6) 173 Ib/sq ft
(4) Total nonresidential generation 50,400,000 Tons
Source: Franklin Associates
A-3
-------
Table A-5
Residential Renovation Worksheet
Method to Use
(1) Start with total dollars of improvements and repairs, from Census Bureau. Current Constr Reports, C-30.
(2) Estimate the number of replacements of roofs, driveways, HVAC, kitchens, etc.
and the amount of waste materials generated from each.
(?) Calculate total generation.
Calculation
(1) 1996 Expenditures for improvements and repairs of residential properties
Census data, released 8/4/97
Improvements 68 percent
Repairs 32 percent
(2) Estimates for remodeling* Million jobs
Kitchens (minor) 1.25
Kitchens (major) 1.25
Baths (minor) 1.8
Baths (major) 1.2
Additions 1.25
Tons/job
0.75
4.5
0.25
1.00
0.75
114,300 million dollars
77,724
36,576
114,300 million dollars
Tons
937,500
5,625,000
450,000
1,200,000
937,500
(3) Replacements (see FAL estimates, on following Tables A-7 through A-10)
Concrete from driveway replacements
Asphalt roofs
Wood roofs
Heating & A/C replacements
Kitchen remodeling
Bathroom remodeling
Additions
Total residential renovation debris
13,000,000 tons/year
6,800,000
1,400,000
1,574,000
6,562,500
1,650,000
937,500
31,924,000 tons/year
* NAHB Research Center
Source: Franklin Associates
A-4
-------
Table A-6
Nonresidential Renovation Worksheet
Method to Use
(1) Start with total dollars of improvements and repairs, from U.S. Census.
(2) Calculate average $/sq ft of renovation from nonresidential renovation waste assessments.
(3) Generation (tons)=[Total Dollars / (Dollars/sq ft)] X (Ib/sq ft) / (Ib/ton).
Alternative method: Simply multiply quantity of residential renovation debris (Table A-5) by
the ratio of dollars spent nonresidential to residential.
Calculation
(1) Total nonres improvements in 1996 *
This compares to 1996 residential improvements of
Total res + nonres
*Assume saYne ratio of res/nonres as in 1992.
100,400 million dollars
114,300 million dollars
214,700 million dollars
Bureau of the Census, Expenditures for Nonresidential Improvements and Repairs: 1992
From Table E: Comparison of Resid & Nonres Improvements & Repairs: 1992
(2) Renovation assessments
$12,305,422 180,000
$2,100,000 24,000
$22,983,422 276,000 $83 /sqft
(3) Total estimated square feet of renovation = 100,400 million / ($83/sq ft)
Tot Dollars
$8,578,000
$12,305,422
$2,100,000
Sqft
72,000
180,000
24,000
$/sqft
$119 /sqft
$68 /sqft
$88
28.49 Ib/sqft
6.85
20.63
17.67 Ib/sq ft
1,206 million sq ft
Estimated generation (method one) = 1,206 million X 17.671b/sq ft/2,000 Ib/ton = 10,652,000 tons/yr
Note: Total floorspace of nonresidential buildings in 1992 is 67.876 billion sq ft
Therefore 1,206 million represents 1.7 percent of total.
This seems to be unreasonably low. It implies an average of more than 50 years between renovations.
Therefore, use the alternative methodology.
Alternative methodology: Estimated generation = 31,924,000 / 114,300X100,400 =
28,042,000 tons/yr
Source: Franklin Associates
A-5
-------
Table A-7
Estimated Weight of Concrete Driveways Replaced
Each Year from Residences With Less than Five Units/Structure
Total Housing units with < 5 units/structure, 1993*
Median age of housing = 28 years
Estimated dimensions of ave driveway, LxWxT (ft)
Calculated average driveway volume (cu ft)
Estimated percent of driveways replaced each year
Est. percent of homes with concrete driveways
Replacements/yr (total units times % replaced)
Total concrete removed (cu ft)
Density of concrete (Ib/cu ft)
Total tons of concrete
8 X 45 X 0.333
81,094,000
119.9
3%
60%
150
1,445,900
173,334,500
13,000,000
* 1996 Statistical Abstract, Table 1189.
Source: Franklin Associates
A-6
-------
Table A-8
Estimated Weight of Asphalt Roofs Replaced
Each Year from Residences with Less than Five Units/Structure
Total Housing units with < 5 units/structure, 1993*
Median age of housing = 28 years
Assume average roof area (sq ft)
Assume weight of asphalt roof (lb/100 sq ft)
Average wt of asphalt roof (lb/roof)
81,094,000
s**
**
Estimated percent of homes with asphalt roofs*
Estimated percent of roofs replaced each year**
Replacements/yr (total no. times percent replaced)
Total tons of asphalt roofing removed
1,400
240
67%
7%
3,360
3,803,300
6,400,000
* 1996 Statistical Abstract, Table 1189.
** NAHB Research Center Waste Management Update 2, October 1996.
Source: Franklin Associates
Table A-9
Estimated Weight of Wood Roofs Replaced
Each Year from Residences with Less than Five Units/Structure
Total Housing units with < 5 units/structure, 1993*
Median age of housing = 28 years
Assume average roof area (sq ft)
Assume weight of wood roof (lb/100 sq ft)
Calculated weight of wood roof (lb/roof)
Estimated percent of homes with wood roofs
Estimated percent of roofs replaced each year
Replacements/yr (total times percent replaced)
Total tons of wood roofing removed
81,094,000
1,400
200
25%
5%
2,800
1,000,000
1,400,000
* 1996 Statistical Abstract, Table 1189.
Source: Franklin Associates
A-7
-------
Table A-10
Estimated Weight of Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning
Equipment Replaced Each Year
Total Housing units, 1993 (1)
Median age of housing = 28 years
106,610,000
Warm air furnaces
Electric heat pump
Steam or hot water systems
Floor, wall, or pipeless furnace
Built-in electric units
Room heaters
Stoves
Fireplaces
Central air
Total Replacement Products in
Estimated
Ib/unit*
300
600
1,000
200
200
200
200
300
600
the U.S. (1993)
Number in
use (1)
55,763,000
9,697,000
14,898,000
5,625,000
8,084,000
4,056,000
3,477,000
1,076,000
46,277,000
Est. %
replaced
per year
5
5
3
5
7
7
3
4
5
Total TPY
418,200
145,500
186,200
28,100
56,600
28,400
10,400
6,500
694,200
1,574,100
(1) 1996 Statistical Abstract, Table 1189.
(2) Estimated by Franklin Associates.
Note: Equipment that remains in building unused will eventually become demolition debris.
Source: Franklin Associates
A-8
-------
Table A-ll
Construction Waste From Single Family Residential Construction (1)
Largo, MD (2)
Wood
Concrete
Brick
Shingles
Other Roofing
Asphalt
Fiberglass
Glass
Metals
Plastics & foam
Mixed
Textiles
OCC
Other Packaging
Other mixed C&D
Drywall
Masonry & Tile
Inerts
Totals
Square feet
Pounds/sq ft
Pounds
4,305
200
135
420
50
2,420
2,680
10,210
2,200
4.6
Tons
2.15
0.10
0.07
0.21
0.03
1.21
1.34
5.11
%ofC/D
42.2
0
0
2.0
1.3
4.1
0.5
23.7
26.2
100
Anne Arundel County, MD (3)
Pounds
3,319
1,240
544
316
67
51
478
58
423
2,940
9,436
2,450
3.9
Tons
1.66
0.62
0.27
0.16
0.03
0.03
0.24
0.03
0.21
1.47
4.72
%ofC/D
35.2
13.1
5.8
3.3
0.7
0.5
5.1
0.6
4.5
31.2
100
Portland, OR (4)
Pounds
6,676
73
51
10
280
20
2,768
3,806
13,684
3,000
4.6
Tons
3.34
0.04
0.03
0.01
0.14
0.01
1.38
1.90
6.84
%ofC/D
48.8
0
0
0.5
0.4
0.1
2.0
0.1
20.2
27.8
100
Grand Rapids, MI (5) j
Pounds Tons
5,310 2.66
183 0.09
409 0.20
85 0.04
1,240 0.62
147 0.07
1,908 0.95
2,900 1.45
12,182 6.09
%ofC/D "/
43.6
0
1.5
3.4
0.7
10.2
1.2
15.7
23.8
100
2,600
4.7 Average Ib/sq ft =
\veragc
,ofC/P
42.4
3.3
1 1
LA
1.8
1.4
0.4
5.4
0.6
16.0
27.3
100
. 4.4
(1) Source: NAHB Research Center, 1995.
(2) 2 story -2200 sq ft, W/O bsmt, vinyl sided w/brick front, 4 bdrm, 21/2 ba, 2 car gar, no deck, 11/94.
(3) 2 story-2450 sq ft, full bsmt, 2 car gar, brick facade, 4 bdrm, 21/2 ba, 3/95.
(4) Custom 2 story -3000 sq ft, full bsmt, tile roof, 4 bdrm, 3 ba, 2 car gar, tile roof, 7/92
(5) 2 story-2600 sq ft, W/O bsmt, vinyl siding, 4 bdrm, 21/2 ba, 3 car gar w/deck, 10/94
(5) OCC, approx. 380 containers - largest contributors to volume: cabinets, appliances, vinyl siding, windows, doors, and electrical fixtures.
-------
Table A-12
Riverdale Case Study
Multi-Family (4-Plex) Building Deconstruction
Material
Wood
Drywall
Roofing
Rubble
Brick
Miscellaneous
Tons
17.6
21.6
3.5
66.5
17.9
1.4
Percent
14
17
3
52
14
1
128.5
101
Total building floor area = 2,000 square ft
Generation rate = 129 pounds/square foot
Source: NAHB Research Center, Inc. June 1997
A-lO
-------
Table A-13
Residential C&D Debris Composition
METRO, Portland Oregon (As generated) (1)
New Construction
Pounds Percent
Wood
Drywall
Concrete
Metal
Cardboard
Roofing
Miscellaneous
Total square feet
Pounds/sqft
6,945
3,806
1,698
138
280
909
13,776
2,800
4.9
Demolition
50.4
27.6
12.3
1.0
ZO
6.6
100.0
Pounds Percent
Wood
Drywall
Concrete
Metal
Cardboard
Roofing
Miscellaneous
Total square feet
Pounds/sqft
19,000
30,000
4,000
21,000
74,000
1,280.0
57.8
25.7
40.5
5.4
28.4
100.0
New Construction
Pounds Percent
6,000 71.5
1,450 173
936 112
8,386 100.0
1,290
6.5
Demolition
Pounds Percent
34,000 54.0
29,000 46.0
63,000 100.0
1,200.0
52.5
New Construction Kitchen Renovation House Renovation
Pounds Percent
8,400
1,210
135
850
10,595
1,290
8.2
Demolition
79.3
11.4
1.3
8.0
100.0
Pounds Percent Pounds Percent
1,526 15.2 14,500 55.1
7,620 (2) 76.1
186 1.9
10,200 38.8
675 6.7 1,600 6.1
10,007 100.0 26,300 100.0
150.0 1,330.0
66.7 19.8
Pounds Percent
18,000
10,000
3,020
31,020
750.0
41.4
58.0
32.2
9.7
100.0
(1) Includes recycled and disposed materials.
(2) Plaster and brick
Source: METRO Data Sheets, Portland, OR 1992-1995.
-------
Table A-14
Nonresidential C&D Debris Composition
METRO, Portland Oregon (As generated) (1)
Institutional New 2 Office Buildings
Construction New Construction
Wood
Drywall
Concrete
Metal
Cardboard
Roofing
Miscellaneous
Total square feet
Pounds/sqft
Founds
36,000
34,000
106,000
176,000
41,850
4.2
Percent Pounds
20.5 4,400
4,800
19.3
60.2 2,700
100.0 11,900
7,452
1.6
Percent
37.0
40.3
22.7
100.0
Hospital Lab & Office
Renovation
Pounds Percent
11,600 22.1
40,800 77.9
52,400 100.0
10,560
5.0
Office Building
Renovation
Pounds
7,200
10,000 (2)
300
400
17,900
6,000.0
3.0
Percent
40.2
55.9
1.7
2.2
100.0
Department Store
Renovation
Pounds
406,000
222,000
812,000
10,000
10,200
530,000
1,990,200
198,500.0
10.0
Percent
20.4
11.2
40.8
0.5
0.5
26.6
100.0
Warehouse
Demolition
Wood
Drywall
Concrete
Metal
Cardboard
Roofing
Miscellaneous
Total square feet
Pounds/sqft
Pounds
2,496,000
176^)00
402,000
58,800
3,132,800
86,400.0
36.3
Percent
79.7
5.6
118
1.9
100.0
Department Store
Demolition
Pounds
84,000
6,534,000
646,000
34,000
7,298,000
44,000.0
165.9
Percent
1.2
89.5
8.9
0.5
100.0
Institutional
Demolition
Pounds
142,000
7,210,000
256,000
3,300,000
10,908,000
60,000.0
181.8
Percent
1.3
66.1
2.3
30.3
100.0
Source: METRO Data Sheets, Portland, OR 1992-1995.
-------
Table A-15
Construction & Demolition Debris Composition
City of Seattle (As Disposed)
w
Residential New
Construction
Wood waste
Mineral Aggregates (2)
Glass
Metals
Paper
Yard wastes
Plastics
Other materials
Other Organics
Hazardous Waste
Tons
1,569
870
1
82
0
0
160
242
45
15
2,984
Percent
516
29.2
0.0
2.7
O.C
0.0
5.3
8.1
1.5
0.5
100.0
Commercial New
Construction
Tons
2,583
2,740
3
759
0
0
241
965
31
133
7,455
Percent
34.6
36.8
0.0
10.2
0.0
0.0
3.2
12.9
0.4
1.8
100.0
Residential
Remodeling (1)
Tons
7,257
4,076
136
674
0
0
397
424
107
15
13,086
Percent
55.5
31.2
1.0
5.2
0.0
0.0
3.0
3.2
0.8
0.1
100.0
Commercial
Remodelingd)
Tons
3,834
1,641
2
957
0
0
598
278
127
65
7,502
Percent
51.1
21.9
0.0
12.8
0.0
0.0
8.0
3.7
1.7
0.9
100.0
Residential
Demolition
Tons
6,509
3,989
204
694
0
0
317
416
972
41
13,143
Percent
49.5
30.4
1.6
5.3
0.0
0.0
2.4
3.2
7.4
0.3
100.0
Commercial
Demolition
Tons
12,791
11,734
349
7,391
0
0
1,891
5,663
1,110
362
41,292
Percent
31.0
28.4
0.8
17.9
0.0
0.0
4.6
13.7
2.7
0.9
100.0
(1) Roofing materials hauled separately not included.
(2) Mineral aggregates include roofing materials (composition, built-up, tarpaper, clay roofing tile, slate), concrete, bricks, masonry, tile, mortar,
fiberglass insulation, and gypsum scrap.
Source: Construction and Demolition Debris Study for the City of Seattle, by Cunningham Environmental Consulting
and Cascadia Consulting Group. Draft Report, March 1996
-------
TableA-16
Composition olBuflding Construction & Demolition Debris
Component
Asphalt
Brick
Corrugated
Carpeting
Cinder Block
Concrete with Rebar
Concrete without Rebar
Dirt/Earth
Drywall
Electric Fixtures
Electrical Wiring
Furniture
Glass
Insulation-Foam
Insulation-Sheathing
Masonlte/Slate
Metal Drums
Metal-Ferrous
J> Metal-Nonferrous
HI Misc. Fines
**• Other Paper
Pallets
Plastic film
PlasBc-FVC Pipe, Rigid, etc.
Porcelain/Bathroom Fixtures
Pressboard/Chipboard
Roofing Material-Felt
Roofing MateriatShingles
Rubber
Siding-Aluminum
Siding-Vinyl
Textiles
Tile-Ceiling
Tfle/Cerarnfcs
Tires
Treated Wood
Tree Limbs/Stumps
Untreated Wd.-Ptywood
UntreatWd.-Dimen.Wd.(not paint)
Untreat WA-Dimen. Wd.(Paint)
White Goods/Appliances
TOTAL
ReridentlalNew
Residential Renovation
Fowls
ao
1/4743
3395
1515
107
0.0
773
0.0
4759.6
795
36.0
13.0
85.8
190.8
0.0
4683
0.0
875.6
75.9
10,921.7
239.1
17.8
1235
205
72.1
941.6
10.8
4328.8
112
0.0
4397
5.8
2065
921.6
267
0.0
782.1
7230
10,2147
1,348.6
249.0
40,2465
Percent
aoo
3.66
0.84
038
0.03
0.00
0.19
aoo
11.83
020
0.09
0.03
0.21
0.47
0.00
116
0.00
2.18
0.19
27.14
059
0.04
031
0.05
008
234
0.03
1076
0.03
0.00
1.09
0.01
051
239
0.07
0.00
1.94
1.80
2538
335
0.62
100.0
CojMtrncBon
Founds
0.0
520.6
8915
326.6
169.1
0.0
2,1775
119.0
3539.8
105
42
0.0
587
316
0.0
0.0
0.0
2147
91.0
9,904.6
400
123.6
525
1945
19.1
15117
362
272.0
814
0.0
1192
43
1533
344.8
0.0
0.0
1,9522
1,082.0
3319.6
18.8
0.0
27,786.6
Percent
0.00
1X7
321
118
0.61
0.00
7.84
0.43
14.18
0.04
0.02
0.00
021
0.11
0.00
0.00
0.00
077
033
35.65
0.14
0.44
0.19
070
0.07
5.44
0.13
0.98
030
0.00
0.43
0.02
055
124
0.00
0.00
7.03
3.89
11.95
007
0.00
100.0
Residential Demolition
Pounds
0.0
1,648.6
1413
95
13,641.0
0.0
11,8203
0.0
1,0452
33
682
0.0
572
61.9
OX)
0.0
8.4
1,454.4
28.1
26308.9
382
0.0
33.4
3Z1
1445
593.1
1483
933.6
0.0
873
80.9
32
1983
485
0.0
0.0
298.7
6525
172525
607.0
0.0
77^493
Percent
0.00
2.13
0.18
0.01
17.61
0.00
1526
0.00
135
0.00
0.09
0.00
0.07
0.08
0.00
0.00
0.01
1.88
0.04
33.97
0.05
000
0.04
0.04
0.19
0.77
0.19
121
0.00
0.11
0.10
0.00
026
0.06
0.00
0.00
039
0.84
2228
0.78
0.00
100.00
CoBUEterdol
ReunUon
Founds
125
5453
316.1
515
26206.6
OX)
30201.1
1442
52202
639.8
929.0
63.0
635
3333
0.0
0.0
293
67293
165.6
24501.4
173.9
160.6
143.7
295.0
138.7
1355.7
0.0
182095
21.6
0.0
0.0
365
573.6
1,156.4
153
0.0
8107
57248
72455
4512.8
91.1
137,719.8
Percent
0.01
0.40
023
004
19.03
0.00
21.93
0.10
3.79
0.46
0.67
0.05
0.05
024
0.00
0.00
0.02
489
0.12
18.08
0.13
0.12
0.10
021
0.10
135
0.00
1322
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.03
0.42
0.84
0.01
0.00
059
416
526
328
0.07
100.0
ConunercUl
DenoJltlQfi
Founds
0.0
0.0
1253
109.0
OX)
0,0
8165
0.0
25.4
40.0
815
4215
18.8
22
ao
0,0
440,0
25773
40
21785.6
167.1
195X)
51.8
8302
753
4537.1
0.0
OX)
0.0
0.0
45.1
0.0
315
142
0.0
1685
1046
1311.4
4727.1
101.1
1446
39352.1
Percent
0.00
0.00
031
027
0.00
0.00
its
0.00
0.06
0.10
020
1.06
0X6
0.01
0.00
aoo
1.10
6.47
0.01
5467
0.42
0.49
0.13
Z08
0.19
1239
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.11
0.00
0.08
0.04
0.00
0.42
026
455
1186
025
036
100.00
Total Composition
Founds Percent
125 0.00
41883 130
13141 056
6515 020
40,027.4 1239
0.0 OXW
4SX83.1 1356
2632 0.08
145902 464
7735 024
1,1185 035
4975 0.15
2844 0.09
6203 0.19
0.0 OXX)
4683 0.14
4782 0.15
113518 3.67
3646 0.11
9337?.?. 29.04
658.4 020
497.0 0.15
4045 0.13
13723 0.42
4497 0.14
93392 3.05
1953 0X16
23743.9 735
1152 0.04
873 0.03
6849 021
507 0X12
1,163.7 036
2^855 077
42.0 0.01
1685 0.05
3,9483 122
9593.8 3X19
42759.4 1324
65883 2.04
4847 0.15
323X643 100.00
-------
Table A-17
Composition of C&D Debris in Des Moines, Iowa (1)
Ul
Componen
Residential New
Construction
Residential Renovation Residential Demolition
Tons Percent
Asphalt
Brick
Cardboard
Concrete
Drywall
Metal
Plastic
Roofing
Wood
Other
'Componen
Asphalt
Brick
Cardboard
Concrete
Drywall
Metal
Plastic
Roofing
Wood
Other
0.0
11.3
9.7
26.4
35.4
3.4
1.9
12.2
96.5
20.8
217.6
Commercial
Construction
0.0
5.2
4.5
12.1
16.3
1.6
0.9
5.6
44.3
9.6
100.0
Tons Percent
0.4
44
49
21.6
43
5.8
0.3
6.3
12.3
5.3
65.6
0.6
6.7
7.5
32.9
6.6
8.8
0.5
9.6
18.8
8.1
100.0
Tons Percent
0.0
5.3
2.7
12.5
7.4
13.1
0.9
39.3
41.1
15.4
137.7
Commercial
Renovation
0.0
3.8
2.0
9.1
5.4
9.5
0.7
28.5
29.8
11.2
100.0
Tons Percent
0.0
17.1
5.4
81.7
58.6
48.1
0.8
39.3
67.9
56.5
375.4
0.0
46
1.4
21.8
15.6
12.8
0.2
10.5
18.1
15.1
100.0
Tons Percent
0.0
0.9
0.1
5.0
2.4
1.1
0.1
3.8
7.4
2.1
22.9
Commercial
Demolition
0.0
3.9
0.4
21.8
10.5
48
0.4
16.6
32.3
9.2
100.0
Total Composition
Tons Percent
0.0
2.0
0.4
8.5
5.3
3.2
0.0
0.8
6.7
0.0
26.9
0.0
7.4
1.5
31.6
19.7
11.9
0.0
3.0
24.9
0.0
100.0
Tons
0.4
41.0
23.2
155.7
113.4
74.7
4.0
101.7
231.9
100.1
846.1
Percent
0.0
4.8
2.7
18.4
13.4
8.8
0.5
12.0
27.4
11.8
100.0
(1) C&D debris generated in one week of July 1994 in Des Moines, Iowa
Source: Brickner, Robert, Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. 'Identifying C&D Debris Markets."
Scrap Processing, March/April 1995.
-------
Table A-18
Average Composition of Waste from 19 Industrial/Commercial
Demolition Projects in the Northwest Area
Material
Wood
Roofing
Concrete
Brick
Scrap Iron
Asphalt
Landfill debris
Total tons
Total tons (17 buildings)*
Building size (square feet)*
Average generation rate*
Totals
Tons
28,000
1,400
120,300
2,200
8,700
3,200
16,400
180,200
167,200
2,204,000
Average
Percent
15.5
0.8
66.8
1.2
4.8
1.8
9.1
100.0
151.7 Ib/sq ft
* Building sizes available for 17 of the 19 projects.
Source: R.W. Rhine Lie., Tacoma, Washington
A-16
-------
Table A-19
Number of Active Construction & Demolition (C&D)
Landfills in the United States
Number of C&D
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky.
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
Norm Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
Total
Landfills Rank from high Rank from low
32
21
6
22
16
5
21
1
0
277
44
1
7
3
11
1
78
143
167
57
14
18
5
79
111
9
27
6
6
0
3
4
19
153
39
148
6
2
4
1
53
103
32
24
9
2
32
22
2
39
4
1889
17
23
35
21
26
37
22
49
51
1
12
48
31
42
28
47
9
5
2
10
27
25
36
8
6
30
18
34
33
50
41
40
24
3
14
4
32
45
39
46
11
7
16
19
29
44
15
20
43
13
38
35
29
17
31
26
15
30
3
1
51
40
4
21
10
24
5
43
47
50
42
25
27
16
44
46
22
34
18
19
2
11
12
28
49
38
48
20
7
13
6
41
45
36
33
23
8
37
32
9
39
14
Source: "List of Industrial Waste Landfills and Construction and Demolition Waste LandfilL
prepared for U. S. Environmental Protection Agency by Eastern Research Group, In
September 30,1994.
A-17
-------
Table A-20
Number of Active Wood Processing Facilities
that also Accept C&D Waste by State
State
North Carolina
Oregon
California
Maryland
New Jersey
Washington
Ohio
New York
Florida
Georgia
Massachusetts
Virginia
Alabama
Michigan
Minnesota
Illinois
Oklahoma
Texas
Wisconsin
Connecticut
New Hampshire
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
Colorado
Idaho
Maine
Delaware
Indiana
Vermont
Alaska
Arizona
Hawaii
Iowa
Kansas
Louisiana
Mississippi
New Mexico
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Arkansas
District of Columbia
Kentucky
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
North Dakota
Utah
West Virginia
Wyoming
Total
Construction
12
5
11
15
5
9
5
7
1
7
5
2
0
6
5
2
2
3
3
1
1
2
1
1
0
0
1
2
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
121
Demolition
0
2
1
0
1
0
0
0
2
0
3
1
0
0
1
1
0
1
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
Construction
& Demolition
32
28
22
9
14
8
8
5
7
3
0
5
6
0
0
2
3
1
0
3
3
2
3
2
3
3
1
0
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
178
Total
Number of
Facilities
44
35
34
24
20
17
13
12
10
10
8
8
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
315
Source: "National Wood Recycling Directory", (First EdiHon).
American Forest £ Paper Association, January 1996.
A-18
-------
Appendix B
STATE DEFINITIONS FOR
CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS
-------
-------
Appendix B
STATE DEFINITIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS
This appendix includes a representative sample of definitions of
construction and demolition (C&D) debris used by states and other jurisdictions.
The definitions are the most recent available from the states.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Construction and demolition (C&D) debris includes concrete, asphalt,
wood, drywall, metals, and many miscellaneous and composite materials. C&D
debris is generated by demolition and new construction of structures such as
residential and commercial buildings and roadways.
STATE OF FLORIDA
"Construction and demolition debris" means discarded materials
generally considered to be not water soluble and non-hazardous in nature,
including but not limited to steel, glass, brick, concrete, asphalt material, pipe,
gypsum wallboard, and lumber, from the construction or destruction of a
structure as part of a construction or demolition project or from the renovation
of a structure, including such debris from construction of structures at a site
remote from the construction or demolition project site. The term includes
rocks, soils, tree remains, trees, and other vegetative matter which normally
results from land clearing or land development operations for a construction
project; clean cardboard, paper, plastic, wood and metal scraps from a
construction project; effective January 1,1997, except as provided in Section
403.707(13(j), F.S., unpainted, non-treated wood scraps from facilities
manufacturing materials used for construction of structures or their components
and unpainted, non-treated wood pallets provided the wood scraps and pallets
are separated from other solid waste; and the commingling of wood scraps or
pallets with other solid waste; and de minimis amounts of other non-hazardous
wastes that are generated at construction or demolition projects, provided such
amounts are consistent with best management practices of the construction and
demolition industries. Mixing of construction and demolition debris with other
types of solid waste will cause it to be classified as other than construction and
demolition debris.
(Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Bureau of Solid and
Hazardous Waste, Division of Waste Management. Solid Waste Management in
Florida. Classification of Landfills. Rule 62-701.200 (19). June 1997)
STATE OF HAWAII
"Construction and demolition waste" means solid waste, largely inert
waste, resulting from the demolition or razing of buildings, of roads, or other
structures, such as concrete, rock, brick, bituminous concrete, wood, and
masonry, composition roofing and roofing paper, steel, plaster, and minor
B-l
-------
amounts of other metals, such as copper. Construction and demolition waste
does not include cleanup materials contaminated with hazardous substances,
friable asbestos, waste paints, solvents, sealers, adhesives, or similar materials.
(Hawaii Department of Health. Hawaii Administrative Rules, Title 11, Chapter
58.1, Solid Waste Management Control)
STATE OF KANSAS
"Construction and demolition waste" means solid waste resulting from
the construction, remodeling, repair and demolition of structures, roads,
sidewalks and utilities; and solid waste consisting of vegetation from land
clearing and grubbing, utility maintenance, and seasonal or storm-related
cleanup. Such wastes include, but are not limited to, bricks, concrete and other
masonry materials, roofing materials, soil, rock, wood, wood products, wall
covering, plaster, drywall, plumbing fixtures, electrical wiring, electrical
components containing no hazardous materials and non asbestos insulation. It
shall not include asbestos waste, garbage, cardboard, furniture, appliances,
electrical equipment containing hazardous materials, tires, drums and containers
even though such wastes resulted from construction and demolition activities.
Clean rubble that is mixed with other construction and demolition waste during
demolition or transportation shall be considered to be construction and
demolition waste.
(Kansas Department of Health and Environment. Kansas Statutes Annotated
Chapter 65—Public Health, Article 34—Solid Waste and Administrative
Regulations Article 29—Solid Waste Management, Part 1. Administrative
Procedures; Part 2. Standards. May 1994)
STATE OF KENTUCKY
Construction/Demolition Debris Landfill - Construction/demolition
debris landfill is the category of solid waste site or facility for the disposal of solid
waste that results from the construction, remodeling, repair, and demolition of
structures and roads and for the disposal of uncontaminated solid waste
consisting of vegetation resulting from land clearing and grubbing, utility line
maintenance, and seasonal and storm-related cleanup. Such waste includes, but
is not limited to bricks, shredded or segmented tires, concrete and other masonry
materials, soil, rock, wood, wall coverings, plaster, drywall, plumbing fixtures,
tree stumps, limbs, saw dust, leaves, yard waste, paper, paper products, metals,
furniture, insulation, roofing shingles, asphalt pavement, glass, plastics that are
not sealed in a manner that conceals other wastes, electrical wiring and
components containing no liquids or hazardous metals that are incidental to any
of the above and other inert waste as approved by the division. Asbestos-
containing materials may be accepted only if the permit application includes
procedures approved by the division to handle these materials.
(Kentucky Natural Resources and Environmental Pollution Control, Division
of Waste Management. Permits Issued by the Division of Waste Management,
L Solid Waste Landfill Permits (Construction and Operation), Landfill
Classifications: Construction/Demolition Debris Landfill)
B-2
-------
MARICOPA COUNTY, ARIZONA
Construction debris is a general term used to describe a large class of solid
wastes usually generated as a byproduct of the construction, demolition, or
maintenance of residences, commercial or industrial facilities and infrastructure.
Construction debris includes such materials as: broken concrete, asphalt, steel,
aluminum, glass, brick, tile, paper, plastics, wood products, sheet rock, street
sweepings and canal dredgings.
(Maricopa County, Arizona. Construction Wastes: Classification)
THE COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
C&D waste is comprised of debris generated from construction,
renovation, repair, and demolition of roads, bridges, and buildings and includes
wood, steel, concrete, masonry, plaster, metal, and asphalt, but not wood from
land-clearing, i.e. stumps, logs, brush, and soil, nor rock from excavations.
(The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection. 310 CMR 16.00, Site Assignment Regulations for Solid Waste
Facilities. 16.02: Definitions; Also 1997 Master Plan Update Draft, Non Municipal
Solid Waste)
STATE OF MINNESOTA
Construction Wastes
"Building materials, packaging, and rubble resulting from construction,
remodeling, repair, and demolition of buildings and roads."
Demolition Debris
"Solid waste resulting from the demolition of buildings, roads, and other
man-made structures, including concrete, brick, bituminous concrete, untreated
wood, masonry, glass, trees, rock, and plastic building parts. Demolition debris
does not include asbestos."
(Minnesota Office of Environmental Assessment. Metropolitan Solid Waste
Planning Policy. Draft 11/25/96)
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
"Construction" or "demolition'
when used in connection with "waste" or
"debris" means solid waste resulting solely from construction, remodeling,
repair/ or demolition operations on pavement, buildings, or other structures, but
does not include inert debris, land-clearing debris or yard debris.
(North Carolina Division of Waste Management. GS 130A-290. DEFINITIONS (1)
(4))
STATE OF NEBRASKA
"Construction and demolition waste" shall mean waste which typically
results from construction or demolition projects and includes all materials
which are the by-products of construction work or which result from demolition
of buildings and other structures, including, but not limited to brick, concrete
rubble, masonry materials, paper, gypsum board, wood, rubber and plastics.
B-3
-------
Construction and demolition waste does not include friable asbestos-containing
materials, liquid waste, hazardous waste, putrescible waste or furnishings from
demolished structures.
(Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality. Title 132 - Integrated Solid
Waste Management Regulations, Chapter 1 Oil. Effective date: May 14, 1994)
STATE OF NEW YORK
Construction and demolition (C&D) debris means uncontaminated solid
waste resulting from the construction, remodeling, repair and demolition of
utilities, structures and roads; and uncontaminated solid waste resulting from
land clearing. Such waste includes, but is not limited to bricks, concrete and other
masonry materials, soil, rock, wood (including painted, treated and coated wood
and wood products), land clearing debris, wall coverings, plaster, drywall,
plumbing fixtures, non asbestos insulation, roofing shingles and other roof
coverings, asphalt pavement, glass, plastics that are not sealed in a manner that
conceals other wastes, empty buckets ten gallons or less in size and having no
more than one inch of residue remaining on the bottom, electrical wiring and
components containing no hazardous liquids, and pipe and metals that are
incidental to any of the above. Solid waste that is not C&D debris (even if
resulting from the construction, remodeling, repair and demolition of utilities,
structures and roads and land clearing) includes, but is not limited to asbestos
waste, garbage, corrugated container board, electrical fixtures containing
hazardous liquids such as fluorescent light ballasts or transformers, fluorescent
lights, carpeting, furniture, appliances, tires, drums, containers greater than ten
gallons in size, any containers having more than one inch of residue remaining
on the bottom and fuel tanks. Specifically excluded from the definition of
construction and demolition debris is solid waste (including what otherwise
would be construction and demolition debris) resulting from any processing
technique, other than that employed at a department-approved C&D debris
processing facility, that renders individual waste components unrecognizable,
such as pulverizing or shredding. Also, waste contained in an illegal disposal site
may be considered C&D debris if the department determines that such waste is
similar in nature and content to C&D debris.
(New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Solid
& Hazardous Materials. 6 NYCRR Park 360 Solid Waste Management Facilities.
Title 6 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations. 360-1.2(b)(38).
Effective November 26, 1996. Reprinted January 1997)
STATE OF OREGON
"Construction and Demolition Waste" means solid waste resulting from
the construction, repair or demolition of buildings, roads and other structures,
and debris from the clearing of land, but does not include clean fill when
separated from other construction and demolition wastes and used as fill
materials or otherwise land disposed. Such waste typically consists of materials
including concrete, bricks, bituminous concrete, asphalt paving, untreated or
chemically treated wood, glass, masonry, roofing, siding, plaster; and soils, rock,
B-4
-------
stumps, boulders, brush and other similar material. This term does not include
industrial solid waste and municipal solid waste generated in residential or
commercial activities associated with construction and demolition activities.
(Oregon Department of Environmental Quality. Disposal Site Definitions)
PORTLAND, OREGON METROPOLITAN SERVICE DISTRICT
Construction Waste - Waste materials resulting from the construction,
remodeling and repair of buildings and other structures.
Demolition Waste - Solid waste, largely inert, resulting from the demolition or
razing of buildings, roads, and other man-made structures. Demolition waste
consists of, but is not limited to, concrete, brick, bituminous concrete, wood,
masonry, composition, roofing and roofing paper, steel, and amounts of other
metals like copper. Plaster (i.e., sheet rock or plasterboard), any other non-wood
material that is likely to produce gases or leachate during the decomposition
process, and asbestos wastes are not considered to be demolition wastes.
(Portland, Oregon Metropolitan Service District, Solid Waste Department.
Investigation of Alternative Markets for Recycled Wood. Prepared by
International Resources Unlimited, Inc.)
STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
"Construction and Demolition (C&D) Debris" shall mean non-hazardous
solid waste resulting from the construction, remodeling, repair, and demolition
of utilities and structures; and uncontaminated solid waste resulting from land
clearing. Such waste includes, but is not limited to wood (including painted,
treated and coated wood and wood products), land clearing debris, wall
coverings, plaster, drywall, plumbing fixtures, non-asbestos insulation, roofing
shingles and other roofing coverings, glass, plastics that are not sealed in a
manner that conceals other wastes, empty buckets ten gallons or less in size and
having no more than one inch of residue remaining on the bottom, electrical
wiring and components containing no hazardous liquids, and pipe and metals
that are incidental to any of the above. Solid waste that is not C&D debris (even if
resulting from the construction, remodeling, repair, and demolition of utilities,
structures, and roads and land clearing) includes, but is not limited to, asbestos
waste, garbage, corrugated container board, electrical fixtures containing
hazardous liquids such as fluorescent light ballasts or transformers, fluorescent
lights, carpeting, furniture, appliances, tires, drums, containers greater than ten
gallons in size, any containers having more than one inch of residue remaining
on the bottom, and fuel tanks. Also excluded from the definition of C&D debris
is solid waste resulting from any processing technique that renders individual
waste components unrecognizable, such as pulverizing or shredding, at a facility
that processes C&D debris.
(State of Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, Office of
Waste Management. Rules and Regulations for Composting Facilities and Solid
Waste Management Facilities Rule 1.3.47)
B-5
-------
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
"Construction and demolition debris" means discarded solid wastes
resulting from construction, remodeling, repair and demolition of structures,
road building, and land-clearing. The wastes include, but are not limited to,
bricks, concrete, and other masonry materials, soil, rock, lumber, road spoils,
paving material, and tree and brush stumps, but does not include solid waste
from agricultural or silvicultural operations.
(South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. Chapter 61.
R. 61-107.11 Solid Waste Management: Construction, Demolition and Land-
Clearing Debris Landfills, B. Definitions)
WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY
"Demolition waste" means solid waste, largely inert waste, resulting from
the demolition or razing of buildings, roads and other man-made structures.
Demolition waste consists of, but is not limited to, concrete, brick, bituminous
concrete, wood and masonry, composition roofing and roofing paper, steel, and
minor amounts of other metals like copper. Plaster (i.e., sheet rock or plaster
board) or any other material, other than wood, that is likely to produce gases or a
leachate during the decomposition process and asbestos wastes are not
considered to be demolition waste for the purposes of this regulation.
(Washington State Department of Ecology Solid Waste and Financial Assistance
Program, Chapter 173-304 WAC, Minimum Functional Standards for Solid
Waste Handling)
B-6
-------
Appendix C
TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION
DEBRIS CONSTITUENTS
-------
-------
Table C-l
TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS CONSTITUENTS
Primary Inert Fractions
Asphalt
Brick
Cinder block
Concrete with rebar/wire mesh
Concrete without steel reinforcing
Masonite/slate
Tile-ceramic
Glass
Dirt/earth
Plastic sheet film
Plastic pipe
Porcelain, including bathroom fixtures
Metal-ferrous
Metal-nonferrous
Electrical wiring
Insulation-fiberglass
Plastic buckets/containers
High Organic Based Fractions
Ceiling tiles
Corrugated shipping containers
Insulation-treated cellulose
Insulation-sheathing
Pallets/spools/reels
Pressboard/chipboard
Roofing materials (e.g., roofing felt, asphalt shingles)
Dimensional lumber & shapes (clean)
Plywood, particleboard, oriented strandboard, etc.
Range of Composite Materials (may require special handling)
Carpeting
Carpet padding
Gypsum wallboard (mainly gypsum with paper backing)
Electrical fixtures (metal, light tubes/bulbs, ballasts)
Electrical switches
Rubber hosing/conduits
Tires (some with wheels)
Painted wood
Pressure treated wood
Wood composites
Source: Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. Fairfax, Virginia
C-l
-------
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
MAGAZINE ARTICLES
Apotheker, Steve. "Construction and Demolition Debris—The Invisible Waste
Stream/' Resource Recycling. December 1993.
Apotheker, Steve. "Managing Construction and Demolition Materials/'
Resource Recycling. August 1992.
Apotheker, Steve. "Wood Waste Recovery Grinds out New Success." Resource
Recycling. April 1991.
Baker, William. "Unlocking the Environmental Puzzle." Recycling Today.
February 1992.
Brickner, Robert and Sara Bixby. "C & D Market Opportunities." Recycling Today.
October 1994.
Brickner, Robert. "C&D Debris Recycling: The Forgotten Goal?" C&D Debris
Recycling. October 1994.
Brickner, Robert. "C&D Primer for Waste Managers." Recycling Today. April
1994.
Brickner, Robert. "CESQG Generators Meet C&D Landfills Head-On." C&D Debris
Recycling. Fall 1996.
Brickner, Robert. "Construction Waste & Demolition Debris get More
Attention." Resource Recycling. Aug 1995
Brickner, Robert. "Construction Waste and Demolition Debris Recycling. What is
Technically Feasible?" Presented to SWANA. Meza, Arizona. February 1992.
Brickner, Robert. "Identifying C&D Debris Markets." Scrap Processing and
Recycling. March/April 1995.
Brickner, Robert. "Overview of C&D Debris Recycling Plants." C&D Debris
Recycling. January/February 1997.
Brickner, Robert. "Plan First, Buy Later." Recycling Today. February 1994.
Brickner, Robert. "Recovery I." Resource Recycling. November 96.
Bib-l
-------
Brickner, Robert. "Technical Options for Construction Waste and Demolition
Debris Recycling." Presented to SWANA. Tampa, Florida. August 1992.
Brickner, Robert. "What's in a Building?" Demolition Age. September 1993.
Brickner, Robert. "Wood Waste Processing Pilot Finds Ample Markets for
Material." Waste Dynamics of the Northeast. February 1997.
Broughton, Anne Clair. "Getting the Lead Out." Recycling Today. February 1994.
Brown, Jailyn, and Joyce Gagnon. "Breaking Tradition: Markets for Recycled-
Content Construction Products." Resource Recycling. August 1995.
Burgess, Paul, and Barry Giroux. "Preparing for Recovery of Demolition Debris."
Solid Waste Technologies. May/June 1997.
Button, Joe W., Devon Williams, and James Scherocman. "From Roofing to
Roads: the Use of Recycled Shingles in Hot-Mix Asphalt." C&D Debris Recycling.
July 1997.
Combs, Susan. "Chipping to Recycle Wood Waste." Waste Age. May 1990.
Connelly, Jack et al. "Demolition Landfills - How much Regulation is Needed?"
Presented to ASTWAMO. Las Vegas, Nevada. July 1991.
Cox, Charles. "C&D Comes Curbside in Des Moines." Waste Age. July 1997.
Curro, Joseph. "A Second Life for Construction and Demolition Material."
Presented to ASTWAMO. Las Vegas, Nevada. July 1991.
Daniels, Steve. "C&D Landfill Developer Sues County." Waste News.
November 1996.
Deal, Tara. "What it Costs to Recycle Concrete." C&D Debris Recycling.
September/October 1997.
Dernbach, John. "The Development of an Industrial Waste Regulatory
Program." Presented to ASTWAMO. Las Vegas, Nevada. July 1991.
Donovan, Christine T. "Construction and Demolition Waste Processing: New
Solutions to an Old Problem." Resource Recycling. August 1991.
Flynn, Brian E. "Odors & Landfill Gas from C&D Waste." Waste Age. January
1998.
Bib-2
-------
Freeborne, Jay. "Construction Companies Become Versatile Recyclers." BioCycle.
August 1994.
Freeman, Del. "The Deconstruction of C&D Waste: Nailing Down the Numbers"
World Wastes. 1994.
Glaz, Sholeh. "Raising the Roof on Vinyl Recycling." Recycling Times. July 1995.
Goddard, James. "Developing a Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling
System for Disaster Debris Management." Resource Recycling. January 1994.
Goddard, James. "The Basics of Recycling in the Building Industry." Resource
Recycling. February 1995.
Goddard, Jim. "Promoting Building Industry Recycling: A How-To Guide."
Resource Recycling. December 1995.
Goldsberry, Clare "Recycling Attracts Some Contractors." Waste News. October
1995.
Goldstein, Nora. "Demolition Contractor becomes Recycler." BioCycle. January
1992.
Griffin, Leo and Jon Cassidy "Developing a County Road Construction Debris
Recycling Program." Resource Recycling. April 1993.
Gubbels, Dale; Ellen O'Meara. "An Overview of Post-consumer Wood Waste
Recovery Options." Resource Recycling. April 1992.
Harler, Curt. "C&D Recycling Strengthens." Recycling Today. January 1995.
Hepler, Heather. "C&D Recycling: Razing Consciousness." American City &
County. January 1994.
Hilts, Michael E. "Diversion Rates Rise from the Rubble." Solid Waste
Technologies. March/April 1995.
Hixon, Larry, et al. "Size Reduction for Industrial Recyclables." BioCycle. April
1995.
Horn, G. H. "Construction & Demolition Debris Gains Attention Throughout
Region." Waste Dynamics of the Northeast. December 1993.
Jesitus, John. "Construction & Demolition Recycling Efforts Building." MSW
Management. December 1992.
Bib-3
-------
Kalin, Zev. "Canada Targets C&D Debris." BioCycle. January 1991.
Kurre, John E. "Characterizing Construction & Demolition Debris for Lead
Contamination." Waste Age. July 1997.
Lee, Benjamin. "New-Style MRFs Recycling Construction and Demolition
Waste." Solid Waste & Power. October 1991.
Leiter, Sharon. "C&D Project Activity Throughout the U.S. and Canada." C&D
Debris Recycling. July 1997.
Leiter-Weintraub. "Construction Recycling Gets Off the Ground in Northern
Michigan." C&D Debris Recycling. November/December 1997.
Malloy, Michael G. "Recycling Facility of the Month: Construction Junction in
the Motor City." Waste Age. October 1996.
McCreery, Patrick. "Studying the C in C&D." Recycling Times. August 1995.
McPhee, Mamie. "C&D Recycling in the Home Court." BioCycle. March 1996.
Meade, Kathleen. "Discarded Wood isn't Waste Anymore." Waste Aye. Tanuarv
1989. y
Meade, Kathleen. "Is Asphalt a Sponge for Recyclables?" Waste Aye. Tanuarv
1989. y
Meade, Kathleen. "Landfills and Concrete Shouldn't Mix." Waste Age. Tanuarv
1989. y
Merrill, Lynn. "Settling the Dust on C&D Wastes." MSW Management. February
Meyer, Kristin & James Walsh. "Regs Among the Ruins." World Wastes
September 1996.
Misner, Michael. "Cutting into Wood Waste Markets." Waste Age. August 1991.
Naber, Thomas. "From Rubble to Reuse." Waste Alternatives. August 1991.
Palermini, Debbi. "Follow the Wrecking Ball: C&D Recovery at Work." Resource
Recycling. April 1994.
Paul, Katherine. "Atlas Environmental Enters C&D." Waste News. Februarv
1996. y
Bib-4
-------
Perez, Louis. "The Amazing Recyclability of Construction & Demolition
Wastes." Waste Alternatives. February 1994.
Powell, Jerry. "Recovered Wood Processing: An Industry Profile." Resource
Recycling. November 1997.
Rebeiz, Karim et al. "Recycling Plastics in Construction Applications." /. of
Resource Management and Tech. June 1993.
Rosenbaum, David. "Pioneers Plead for Green Design." Engineering News
Record. May 1991.
Russell, John. "Waste by Rail." Waste News. October 1996.
Schlauder, Richard; R. Brickner. "Setting up for Recovery of Construction and
Demolition Waste." Solid Waste & Power. February 1993.
Schnelle, Cheryl. "Reusable C&D Debris Materials: Climbing up the Ladder."
Resource Recycling. November 1996.
Schroeder, Richard. "Operating a Wood Waste Recycling Facility." BioCycle.
December 1990.
Setzer, Steven. "Dumping Debris Gets Difficult." BioCycle. January 1990.
Spencer, Robert. "Opportunities for Recycling C&D Debris." BioCycle. July 1990.
Spencer, Robert. "Recycling Opportunities for Demolition Debris." BioCycle.
November 1989.
Spencer, Robert. "Taking Control of C&D Debris." BioCycle. July 1991.
Steuteville, Robert. "Sorting C&D into Wood Products." BioCycle. November
1996.
Steuteville, Robert. "Taking on the Construction Waste Stream." BioCycle.
October 1996.
SWM Newsletter Staff. "Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste Reduction
and Recycling." University of Illinois at Chicago. September 1996.
Taylor, Brian. "C&D Recycling Infrastructure Grows/' Recycling Today. March
1997.
Trojak, Larry. "Demolishing for Dollars." Recycling Today. March 1992.
Bib-5
-------
Turley, William. "Heartland C&D Recycling." C&D Debris Recycling. July 1997.
von Stein, Edward, and George Savage. "C&D Debris Finds New Incarnation in
Recycling." World Wastes. April 1993.
von Stein, Edward, and George Savage. "Current Practices and Applications in
Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling." Resource Recycling. April 1994.
Waste Dynamics Staff. "C&D Recyclables Prove a Moneymaker." Waste
Dynamics of the Northeast. February 1997.
White, Edwin; M. Burger. "Benefits Derived from Soil Application of Drywall
Wastes." Waste Management Research Report. January 1993.
Witten, Matthew. "Reuse of Low-end Construction and Demolition Debris."
Resource Recycling. April 1992.
Woods, Randy. "A Categorical Change for Wash. C&D." Recycling Times.
November 1994.
Woods, Randy. "Atlas Environmental Shoulders Florida C&D Burden." Waste
Age. July 1996.
Woods, Randy. "C&D Debris Recycling Provides Opportunities and Pitfalls."
Recycling Times. October 1996.
Woods, Randy. "C&D Debris: A Crisis is Building." Waste Age. January 1992.
Woods, Randy. "C&D Debris: Construction & Dismantling." Waste Age. April
1994.
Woods, Randy. "C&D Recycling Blooms in the City of Roses." Waste Age.
October 1996.
Woods, Randy. "C&D Tops the Menu at Karta." Waste Age. June 1994.
Woods, Randy. "Clean Washington Center sees Potential for Northwest C&D
Markets." Recycling Times. June 1995.
Woods, Randy. "Consultants Hope to Deconstruct C&D Debris." Recycling
Times. March 1995.
Yost, Peter and John Halstead. "A Methodology for Quantifying the Volume of
Construction Waste." Waste Management & Research. October 1996.
Bib-6
-------
REPORTS
American Forest & Paper Association. National Wood Recycling Directory.
Produced in cooperation with the USDA Forest Service. January 1996.
American Hazard Control Group. Managing Construction and Demolition
Debris.
State Department of Economic Development. March 1990.
Bureau of Solid and Hazardous Waste. Florida Department of Environmental
Protection. Solid Waste Management in Florida. June 1997.
Bush, Robert J., Vijay Reddy, and Philip Araman. Construction & Demolition
Landfills and Wood-Pallets - What's Happening in the U.S. Pallet Enterprise.
March 1997.
C.T. Donovan Associates Inc. Recycling Construction and Demolition Waste in
Vermont. Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. December 1990.
C.T. Donovan Associates, Inc. Recycling Construction and Demolition Waste in
Rhode Island. Rhode Island.
Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. Waste Monitoring Program: Construction,
Demolition & Land Clearing Waste. Prepared for the Department of Public
Works, King County Solid Waste Division. January 1995.
Cosper, Stephen D., et al. Construction and Demolition Waste. University of
Illinois at Chicago. January 1993.
Cunningham Environmental Consulting and Cascadia Consulting Group.
Construction and Demolition Debris Study. City of Seattle Department of
Engineering Solid Waste Utility. Draft Final Report. March 1996.
Donohue/JRP Asia Pacific Ltd. Study of Recycling of Construction Waste
Received at Landfills. Hong Kong Government Environmental Protection
Department. September 1991.
Eastern Research Group, Inc. List of Industrial Waste Landfills and Construction
and Demolition Waste Landfills. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. September 30,1994.
i
ERL and CT Donovan Assoc. Wood Products in the Waste Stream:
Characteristics and Combustion Emissions, VI. New York State Energy Research
and Development. November 1992.
Bib-7
-------
Federle, Mark O. Analysis of Building Construction Recycling Efforts in Iowa.
Iowa State University.
Franklin Associates, Ltd. Waste Stream Characterization for the RDF-to-Ethers
Process. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. July 1994.
Gates, Betsy, et al. Non-mixed Municipal Solid Waste Composition and Volume.
Minnesota PCA and Metropolitan Council.
Gershman, Brickner, & Bratton, Inc. The NADC Reports: Demolition Contractors
Manage and Dispose of Waste Responsibly. National Association of Demo
Contractors. February 1995.
Goddard, James. Developing a Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling
System for Disaster Debris Management. METRO—Portland, OR. January 1994.
Greater Toronto Homebuilders Assoc. Making a Molehill out of a Mountain II
(Renovation Pilot Projects). June 1991.
Greater Toronto Homebuilders Assoc. Making a Molehill out of a Mountain II.
1989.
ICF, Incorporated. Construction and Demolition Waste Landfills. EPA Draft
Report. February 1995.
International Resources Unlimited, Inc. Investigation of Alternative Markets for
Recycled Wood. METRO—Portland, OR.
Latham, Cathy. Measure Twice Cut Once. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
August 1993.
Massachusetts Solid Waste Master Plan. 1997 Draft Update. July 1997.
McGregor, M., et aL Characterization of Construction Site Waste. METRO—
Portland, OR. July 30,1993.
Metro 1993-1994 Waste Characterization Study. Metro Solid Waste Department.
February 1995.
Metro's 1992 Recycling Level Survey Results. METRO—Portland, OR. April 1993.
Metropolitan Council of the Twin Cities. Construction Materials Recycling
Guidebook. December 1992.
Bib-8
-------
NAHB Research Center, Inc. Reconstruction - Building Disassembly and Material
Salvage: The Riverdale Case Study. Prepared for U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. June 1997.
NAHB Research Center, Inc. Residential Construction Waste Management: A
Builder's Field Guide: How to Save Money and Landfill Space. 1997.
NAHB Research Center, Inc. Residential Construction Waste: from Disposal to
Management. March 1995.
National Asphalt Pavement Association. Hot Mix Asphalt Plant and Production
Facts. 1979.
North Carolina Solid Waste Management. Annual Report. Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. May 1997.
Northeast Waste Management Officials' Association (NEWMOA). Construction
and Demolition Debris in the NEWMOA States. October 1996.
O'Brien & Associates. Residential Remodeling Waste Reduction Demonstration
Project. METRO—Portland, OR. June 1993.
Patrick Engineering Inc. DuPage County Construction and Demolition (C&D)
Waste Survey and Education Program Report. Draft report. November 1997.
Patrick Engineering, Inc. Illinois Construction and Demolition Site Recycling
Guidebook 1997. Illinois Department of Commerce and Community Affairs.
1997.
Peterson, Jeffrey. Waste Wood Resource Supply Assessment. C.T. Donovan
Associates. August 1991.
Peterson, Terry et al. METRO Waste Characterization Study. METRO—Portland,
OR. June 1990.
Schneider, Ann. University of California, Santa Cruz. The Fort Ord
Deconstruction Pilot Project. Presentation at the 5th Annual C&D Recycling
Conference. October 1997.
South Carolina Solid Waste Management Annual Report 1996. Department of
Health and Environmental Control. January 1997.
Spark Construction Waste Sub-Committee. Construction Waste Management
Report. Science Council of British Columbia. January 1991.
Bib-9
-------
Triangle J Council of Governments. Construction and Demolition Debris
Reduction and Recycling: A Regional Approach. June 1993.
Wilson, D., et al. Demolition Wastes: Data Collection and Separation Studies.
MIT/U. S. Department of Commerce. December 1979.
Wood Resources Available from North Carolina Landfills. North Carolina State
University. Raleigh, NC. 1994.
Wood Waste Processing in Iowa. Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Waste
Management Assistance Division. November 1996.
Bib-10
------- |