vvERA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA/600/R-17/231 | May 2017 | www.epa.gov/research
The State of the Practice of Construction and
Demolition Material Recovery
Final Report
I) Kuan- imllcO
w it* n«ari*l
Vlltf
<.»I IT-v-ll vTO»1( .MBfrl
V:rf
¦ :JStatna: •54-1 > MtMSROf: «.v«: ¦
-------
[This page intentionally left blank.]
-------
EPA/600/R-17/231
May 2017
The State of the Practice of Construction
and Demolition Material Recovery
Materials Management Branch
Materials Management and Land Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
Cincinnati, OH
iii
-------
Foreword
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is charged by Congress with protecting
the nation's land, air, and water resources. Under the mandate of national environmental
laws, the Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible
balance between human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture
life. To meet this mandate, US EPA's research program is providing data and technical
support for solving environmental problems today and building the scientific knowledge base
necessary to manage our ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our
health, and prevent or reduce environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) is the Agency's center for
investigating technological and management approaches for preventing and reducing risks
from pollution that threaten human health and the environment. The focus of the
Laboratory's research program is on methods and their cost-effectiveness for preventing
and controlling pollution of air, land, water, and subsurface resources; protecting water
quality in public water systems; remediating contaminated sites, sediments, and ground
water; preventing and controlling indoor air pollution; and restoring ecosystems. NRMRL
collaborates with public and private sector partners to foster technologies that reduce the
cost of compliance and anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's research provides solutions
to environmental problems by developing and promoting technologies that protect and
improve the environment; advancing scientific and engineering information to support
regulatory and policy decisions; and providing the technical support and information
transfer to ensure implementation of environmental regulations and strategies at the
national, state, and community levels.
This publication has been produced as part of the Laboratory's strategic long-term research
plan. It is published and made available by USEPA's Office of Research and Development to
assist the user community and to link researchers with their clients.
Cynthia Sonich-Mullin, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
iv
-------
EPA/600/R-17/231
May 2017
Executive Summary
Construction and demolition debris (C&D) represents one of the most substantial sources of
discarded materials in the United States (USEPA, 2015b). Therefore, its management plays
a critical role in developing national, state, and local sustainable materials management
(SMM) initiatives. Primary C&D management strategies in the United States currently
include landfilling and recovery, with various external factors contributing to the relative
amount managed through each pathway. As used in this report, the term "recovery" refers
to and may be used interchangeably with one or a combination of several material
management options including reuse, recycling, and energy recovery. Consisting primarily
of concrete, asphalt, wood, metal, gypsum, soil, and vegetative material, C&D offers a
strong potential for recovery, which in turn holds promise for a range of associated
environmental, economic, and social benefits. However, of foremost importance is that
recovery is conducted in a protective manner that does not pose a hazard to human health
or the environment.
Study Purpose and Objectives
This report summarizes the current state of the practice regarding C&D recovery in the
continental the United States, and the economic, community, and material-specific factors
that influence the rate of C&D recovery. This report was developed to provide a resource to
those interested in incorporating C&D recovery as an element of an SMM program. The
information presented in this report is observational in nature and is not intended to provide
regulatory interpretation or to recommend best practices for C&D recovery or approved uses
for materials recovered from C&D. Rather, the objective of the report is to give the reader a
fundamental understanding of the current state of the C&D recovery practice and the
drivers that help shape it.
Study Design
The information presented in this report is heavily based on first-hand observations made
during visits to numerous C&D processing facilities and conversations with facility owners,
operators, and other members of the C&D recovery industry. This study seeks to address
the following research questions, which form the basis for how the report is organized:
I. How are materials recovered from C&D managed? Sections 1 and 2 of this
report summarize the properties of the C&D stream, the conventional processing of
C&D, and the traditional end markets for recovered C&D.
v
-------
EPA/600/R-17/231
May 2017
II. What are some key factors that influence C&D recovery? Sections 3 and 4
describe some of the key factors that affect C&D recoveries such as economics, state
and local policies and directives, and the impact of green building programs.
III. What are some key environmental and human health considerations
associated with C&D recovery? Section 5 highlights the potential for cross-
contamination as a special consideration during the recovery process as well as
underscores the essential practices recyclers can undertake to reduce exposure as
well as the transfer of contaminants when C&D is recovered.
C&D Management
C&D Characterization
C&D flow in the United States is not currently measured uniformly, but estimates suggest
that 230 million to 530 million tons of C&D are produced nationwide each year, with
anywhere from 30 to 70% being recovered (USEPA, 2015a, 2015b). The composition of this
stream can vary dramatically by source, activity, and geographic region. Significant
amounts of concrete and asphalt result from construction, repair, and maintenance of our
nation's transportation infrastructure (roads, bridges). Data (e.g., National Asphalt
Pavement Association Asphalt Pavement Industry Surveys, United States Geological Survey
Mineral Commodity Summaries for Stone [Crushed]) indicate that much of this material is
recycled. Building construction, demolition, and renovation result in the generation of a
mixture of building-related C&D, including wood, roofing, drywall, and concrete. While C&D
is recovered in some regions, landfilling is still very common in many areas. The properties
of the generated and recovered C&D stream in the United States are discussed further in
Section 1 of this report.
Typical C&D Processing
Construction and demolition contractors use various techniques to separate, recover, and
recycle C&D. In select cases, buildings are deconstructed to recover components (e.g.,
dimensional lumber, bricks) that can be reused in new projects. Most recovered C&D finds
its way to some C&D processing facility. Concrete crushing operations accept relatively
clean concrete (and similar materials) that have been separated at the project site and
process it to produce new products. To a much smaller extent, other material-specific
processing facilities accept and process additional segregated materials, such as wood or
land-clearing debris (LCD), non-asbestos asphalt shingles, and drywall to produce saleable
products. Asphalt paving contractors recover and recycle asphalt pavement, taken out of
service, as an ingredient in the making of new asphalt pavement. Mixed C&D materials
vi
-------
EPA/600/R-17/231
May 2017
recovery facilities (MRF) accept commingled C&D and use a combination of mechanical
equipment and manual labor to separate materials and process them into a more
marketable form. The business model for these facilities involves charging a tipping fee for
material acceptance and then diverting as much of the material from landfill disposal as
possible by creating value-added products.
Traditional End Markets for Recovered C&D
Markets and the associated market values for recovered C&D vary by material type.
Portland cement concrete is typically crushed and used as a replacement for construction
stone in various applications, with road base being a primary use. The market viability of
concrete crushing operations relies heavily on the availability and cost of local aggregates.
In some regions, these facilities charge a nominal tipping fee for material acceptance, or in
locations where recycled concrete products are in high demand, the material is accepted
free of charge. Currently, the primary markets for wood recovered from C&D activities are
boiler fuel and landscape mulch. Drywall is recycled as an ingredient for the manufacture of
new drywall in a few regions of the country, while in other areas, the primary market for
recovered gypsum is for agricultural products. The hot mix asphalt paving industry has
evolved into the dominant market for non-asbestos asphalt shingles. The state of the
practice of material recovery and C&D material markets is discussed in greater detail in
Section 2.
Factors that Influence C&D Recovery
Economics, public policy, corporate policy, and material markets all play critical roles in how
C&D is managed across the United States, and a review of these drivers may be informative
to community decision-makers. These factors are interrelated. For example, the typical first
party to make a C&D management decision is the C&D contractor. Economics may primarily
influence the contractor's decisions, but local and regional public policies, the corporate
policies/goals of the client (if applicable), and the status of the area's C&D material markets
all have financial implications on the final management strategy selected by the contractor.
Location-Specific Conditions
Labor rates and the availability of space for material storage also influence the type of C&D
management option chosen by the contractor at the job site. High labor rates and crowded
(e.g., urban) work conditions may favor more traditional demolition practices, whereas low
labor rates and ample workspace may favor onsite C&D material segregation, onsite reuse
of inert/clean fill materials, and possibly deconstruction efforts. Longer distances from the
point of C&D generation to a C&D recovery facility (compared to a landfill) makes a
-------
EPA/600/R-17/231
May 2017
recovery less feasible in many regions of the country. In some cases, the high cost of
landfill disposal fosters C&D recovery, especially for mixed C&D streams. Regional design
and construction practices for landfills, along with location-specific requirements related to
materials disposal, play a role in a landfill's tipping fee structure.
Public and Corporate Policy
Public policy can also play a significant part in promoting C&D recovery. As C&D represents
one of the larger components of the solid waste stream, establishing state solid waste
recovery goals has prompted many regions to target C&D for recovery initiatives. Local
government policy directives for contractors to achieve recovery goals, or that provide
incentives for utilizing certified recovery operations, also have been shown to increase a
state's recovery rate. C&D recovery rates have increased in some areas of the country
following the banning or restricting of C&D from landfills. Similarly, the corporate policy also
can impact the prevalence of C&D recovery (e.g., a corporation requiring that new buildings
be Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design [LEED] certified).
Materials recovered from C&D have multiple end markets, but the dominance of one or two
end uses is typical. The reduced availability and price of virgin materials often play a major
role determining which market is most attractive. For example, when natural aggregates for
construction are less abundant, concrete recovery is more appealing. When construction
specifications requiring the use of recovered materials in new construction are required for
all state-level projects (e.g., a specification for the use of recovered asphalt shingles in new
asphalt pavement by a state or local transportation department), thriving markets often
result. The economic, public and corporate policies and material market factors that
influence the frequency and type of C&D recovery that occurs across the United States are
discussed in greater detail in Section 3.
Green Building Programs
An additional driver for increased C&D recovery is green building certification. Green
building certification programs have helped underscore the environmental impacts
associated with the disposal of building materials. A notable example is the U.S. Green
Building Council's LEED certification program. Sound material and resource utilization
through the reuse and recycling of C&D and the use of recycled-content building materials
help achieve the green building certification. Therefore, LEED and other programs are
believed to have fostered the growth of C&D material recovery and the development of
markets for recovered C&D. The features and impacts of green building programs are
discussed in greater detail in Section 4 of this report.
-------
EPA/600/R-17/231
May 2017
Environmental and Human Health Considerations Associated with C&D
Recovery
C&D recovery achieves numerous environmental benefits (e.g., landfill waste diversion,
resource and energy savings, reduction in greenhouse gas emissions), but care must be
exercised to properly manage constituents of potential concern in some materials recovered
from C&D. Historically, some building products contained or have had the potential to come
into contact with chemicals, metals, or minerals that could cause harm or pose a risk to
human health and the environment under specific exposure conditions. Notable examples
include asbestos (previously used in a variety of building products), lead (a once common
pigment in the paint), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (used in light ballasts, caulk, and
specialty paints), and mercury (used in fluorescent lighting and electrical switches). These
constituents must be handled in accordance with all applicable regulations and care must be
taken to prevent cross-media contamination during material processing. For example,
properly separating clean wood from preservative-treated wood reduces the potential for
elevated levels of contaminants in a landscape mulch product or a fuel product, which limits
the risks to human health and the environment and avoids air emission compliance issues.
Possible down-chain, cross-media contamination issues are of interest to help understand
and promote best practices for C&D processing and to ensure sustainable markets for
recovered C&D. Environmental and human health concerns during the recovery of C&D are
discussed in greater detail in Section 5 of this report.
Conclusion
The C&D recovery industry continues to grow. Some components (e.g., concrete) are
commonly recovered for existing economic reasons. Other elements—especially those with
low market value and that frequently require processing to separate them from the rest of
the C&D stream—remain a challenge to recycle in some cases. Many state and local
governments have demonstrated that public policy can play a major role in advancing C&D
recovery, and municipalities or other entities interested in growing C&D recovery in their
areas can reference these examples. Data gaps remain in certain areas, such as the need to
better 1) track the amount, composition, and disposition of C&D in the United States,
especially as related to C&D recovery; 2) compile and disseminate successful strategies for
C&D recovery while emphasizing caution around certain constituents that adversely impact
human health and the environment; and 3) document the benefits resulting from C&D
recovery.
ix
-------
EPA/600/R-17/231
May 2017
Notice
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) through the Office of Research and
Development funded and managed the research described here under contract order
number EP-D-11-084 to RTI International in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina. It has
been subject to the Agency's review and has been approved for publication as a USEPA
document. Use of the methods or data presented in this manual does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use. Mention of trade names or commercial products
does not constitute endorsement or recommendation. All photos were provided courtesy of
Innovative Waste Consulting Services, LLC.
We acknowledge the support of the following individuals for preparing this report:
Innovative Waste Consulting Services, LLC
Timothy Townsend, PhD, PE
Justin L Smith, PE
AM Cabrera, EI
Jim Wally, EI
Shrawan Singh, PhD, EI
Pradeep Jain, PhD, PE
RTI International
Coleen Northeim
Kibri Everett
Keith Weitz
EPA PRISE Participant
Max Krause, PhD
x
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
Foreword iv
Executive Summary v
Notice x
Abbreviations xvii
1. Introduction 1
1.1 Objectives and Organization 1
1.2 Background 2
1.3 Methodology, Quality Assurance, and Data Limitations 7
2. C&D Processing Facilities and Material End Uses 8
2.1 Material Separation Strategies 9
2.1.1 Deconstruction 9
2.1.2 Onsite C&D Segregation and Recycling 12
2.1.3 Mixed C&D 13
2.2 C&D Material Processing Facilities 13
2.2.1 Mixed C&D Facilities 13
2.2.2 Aggregate Processing Facilities 19
2.2.3 Non-Asbestos Asphalt Shingle Processing Facilities 21
2.2.4 Asphalt Pavement Recovery 23
2.2.5 Wood Processing Facilities 24
2.2.6 Drywall Recovery Facilities 25
2.3 Material-Specific End Uses 26
2.3.1 Portland Cement Concrete 26
2.3.2 Masonry Products 27
2.3.3 Asphalt Shingles 27
2.3.4 Asphalt Pavement 28
2.3.5 Wood and Land-Clearing Debris 29
2.3.6 Drywall 30
2.3.7 Metals 32
2.3.8 C&D Fines and Processing Residuals 32
2.3.9 Other Materials 34
3. Factors Impacting C&D Recovery 35
xi
-------
3.1 Economics 35
3.1.1 Economic Decisions by the C&D Contractor 35
3.1.2 Labor Requirements 36
3.1.3 Hauling Distance 37
3.1.4 Materials Storage 39
3.1.5 Tipping Fees 39
3.1.6 Material Markets 42
3.2 Public Policy 42
3.2.1 Public Policy Options 42
3.2.2 Material Definitions and Exclusions 44
3.2.3 Federal and State Recovery Goals 47
3.2.4 Local Policies and Initiatives 48
3.3 Corporate Policy 52
3.4 Material Markets 53
3.4.1 Marketability 53
3.4.2 Portland Cement Concrete 54
3.4.3 Asphalt Pavement 58
3.4.4 Drywall 59
3.4.5 Wood 61
3.4.6 Asphalt Shingles 62
3.4.7 Fines and Other Residuals 63
4. Impact of Green Building Materials on C&D Recycling 65
4.1 Overview of Green Building Materials 65
4.1.1 Green Building 65
4.1.2 Green Building Materials 67
4.1.3 Prefabricated Components 69
4.2 Green Building Material Requirements in Various Certification Programs 69
4.2.1 Green Building Certification Programs 70
4.2.2 Green Building Material Specifications in Various Certification
Programs 72
4.3 Impact of Green Materials on the Building Materials Market 75
4.3.1 Market Trends Example 1—Recovered Aggregates versus
Natural Aggregates 77
4.3.2 Market Trends Example 2—Green Building Product Labels 79
4.4 Green Building Materials Recycling 80
5. Environmental and Health Considerations Associated with C&D
Recovery 83
xii
-------
5.1 Materials and Constituents of Potential Concern in C&D 83
5.2 Cross-Media Pollution and Exposure 85
5.2.1 Facility Considerations 85
5.2.2 Material-Specific Considerations 86
6. Data Gaps and Additional Research opportunities 90
7. References 1
xiii
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
Figure 1-1. Annual U.S. C&D Quantity and Composition Estimates 4
Figure 1-2. Waste Composition of the C&D Stream in the City of Chicago, State
of Illinois, and the State of Vermont for 2008-2009 (USEPA, 2015a) 5
Figure 1-3. Composition Estimate of C&D Accepted at Permitted U.S. Disposal
Facilities (Adapted from USEPA, 2015a) 6
Figure 2-1. Mixed C&D MRFs Separate C&D into Individual Material Types for
Recovery 14
Figure 2-2. Flow Diagram of a Typical Operation Where Mixed C&D is Unloaded
and Sorted Manually 15
Figure 2-3. Flow Diagram of a C&D MRF Using Some Mechanical Separation,
Followed by Manual Separation 16
Figure 2-4. Flow Diagram of a Mixed C&D MRF Using Extensive Mechanical
Processing to Separate Materials before a Manual Sort 16
Figure 2-5. C&D Recovery Facilities Rely on a Combination of Manual and
Mechanical Separation to Produce a Variety of Clean and Marketable Materials 17
Figure 2-6. Screens Are Used to Separate Materials Based on Their Size 17
Figure 2-7. Magnets Are Used to Remove Steel and Other Ferrous Metal 18
Figure 2-8. Air Classifiers, or Destoners, Separate Heavy and Light Materials 19
Figure 2-9. Flow Diagram for a Typical Aggregate Processing Facility Producing
Crushed Aggregates from C&D 21
Figure 2-10. PCC Is Processed by Crushing, Removing Metal, and Screening to
the Desired Gradation 21
Figure 2-11. Mobile Grinder Used for Processing Non-Asbestos Asphalt Shingles 22
Figure 2-12. Flow Diagram for a Typical Asphalt Shingles Recovery Facility That
Processes Segregated Non-Asbestos Asphalt Shingles Materials into Recycled
Asphalt Shingles (RAS) 22
Figure 2-13. Existing Asphalt Roads Are Milled and Incorporated into New
Asphalt Pavement 23
Figure 2-14. Flow Diagram for RAP Recycling at an HMA Plant 24
Figure 2-15. Flow Diagram of a Typical Wood Processing Facility 25
Figure 2-16. Flow Diagram for a Typical Drywall Recovery Facility That Receives
Segregated Drywall and Produces Gypsum Powder 26
Figure 2-17. Mulch and Wood Chips Can Be Produced from C&D Wood Using a
Grinder or Mill 30
Figure 2-18. Drywall Has the Potential to Be Recycled into New Drywall, as an
Agricultural Amendment, or as an Ingredient in Portland Cement 31
Figure 2-19. Scrap Metal Has a Weil-Established Market, Making It One of the
Most Commonly Recycled C&D Materials 32
Figure 2-20. C&D Fines Are a Major Component of Mechanized C&D Recovery
Operations and Historically Have Been Used as Cover Material at Landfills 33
Figure 2-21. Much of the Remaining Material on a C&D Processing Line Has a
High Caloric Value and May Be Used as a Fuel Source 34
Figure 2-22. Cardboard Is Commonly Recovered From C&D and Recycled 34
xiv
-------
Figure 3-1. Distance in Miles to the Nearest C&D Landfill (Top) and Mixed C&D
MRF (Bottom) (USEPA, 2014a [C&D Landfill Locations] and WBJ, 2012 [Mixed
C&D MRF Locations]) 38
Figure 3-2. Tipping Fee Variability for C&D Materials in the United States
(IWCS, 2016) 40
Figure 3-3. C&D MRF Tipping Fees by Region and Material for Several Facilities
(IWCS 2016) 41
Figure 3-4. U.S. RCA Application in Road Base (CDRA, 2012) 56
Figure 3-5. 2013 RCA Price by State (USGS, 2015) 56
Figure 3-6. 2013 RAP Fraction in New Asphalt Pavement (NAPA, 2014) 58
Figure 3-7. 2013 RAP Price by State (USGS, 2015) 58
Figure 3-8. Mixed C&D Processing Facility Grinding Mixed C&D Processing
Residuals into a Refuse-Derived Fuel Product 64
Figure 4-1. Characteristics of Green Building Materials 68
Figure 4-2. Increase in Green Building Market Value Compared with Total
Building Construction Market Value (McGraw-Hill Construction, 2012; U.S.
Census Bureau, 2015) 76
Figure 4-3. Market Trends for Aggregates in Terms of Production (adapted
from USGS, 2000) 78
Figure 4-4. Use of FSC-Certified Wood in LEED Projects (GreenBiz, 2011) 80
xv
-------
TABLES
Number Page
Table 2-1. Typical Materials for Reuse or Recycling from Building
Deconstruction Projects (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2005) 11
Table 3-1. Economic Considerations of the C&D Contractor 36
Table 3-2. Policy Options for Promoting Solid Waste Recovery (Cochran et al.,
2007) 43
Table 3-3. Examples of C&D Exempt from Solid Waste Disposal Public Policy
Directives in Five States (USEPA, 2015a) 45
Table 3-4. Examples of U.S. State Recovery Goals that Include C&D with
Current Recycling Rates 48
Table 3-5. Examples of County- and Municipality-Implemented C&D Diversion
Initiatives 50
Table 3-6. Summary of Markets and Unique Recovery Considerations by
Material 54
Table 3-7. Example Specifications for RCA Use as Base Course at Airports
(FAA, 2014) 57
Table 4-1. Examples of Building Materials with Potential Green Features
(Spiegel & Meadows, 2010) 68
Table 4-2. Living Building Challenge Material Diversion Requirements
(International Living Future Institute, n.d.) 71
Table 4-3. Select Building Component and Product Guidelines from Green
Building Certification Programs3 (Wang et al., 2012) 72
Table 4-4. Green Building Market Value for the Nonresidential Sector (2005-
2016) Compared with the Total Nonresidential Construction Market Value
(McGraw-Hill Construction, 2012) 76
Table 4-5. Green Building Market Value for the Residential Sector (2005-
2016) Compared with the Total Residential Building Construction Market
Value (McGraw-Hill Construction, 2012) 77
Table 4-6. Key Characteristics of the Green Building Product Labels Most
Prevalent in the United States 79
Table 4-7. Summary of Factors Affecting Materials Recyclability (Adapted from
GD Environmental, 2016; Glass Packaging Institute, 2016; Scott, 1996; Steel
Recycling Institute, 2014; The Aluminum Association, 2016) 82
Table 5-1. Partial List of Possible Contaminants in C&D Waste Streams and
Some Potential Sources (EES, 2004) 84
xvi
-------
Abbreviations
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ADC Alternative daily cover
ANSI American National Standards Institute
ASC Assurance Safety Consulting
ASTM American Society for Testing Materials
BREEAM Building Research Establishment
BTU British thermal unit
C&D Construction and demolition debris
CAA Clean Air Act
CA PRC California Public Resources Code
CCA Chromated copper arsenate
CCG Cascadia Consulting Group
CDM Camp, Dresser & McKee
CDRA Construction & Demolition Recycling Association
DEQ Department of Environmental Quality (Oregon)
DGS Department of General Services (Sacramento, CA)
DNREC Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
DOT Department of Transportation
DSHW Division of Solid and Hazardous Waste (New Jersey)
EEA Executive Office of Energy and Environmental Affairs (MassDEP)
EES Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida
EOL End-of-life
EPD Environmental Product Declaration
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection
FDS Florida Department of State
FGD Flue gas desulfurization
FHWA Federal Highway Administration
FSC Forest Stewardship Council
H2S Hydrogen sulfide
HMA Hot mix asphalt
HVAC Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning
ICC International Code Council
IDNR Iowa Department of Natural Resources
IWCS Innovative Waste Consulting Services, LLC
LBP Lead-based paint
LCA Life cycle analysis
LCD Land-clearing debris
LED Light-emitting diode
LEED Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design
MassDEP Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection
xvii
-------
MEA
Maryland Energy Administration
MHC
McGraw-Hill Construction
MPCA
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
MRF
Materials recovery facility
MSW
Municipal solid waste
NAHB
National Association of Homebuilders
NAPA
National Asphalt Pavement Association
NCHRP
National Cooperative Highway Research Program
n.d.
No date
NGBS
National Green Building Standard
NJ DEP
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
NSF
National Science Foundation
OGS
Office of General Services (New York)
OVE
Optimal value engineering
PCB
Polychlorinated biphenyl
PCC
Portland cement concrete
PPE
Personal protective equipment
RAP
Reclaimed asphalt pavement
RAS
Recycled asphalt shingles
RCA
Recycled concrete aggregate
RCRA
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RDF
Refuse-derived fuel
RI DEM
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
RSM
Recovered screened material
SMM
Sustainable materials management
SPU
Seattle Public Utilities
SWALCO
Solid Waste Agency of Lake County, Illinois
SWANA
Solid Waste Association of North America
SWRCB
State Water Resources Control Board
TRDI
Texas Recycling Data Initiative
TNRCC
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
U.S.
United States
USDA
United States Department of Agriculture
USDOE
United States Department of Energy
US EPA
United States Environmental Protection Agency
USGBC
United States Green Building Council
USGS
United States Geological Survey
VOC
Volatile organic compound
WBJ
Waste Business Journal
WMA
Warm mix asphalt
WSDOT
Wisconsin Department of Transportation
XRF
X-ray fluorescence
xviii
-------
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Objectives and Organization
The objective of this report is to summarize the current state of construction and demolition
debris (C&D) recovery in the United States. This report is intended to provide information to
those interested in incorporating C&D recovery as an element of a sustainable materials
management (SMM) program. Note that while C&D recovery and reuse is encouraged, and
may serve as a valuable component in meeting material recovery goals, it must be
conducted in a protective manner that does not pose a hazard to human health or the
environment. This report summarizes 1) how materials recovered from C&D are currently
used, and, 2) factors, including policy approaches, that may impact C&D recovery rates in a
community. This report is intended to facilitate an exchange of technical information and
does not constitute an endorsement of a specific end use or a recommendation for the
implementation of a specific policy approach.
Various factors affecting C&D recovery were examined, including:
systems and technology used to facilitate C&D recovery and processing;
economic factors that may inhibit or enable recovery of C&D in a particular region or
market;
public and corporate policy approaches to increase C&D recovery, such as C&D recovery
initiatives and incentives;
impacts of green building practices and economics; and,
examples of environmental and health and safety considerations.
The report is organized into seven sections:
Section 1 defines the report's objectives and organization, and provides background
information on C&D generation and landfilling in the United States.
Section 2 describes C&D recovery, detailing how the major types of materials recovered
from C&D are commonly processed, and the traditional end markets for recovered C&D.
Section 3 reviews the impacts of economic, public policy, corporate policy, and material
market factors on recovery rates.
Section 4 provides an overview of green building materials, focusing on existing green
building certification programs, processes, and waste management requirements. It
1
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recycling
includes information on the recyclability of green building materials relative to
conventional building products.
Section 5 discusses the potential environmental and health impacts of the recovery and
reuse of C&D with a focus on the potential for cross-media contamination of several
materials recovered from C&D.
Section 6 summarizes data gaps identified during report development and opportunities
for additional research that would further the understanding of C&D recovery in the
United States.
Section 7 lists the references used throughout the report.
initiatives supporting the recovery of C&D in a
manner protective of human health and the
environment are key elements of the sustainable
end-of-life management of these materials.
1.2 Background
EPA promotes sustainable materials
management (SMM), a systemic approach to
using and reusing materials more productively
over their entire life cycles. It represents a shift in how our society thinks about the use of
natural resources and environmental protection. By looking at a product's entire life cycle,
we can find new opportunities to reduce costs and conserve resources.
The EPA non-hazardous
Waste Management Hierarchy
\
materials and waste
management hierarchy
recognizes that no single waste
management approach is
suitable for managing all
materials and waste streams in
all circumstances. It ranks the
various management strategies
from most to least
environmentally preferred, and
places emphasis on reducing,
reusing, and recycling as key to
sustainable materials
management (US EPA, 2017).
C&D consists of the materials generated during the construction, renovation, and demolition
of buildings, roads, bridges, and other structures. The components of C&D vary depending
on activity type and structural materials used. Broadly, the C&D stream consists of
Source Reduction & Reuse
Recycling / Composting
Energy Recovery
Treatment
& Disposal
V
2
-------
Section 1 — Introduction
concrete, wood, metal, asphalt pavement, asphalt shingles, drywall, masonry products,
land-clearing debris (LCD), and various minor constituents. C&D represents a substantial
portion of the overall materials and discards generated through human activities; estimates
of the amount of C&D generated range from equal to up to twice the total amount of
municipal solid waste (MSW) (USEPA, 2015a, 2015b).
C&D can be recovered for direct reuse (e.g., use of recovered lumber in new construction
projects), recycled into new products (e.g., C&D steel re-melted and re-cast into new steel
products), utilized in other beneficial ways (e.g., crushed concrete used for road base),
combusted for energy recovery, or disposed in landfills. Building-related C&D recovery and
reuse practices have evolved over the past decade for numerous reasons, such as green
building rating system requirements and credits, local government C&D directives, and state
and local building code requirements. Although most C&D components have a high potential
for recovery, large amounts of C&D remain underutilized. Barriers to C&D recovery include
the relatively low price of C&D disposal, the lack of incentives, the absence of recycling
markets, access and distance to recovery facilities, the lack of C&D-recovery public policy
directives, and concerns about contamination with harmful materials such as asbestos, lead-
based paint, or treated wood.
This report summarizes the current state of C&D recovery in the United States. Recent
efforts by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) have focused on describing
the amount and composition of the domestic C&D stream (USEPA, 2015a, 2015b). A
rigorous review of these data is not presented here. However, C&D composition and
characteristics are important to understand material flows and, by extension, to gauge the
opportunities to use various materials management approaches. Thus, the remainder of this
section provides an overview of current U.S. C&D generation and composition, exemplifies
how green buildings and green building materials have contributed to expanding the C&D
recovery and the recycled C&D material market, and introduces the issue of harmful
constituents in some small amount of materials in the C&D stream.
The amount of C&D generated from a given construction, demolition, or renovation project
depends on different factors including project type, project size, the age of the structure,
condition of the structure, and geographic location of the structure. The diverse nature of
C&D generation (e.g., construction versus demolition, residential buildings versus
infrastructure), coupled with limited recordkeeping requirements, makes C&D quantification
and tracking a challenge. Differences in state or local public policy definitions of C&D also
3
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recycling
create a nonuniform base from which to develop national-level C&D generation and
management estimates (USEPA, 2015a).
Figure 1-1 summarizes the estimated composition of C&D based on three analyses. These
three estimates project U.S. C&D generation in the range of 230 million to 530 million tons
per year (CDRA, 2014; USEPA, 2015a, 2015b), while two indicate that 30% to 70% of the
generated stream gets recovered (CDRA, 2014; USEPA, 2015a). Variability among these
estimates results from the different data sources, assumptions, and methodologies used.
Total Estimate (million tons)
480
530
230
88 Other
& Wood
-Roofing
ii Asphalt Concrete
Metal
¦ Gypsum
Aggregates
CDRA (2014)
US EPA (2015b)
US EPA (2015a)
Note: Aggregates consist primarily of crushed concrete, but also include masonry products.
Figure 1-1. Annual U.S. C&D Quantity and Composition Estimates
Figure 1-2 presents landfilled C&D composition data for three different locations (USEPA,
2015a). C&D composition measured as disposed of in a landfill may differ from composition
estimates based on materials flow analysis or infrastructure and spending statistics (the
basis for the composition estimates in Figure 1-1). Some C&D materials, notably large
sources of aggregates such as concrete and asphalt pavement, never reach a landfill site as
they are captured and managed in other fashions (e.g., aggregate processing facilities).
Figure 1-2 shows that Chicago's C&D contains more than 50% aggregates and dirt,
4
-------
Section 1 — Introduction
compared to only 35% for Illinois as a whole; the state's overall composition of landfilled
C&D contains substantially more roofing material, and less metal and gypsum, compared to
Chicago alone. Composition estimates from Illinois and Vermont provide an example of the
differences in the landfilled C&D composition among the states. Vermont's wood fraction is
nearly twice that of Illinois, and the fraction of aggregates and dirt is substantially less.
100%
Wood
Roofing
¦ Metal
¦ Gypsum
Chicago, IL Illinois Vermont
Note: Aggregates & Dirt consist primarily of concrete, but also include masonry products and soil.
Figure 1-2. Waste Composition of the C&D Stream in the City of Chicago, State
of Illinois, and the State of Vermont for 2008-2009 (USEPA, 2015a)
The USEPA (2015a) estimated the composition of disposed of C&D from a compilation of
C&D characterization studies. Wood, roofing materials, other materials, and concrete were
the four materials disposed of in the greatest amounts (by mass), comprising about 66% of
the total amount (Figure 1-3). Roofing and other material categories were found in greater
fractions in landfilled C&D compared to the composition of C&D overall (Figure 1-1),
possibly because these materials possess fewer recovery and diversion options.
5
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recycling
Concrete
Other materials
15%
Other Aggregates
9%
Fines
Roofing
18%
Gypsum
Asphalt
Metal 5%
Wood
20% 1%
Figure 1-3. Composition Estimate of C&D Accepted at Permitted U.S. Disposal
Facilities (Adapted from USEPA, 2015a)
The prevalence of C&D recovery is influenced by economic, public policy, material-specific
factors and, notably, green building certification programs. An important component of most
certification programs is the requirement for sound material and resource utilization through
the reuse and recycling of C&D. Many green building programs also encourage the use of
recycled-content building materials, which fosters the growth of markets for recovered C&D
and realizes the benefits of the reuse and recycling efforts. A noteworthy example of a
green building certification program is the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in
Energy and Environmental Design (LEED). LEED v4, the current version of the program,
demonstrates a significant transformation in the assessment of green building materials and
continues to require the development and implementation of a C&D waste management
plan. Also, points are earned through reduction of the total construction waste materials
generated per square foot of the building's area or through diversion by salvage or
recycling.
The recovery of C&D presents a set of unique Seyera| materia|s encountered in C&D though on|y
challenges due to the heterogeneous nature of a sma" fraction of the overall mass of C&D, have
the potential to contain hazardous constituents and
this material stream and the occasional thus require special attention.
presence of harmful substances. Examples include wood coated with lead-based paint (LBP),
fluorescent bulbs and thermostats containing mercury, and asbestos-containing materials,
such as asbestos-containing floor tiles. Hazardous constituents must not be processed
alongside conventional C&D. Properly trained personnel must evaluate buildings, and
materials such as asbestos- and mercury-containing products and equipment should be
6
-------
Section 1 — Introduction
dentified and removed before demolition. In addition, C&D directed for recovery at
processing facilities are managed in a manner protective of human health and the
environment. For example, C&D processors must be alert to the potential for cross-
contamination from the commingling of materials, as this could introduce contaminants that
might not normally be present in a source-separated stream.
1.3 Methodology, Quality Assurance, and Data Limitations
Please note that this report is largely based on primary data obtained by the engineers and
academics in the USEPA's contractor group that supported the development of this report,
including observations made during visits to numerous C&D processing facilities and
conversations with facility owners, operators, and other members of the C&D recovery
industry. All photographs presented in this report, unless stated otherwise, were taken by
the USEPA's contractor and were obtained with the permission of site owners.
The development of this report also entailed collecting and analyzing secondary data. The
appropriateness of the data and their intended use were assessed based on the source,
collection timeframe, and scale of the geographic area represented. Preference was given to
data that have undergone peer or public review (e.g., those published in government
reports and peer-reviewed journals) over data sources that typically do not receive a review
(e.g., conference proceedings, trade journal articles, personal estimates). Preference was
given to more recent data over older data. Data representative of a larger geographic area
(e.g., U.S. average or state averages) were preferred over that representative of a smaller
geographic area (e.g., cities, counties). While not representative of the whole industry, to
better understand the economic factors associated with the recovery of C&D, this report
presents some cost data obtained via verbal communication with members of the C&D
management industry. The sources of all the data used and any identified limitations are
presented in the report.
7
-------
2. C&D PROCESSING FACILITIES AND MATERIAL END USES
C&D recovery is a multistep process that
generally includes material segregation (i.e.,
isolation of the material from other C&D
constituents), processing (e.g., size reduction,
unwanted substance removal), and end use of the material to offset or replace virgin
materials (i.e., materials in native or raw form). Some materials may go through fewer
steps (wood removed through deconstruction used for a new onsite building) or additional
steps (e.g., ferrous metals purchased by scrap metal brokers before end use at a steel mill).
However, the recovery process for a given C&D stream or material is dependent on its
characteristics and available recovered material markets.
Some C&D projects produce a highly heterogeneous C&D material stream that is composed
of various components, while others generate a relatively homogeneous stream dominated
by a specific material component (e.g., roofing shingles from a re-roofing job, concrete from
the demolition of a bridge). Mixed C&D streams require more intensive sorting than more
homogenous streams, and as C&D characteristics vary, different types of processing
facilities are used. Depending on the source and composition of the debris, desired quality,
and target end markets for the product, multiple approaches are employed to process C&D
mechanically.
This section describes the practices currently used in the United States for most C&D
recovery. Some materials, such as asphalt pavement and concrete from road and bridge
work, are generated as predominantly uniform materials and transferred to a dedicated
processing or reuse market. Materials may be captured for recovery from end-of-life
buildings either through deconstruction, traditional demolition with onsite sorting, or
traditional demolition with the mixed debris sent to a processing facility (materials
separation strategies are reviewed in Section 2.1). Similarly, construction debris may be
sorted at the site or processed for materials recovery at the centralized sorting facility. In
most cases, mixed C&D is first transported to a processing facility where materials are
separated as needed, and target materials are then processed to produce the desired
product for recovery. Section 2.2 provides an overview of different types of C&D processing
facilities commonly in use. Section 2.3 summarizes the common end markets for various
materials recovered from C&D.
The composition and physical characteristics of a
given C&D stream depend on the source of the
material (e.g., wood-frame home, concrete
building, asphalt pavement) and the type of project
that produces the C&D (e.g., construction,
demolition, renovation).
8
-------
Section 2 — C&D Processing Facilities and Material End Uses
2.1 Material Separation Strategies
Many separation strategies are used to recover materials from projects where C&D is
produced. Recovery of components at the point of generation can often result in materials
with the greatest resale value (and often the most positive environmental benefit). This
method of recovery is typically accomplished through deconstruct ion, selective separation
before demolition, or separation of materials during generation at a construction or
demolition site. In many cases, separation at the point of generation is not feasible, creating
a mixed C&D stream. However, even the traditional demolition practices that produce a
mixed C&D stream, as discussed in this section, generally include a "soft stripping" phase
where high-value materials are removed before demolition.
2.1.1 Deconstruction
Deconstruct ion is "the selective dismantling or removal of materials from buildings before,
or instead of, demolition" (California EPA, 2001). Deconstruction typically requires additional
manual labor and less mechanical labor than traditional demolition, as a significant
component of the process is the manual dismantling of individual building components
(National Association of Homebuilders [NAHB], 2000). One of the main objectives of
deconstruction is to minimize damage to the recovered material, increasing its quality.
Deconstruction essentially reverses the construction process by removing material in the
opposite order from which it was installed.
Typically, deconstruction occurs in five stages
(California EPA, 2001). The first is the removal
of trim work (e.g., moldings, door casings).
The second is removing appliances, plumbing,
windows, cabinets, and doors. The third
consists of removing flooring, wall coverings,
insulation, wiring, and less accessible
plumbing. The fourth involves disassembling the roof. The final stage is to remove the walls,
frame, and flooring support structure starting at the top of the building and progressing
downward. Deconstruction involving all five stages is known as "structural" deconstruction
(NAHB, 2000).
Partial deconstruction is sometimes used to capture some of the valuable materials,
followed by traditional demolition techniques for the main structure of the building (Coelho
&de Brito, 2011). Stopping at the end of stage two (i.e., removing trim work and
appliances, plumbing, windows, doors, and cabinets) is known as "soft stripping" (California
Buildings can be designed to support repair,
adaptation, deconstruction, reuse, and recycling.
Key principles of designing for deconstruction were
outlined by Guy & Ciarimboli, 2007. Additional work
on designing buildings to reduce waste has been
developed through EPA grants and publications,
(USEPA, n.d.; USEPA, 2008.) Further, designing
buildings to reduce waste and support reuse and
recycling has been adopted by green building
rating systems and credits (Lifecycle Building
Challenge, n.d.).
9
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recycling
EPA, 2001) and is often employed in traditional demolition (Coelho &de Brito, 2011). It is
also common to deconstruct certain assemblies (e.g., floor joists) that contain highly
valuable materials (NAHB, 2000).
NAHB (2000) identified four criteria that indicate good deconstruction opportunities. Wood-
frame homes may contain heavy timber or rare wood species that are regarded as valuable
in the reuse market. Hardwood floors, antique electrical and plumbing fixtures, multipane
windows, and architectural molding retain high resale value when captured during
deconstruction. Homes built with high-quality bricks and low-quality mortars are good
sources of easily-recoverable quality bricks. Finally, structurally sound homes are good
candidates because they are less likely to contain rotten or decayed materials. The USEPA
has produced a tool to help decision-makers assess a building's suitability for
deconstruction, known as the Deconstruction Rapid Assessment Tool. This tool helps the
user compare the value of deconstruction against the challenges presented at a given site
(USEPA, 2015c).
Proponents argue that there are environmental, social, and economic advantages to
deconstruction (Dantata et al., 2005; Denhart, 2009, 2010). The environmental benefits of
deconstruction are well understood: it displaces virgin material production, sequesters
carbon in wood products, and reduces C&D in landfills (Denhart, 2010; Guy and McLendon,
2000; NAHB, 1997; Thomark, 2001). The greatest environmental benefit results from the
higher material reuse and recycling rates, which significantly reduce the impacts of building
end-of-life management and new construction (Thomark, 2001).
Researchers have also identified social benefits to deconstruction. A study of post-Katrina
New Orleans found that a benefit of introducing a more hands-on demolition process was
greater resident participation (Denhart, 2009). Deconstruction also facilitates preservation
of historically and personally significant parts of buildings, especially after a disaster
(Denhart, 2009). Also, the NAHB (2000) and other published studies (California EPA, 2001,
Dantata et al., 2005) argue that deconstruction can provide a large number of jobs due to
the manpower required for the process. Deconstruction does not require as much staging
space as mechanized demolition, which can be helpful in dense urban environments
(Dantata et al., 2005).
The economic feasibility of deconstruction depends on the circumstances of the project. A
literature review of the economic impacts of deconstruction (Denhart, 2010) identified a
broad range of deconstruction cost estimates, from $2 per square foot (Guy and McLendon,
2000) to $16 per square foot (Dantata et al., 2005). Deconstruction economic viability in a
10
-------
Section 2 — C&D Processing Facilities and Material End Uses
given locality depends on the value of the recovered material and the cost of the labor
required.
In most deconstruction literature, reuse of material is discussed as a distinct concept from
recovery. Reuse is cited as a process in which the material is repurposed as the same
quality and type of product. Recycling, on the other hand, is referred to as a process in
which the material quality is degraded, and the recovered product is then either directly
reused as a lower quality material or processed to create a different product (Thomark,
2001). Whether materials from building deconstruction are reused, recycled, or disposed of
depends on the material, its condition, and the availability of local markets. A list of
commonly reused and recycled materials was developed by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (2005) and is presented in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1. Typical Materials for Reuse or Recycling from Building Deconstruction
Projects (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2005)
Reuse
Recycling
heavy timbers
cabinets
dimensional
ceiling tile
large dimensional
lumber (2x6 and
greater)
structural metals
bricks
wood paneling
molding and trim
hardwood flooring
electrical fixtures
brass plumbing
fixtures
windows and doors
heating ducts
"architectural
antiques"
lumber (2x4 or
smaller)
drywall
carpeting
structural concrete
and rebar
bricks
roofing
glass
fluorescent tubes
scrap metal
electrical cable
copper and metal
pipe
siding
insulation
Deconstruction is still an emerging field that is often considered under-studied, and
therefore limited information on the subject is available in peer-reviewed journals (Denhart,
2010). This lack of data is both caused by and contributes to, a lack of application of
deconstruction in the demolition field. Full-scale deconstruction accounts for a small fraction
of total building removal projects in the United States, but several organizations have
produced documents and tools encouraging its adoption and the incorporation of salvaged
materials into new construction, including an Introduction to Deconstruction: A
Comprehensive Training Workbook by the Building Materials Reuse Association, resources
developed by the USDA Forest Products Laboratory, Delta Institute (2012), Public
Architecture (2010), NAHB (2001), and the previously-mentioned USEPA Deconstruction
Rapid Assessment Tool (USEPA, 2015c). Additionally, the City of Portland, OR is in the
process of implementing deconstruction requirements in the residential sector which may
highlight some best practices and lessons learned (City of Portland, 2017a).
11
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recycling
2.1.2 On site C&D Segregation and Recycling
Separating high-value building materials is a fundamental component of decon struct ion and
is also a common practice for many regular demolition jobs. Keeping materials separated
allows some materials to be transported directly to a recovery market or a more refined
recovery operation such as a concrete crushing operation (University of Michigan, n.d.).
Jobsite separation may also reduce disposal costs (KCSWD, 2010) as separated materials
may result in a lower tipping fee. Other
benefits include the ability to keep materials in
the local economy (and possibly even at the
same site), reducing the impact of materials
transportation, and providing jobs in the local recovery and reuse industries.
Demolition contractors frequently separate materials at the job site for economic reasons.
The tipping fees associated with mixed C&D processing facilities or C&D landfills are often
much greater than those related to material-specific processing facilities such as concrete
crushing and recycling operations (Ca I Recycle, n.d.). Depending on the region and the
availability of local aggregates, some concrete recycling operations will accept materials free
of charge. In some cases, if the resulting aggregate product meets material strength
requirements, clean concrete will be processed and used at the site to provide a structural
component for the foundation of a new construction project. Because of the magnitude of
materials that must be managed, contractors of large demolition projects will commonly
employ some degree of separation of C&D material on the job site to minimize project
expenses.
Separation of C&D during construction projects tends to be more challenging; materials
management costs are a much smaller proportion of the cost associated with a construction
project relative to a demolition project (Ca I Recycle, 1997). Jobsite separation involves using
multiple containers and staging areas to separate scrap materials at a construction site.
Several resource guides provide best management practices for job site separation of C&D
(USEPA, 2015a); they include guidance in container staging and sizing, appropriate signage,
and construction crew education. The challenges of job site separation include additional
expenses for having multiple containers for different material types, additional labor costs
for separating materials, space constraints in dense urban areas, and additional
coordination of contractors and subcontractors to ensure materials separation across all
stages of the project.
Separating the individual components of C&D at
the project site where they are produced helps
maximize the market value of the recovered
materials and minimizes the cost and effort of
downstream processing.
12
-------
Section 2 — C&D Processing Facilities and Material End Uses
Another factor impeding job site separation is a lack of material-specific recovery facilities.
The existence of facilities for recovery of specific components, such as non-asbestos asphalt
shingles, concrete, wood, and drywall, is very region specific (these facilities are discussed
in greater detail in Section 2.2). One approach that has been tried in some areas of the
United States is to separate and then reuse clean segregated construction materials at the
construction site itself (USEPA, 2015a). This approach includes crushing concrete and brick
and using them as a base layer under concrete driveways, grinding wood for mulch or
erosion control media, and pulverizing drywall as a soil supplement (CalRecycle, n.d.).
While many construction contractors avoid extensive job site separation because of the
added effort, space, and cost, the U.S. Green Building Council's LEED green building
certification program has promoted this practice (discussed in detail in Chapter 4) (Hinkley
Center, n.d.). Diverting a fraction of the material can provide credit toward achieving
certification, and onsite separation increases the likelihood that a project can achieve the
diversion goal.
2.1.3 Mixed C&D
Numerous types of processing facilities sometimes referred to as materials recovery
facilities (MRF), are used to recycle C&D. Most C&D recovered in the United States is
managed at one of these facilities. Some facilities focus on a specific type of material (e.g.,
concrete, wood, drywall), while others focus on mixed C&D. Mixed C&D MRFs use some
combination of equipment and manual labor to separate materials into components. These
materials may be processed onsite or sent on to a more specialized facility. Material targets
and recovery rates vary widely depending on the recovery facility and properties of the
material stream. Section 2.2 describes the different types of C&D processing facilities
operating in the United States.
2.2 C&D Material Processing Facilities
C&D collected and sent for recovery is typically first processed at a mixed C&D processing
facility or a material-specific processing facility, depending on whether the materials were
already segregated at the point of origin. Specific components of C&D that are separated
from mixed loads at a mixed C&D processing facility may be sent to material-specific
processing facilities. The various types of C&D processing facilities are summarized below.
2.2.1 Mixed C&D Facilities
Mixed C&D facilities accept heterogeneous loads of material. Mixed loads are commonly
produced by construction, renovation, and smaller demolition projects. Before producing
13
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition MateriaI Recycling
marketable end products for recycling, target materials are separated. Given the additional
processing effort, these facilities generally will charge a higher tipping fee than a facility
accepting only presorted material. As discussed in detail in Section 3.1.5, the average
nationwide tipping fee for mixed C&D MRFs appears higher than the average nationwide
tipping fee at C&D landfills (C&D MRFs are more common in areas where landfill tipping fees
are already high). A photograph of a mixed C&D MRF tipping floor is presented in Figure 2-
1.
Figure 2-1. Mixed C&D MRFs Separate C&D into Individual Material Types for
Recovery
Configurations of mixed C8tD facilities range from simple manual to highly automated
processing, and the types and quality of materials recovered depend on the equipment and
strategies employed at each MRF. More mechanized facilities achieve greater throughput by
combining mechanical and manual processes with lower labor costs, although at greater
capital cost and energy use. The simplest facilities use laborers and equipment to pick
through and manually sort C&D, as illustrated in Figure 2-2. This approach is often referred
to as the "dump and pick" approach, and typically only the most valuable materials are
recovered for reuse or recycling. These operations can occur at the tipping face of the
landfill or a sorting facility such as a transfer station.
14
-------
Section 2 — CB-D Processing Facilities and Material End Uses
Mixed
C&0
Target Components
Removed by
Manual Sort and
Heavy Equipment
Residuals
for Disposal
Concrete
and Other
Wood
Products
Csrdbo-srd
Products
Figure 2-2. Flow Diagram of a Typical Operation Where Mixed C&D is Unloaded
and Sorted Manually
C&D processing facilities (and particularly mixed C&D MRFs) can use a positive sorting
process, a negative sorting process, or some combination of the two. A positive sorting
process involves the removal of desired materials for recovery, while negative sorting
rem oves unwanted m aterials for disposal (or additional processing). For the sam e stream of
material, a positive sorting process would be expected to produce a higher-quality, lower-
volume stream of recovered material.
Facilities will often combine manual processes with mechanical equipment to separate target
materials, as illustrated in Figures 2-3 and 2-4. In the United States, depending on specific
state public policy directives, these facilities are com m only regulated as perm itted solid
waste management facilities and must comply with requirements such as stockpile size,
offsite emission control, and recordkeeping; these requirements may be less stringent or
different at another facility processing only exempted materials, as will be discussed in
Section 3.2.2. Incoming loads of C&D must meet certain criteria (e.g., only C&D may be
allowed); loads are inspected as necessary to ensure that only appropriate materials are
processed. The operator charges a tipping fee based on the type of material and either the
weight or volum e of the container or vehicle.
Loads of C8cD are tipped in a designated area, followed by a visual inspection and removal
of unwanted materials. Some operators conduct a preliminary size reduction step with an
excavator or similar equipment before moving the material to the mechanized process train.
The first step in the mechanized separation process is mechanical screening. In some cases,
an initial screening step separates the incoming material into two size fractions (e.g., less
15
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recycling
than 12 inches and greater than 12 inches), which are then further processed (including
additional screening) in a separate processing line (Figure 2-4).
Mixed
C&D
Tipping Floor
Pre-Sort
Screen
Magnet
Manual Sort Line
I
I I I
Fines
Bulky/Oversize
Items
Ferrous
Metal
Wood
Products
*
Residuals
for Disposal
Metal
Products
Concrete Cardboard
and Other
Aggregates
Figure 2-3. Flow Diagram of a C&D MRF Using Some Mechanical Separation,
Followed by Manual Separation
Mixed
C&D
Tipping Floor
Pre-Sort
Screen 1
(larger mesh)
Overs
Magnet
Manual Sort Line
Bulky/Oversize
Items
I I I \
Untie rs
Ferrous
Metal
Wood I Metal
Products t Products
I
Residuals
for Disposal
Concrete Cardboard
and Other
Screen 2
(smaller mesh)
Magnet
Manual Sort Line
Destoner
4
Fines
Ferrous
Metal
Wood
Products
\ J
Residuals
for Disposal
Cardboard
Concrete
and Other
Metal
Products
Figure 2-4. Flow Diagram of a Mixed C&D MRF Using Extensive Mechanical
Processing to Separate Materials before a Manual Sort
Following an initial screening and magnet separation, the materials proceed via conveyor
along a picking line. Workers stationed on each side of the conveyor manually remove
target materials and place them into designated bins (i.e., positive sorting). Later, the
materials are removed and placed in designated storage or processing areas. The photo in
Figure 2-5 depicts a typical picking line operation; workers should be adequately trained
and provided with necessary safety gear (e.g., eye protection, breathing masks, gloves).
Target materials for manual removal include wood, smaller pieces of concrete and masonry,
metals, and plastics (e.g., 5-gallon buckets). Figure 2-6 shows the use of an inclined
16
-------
Section 2 — C&D Processing Facilities and Material End Uses
vibratory screen for initial screening to separate the C&D for further processing on two
different processing lines. Throughout the process, magnets remove ferrous metals (Figure
2-7). Magnet configurations include overhead magnets and pulley magnets.
Figure 2-5. C&D Recovery Facilities Rely on a Combination of Manual and
Mechanical Separation to Produce a Variety of Clean and Marketable
Materials
Figure 2-6. Screens Are Used to Separate Materials Based on Their Size
17
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recycling
Figure 2-7. Magnets Are Used to Remove Steel and Other Ferrous Metal
Depending on the facility, the materials that pass through the manual sort line may be
managed as residual and disposed of (typically at a local municipal landfill), or additional
mechanical processing steps are employed to further separate and recover materials.
Equipment that separates materials based on density is common. Some facilities use float
tanks where wood is removed from the surface of the water, and concrete pieces or other
aggregates are retrieved from the bottom of the tank. More common in modern facilities are
air classifiers such as destoners that separate lighter from denser materials (Figure 2-8).
The use of optical sorters is also becoming more common in C&D sorting. Optical sorters
collect molecular-level information about materials using a light-emitting source, lenses,
spectrometers, cameras, and shutter valves. During sorting, the material is sent through
the sorter at high speed under a spectrum of wavelengths. A spectrometer identifies the
material, and a shutter valve passes it into the correct chute of the conveyor. Optical
sorters would not be able to identify (and sort out) harmful materials (e.g., lead-based
paint); however, additional automated detection technologies (e.g., x-ray fluorescence,
laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy) have the potential to identify certain harmful
materials based on their chemical makeup.
18
-------
Section 2 — C&D Processing Facilities and Material End Uses
Figure 2-8. Air Classifiers, or Destoners, Separate Heavy and Light Materials
Some mixed C&D processing facilities may have additional material-specific processing
steps (e.g., concrete crushing, wood grinding), which may allow recovered materials to be
sold directly to their end markets rather than requiring them to be sent to separate facilities
for additional processing, For example, recycled concrete aggregate may be sold to
contractors for use as a construction fill, or the recovered wood fraction that was in the
facility may be size reduced with a grinder or horizontal mill to be sold to landscapers for
use as mulch. Other mixed C&D processing facilities may transfer recovered materials to
material-specific processing facilities.
2.2.2 Aggregate Processing Facilities
Aggregate processing facilities primarily accept and handle demolished Portland cement
concrete (PCC) products, but may also accept and process brick and masonry, asphalt
pavement, and other similar aggregate materials. PCC is different from asphalt concrete,
which primarily uses asphalt as a binding material, whereas PCC uses Portland cement as a
binder in addition to other additives such as fly ash (FHWA, 1998).
19
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recycling
Both portable and stationary processing operations are integral to the PCC recovery industry
in the United States (CDRA, 2012). Individual demolition sites that primarily generate large
amounts of PCC may contract a mobile operation to crush and produce aggregate onsite.
Some mixed C&D processing facilities stockpile recovered PCC and periodically hire a
portable crusher contractor to bring in and operate a mobile crusher. Dedicated PCC
processing operations generally use fixed equipment.
Size reduction to produce marketable-sized products is the primary objective of an
aggregate processing facility. Typical size reduction equipment includes jaw crushers,
impact crushers, and cone crushers. In most cases, multiple crushers are used. Unlike
mixed C&D facilities, aggregate processing facilities commonly track material quantities by
volume instead of by mass. In some cases, a tipping fee may be levied for the receipt of
materials, but in regions where the market value of recycled concrete products is sufficiently
high, materials may be accepted at no charge.
Aggregate processing facilities vary in size and configuration, but typically follow a similar
series of steps. When material arrives at an aggregate processing facility, the container or
vehicle is inspected and directed to an appropriate unloading location. Materials may be
stored for weeks before processing. Large pieces of PCC may first need to be size reduced
using mobile equipment such as excavators equipped with an appropriate attachment.
Excavators, loaders, and other heavy equipment are used to transport unprocessed material
to the beginning of the process train and, as necessary, remove non-aggregate materials.
Figure 2-9 shows the material flow through a conventional aggregate processing facility. A
preliminary screening step may be used to remove fine materials. The first size reduction
step is a primary crusher (as shown in Figure 2-10), which in most cases will be a jaw or
impact crusher. After primary crushing, the material is passed under a magnet to extract
ferrous metals (e.g., steel reinforcing bar); additional overhead and pulley magnets may be
used in subsequent stages of the crushing process. After primary crushing, the materials
move via conveyor to a secondary crusher (commonly a cone crusher). The material then
passes through vibratory screens to extract desired size materials and, as needed, materials
are conveyed to the secondary crusher again to produce the product you want. Some
aggregate processors also utilize tertiary crushing, depending on the setup of the facility.
Aggregate processing facilities may use separate crushers and reclaimed asphalt pavement
(RAP)-breakers for processing non-concrete materials such as RAP or larger asphalt
pavement materials.
20
-------
Section 2 — C&D Processing Facilities and Materia/ End Uses
Concretes
Bricks —
Masonry
Over-tiled
Initial
Screen
Primary
Crusher
Magnet
Unders
Secondary
Crusher
Vibratory
Screens
Aggregate of
- Specified
Site
Fines
I
Unders
ferrous
Metal
Fines
Figure 2-9. Flow Diagram for a Typical Aggregate Processing Facility Producing
Crushed Aggregates from C&D
Figure 2-10. PCC Is Processed by Crushing, Removing Metal, and Screening to
the Desired Gradation
2.2.3 Non -Asbestos Asph al t Shingle Pro cess in g Facili ties
Non-asbestos asphalt shingles that are segregated for recovery (by the roofing contractor)
are often managed at stand-alone recovery facilities, though in some cases mixed C&D
MRFs may periodically contract with mobile shingle processing companies to size-reduce
shingles for desired end markets (Figure 2-11). Figure 2-12 presents a process flow diagram
for a non-asbestos asphalt shingle processing facility. During the first processing step,
unwanted materials (e.g., roofing paper, wood pieces) are removed from the load, and the
21
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recycling
material is passed through a grinder for size reduction. A magnet extracts nails from the
ground material before screening. Screening then allows the facility to obtain the desired
size of end products to meet local market demand.
Figure 2-11. Mobile Grinder Used for Processing Non-Asbestos Asphalt Shingles
Non-Asbestos
Asphalt
Shingles
I
Roofing Paper,
Wood
I
Over-sized
Manual Sort
-~
Grinder
Magnet
-~
Screen
I
Ferrous
Metal
RAS of
Specified
Size
Unders
RAS Below
Specified
Size
Figure 2-12. Flow Diagram for a Typical Asphalt Shingles Recovery Facility That
Processes Segregated Non-Asbestos Asphalt Shingles Materials into
Recycled Asphalt Shingles (RAS)
22
-------
Section 2 — C&D Processing Facilities and Material End Uses
2.2.4 Asphalt Pavement Recovery
Except for large chunks of asphalt pavement recovered from the demolition of parking lots
and other small pavement areas, most RAP is not handled at C&D processing facilities; as-
generated RAP from road resurfacing work has historically either been sent directly to
asphalt plants and incorporated into new pavement mixes (providing a substitute for virgin
asphalt and aggregate on a 1-to-l basis) or recycled in place. On a national average basis,
20% of the total 2014 asphalt pavement mix (NAPA, 2015) consisted of RAP (by mass). RAP
is commonly produced through cold milling from asphalt roads that have reached the end of
their usable life, as presented in Figure 2-13.
Figure 2-13. Existing Asphalt Roads Are Milled and Incorporated into New
Asphalt Pavement
RAP recycling methods can be classified into offsite and in-place (i.e., onsite) recycling.
Offsite recycling of RAP involves the transport of the material to asphalt mix plants for
inclusion in new asphalt pavement production. As of 2014, most asphalt pavement mix was
produced at hot mix asphalt (HMA) plants (representing approximately two-thirds of all
asphalt pavement) and warm mix asphalt (WMA) plants (producing most of the remaining
pavement) (NAPA, 2015). A process flow schematic for RAP recycling at an HMA plant is
presented in Figure 2-14.
23
-------
The State of the Practice of Construct/on arid Demolition Material Recycling
Virgin Asphalt and
Aggregate
i
Hot Mix
Asphalt Plant
New
~ Asphalt
Pavement
Asphalt w _ , . Povement
" w Cold Milling
Pavement »
Figure 2-14. Flow Diagram for RAP Recycling at an HMA Plant
In-place recycling involves pavement removal, reconditioning, and reapplication by
equipment in single or in multiple passes. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA,
1997) describes in-place asphalt pavement recycling techniques including hot in-place
recycling, cold in-place recycling, and full depth reclamation methods. In hot in-place
recycling, asphalt pavement is heated to soften the material and is then removed and mixed
with virgin asphalt and aggregate before being reapplied. Cold in-place recycling is similar,
but does not preheat the pavement; once the pavement is removed, a recycling agent or
emulsion is used to keep the asphalt workable until the mix is placed and compacted. The
full depth reclamation process involves reclaiming the existing in-place asphalt pavement as
well as a portion of the underlying base course, which are both removed and treated with
additives to improve stability before being reapplied as anew base course. This is
accomplished by using heavy equipment such as a mill or scarifier to remove material; then
the material is pulverized or milled to create a new aggregate that is mixed with an additive
and then reapplied.
2.2.5 Wood Processing Facilities
Most wood in the C&D stream is commingled with other building components and must be
separated at mixed C&D processing facilities using manual and mechanical techniques.
Nonetheless, while most recovered wood will be separated at mixed C&D processing
facilities, some amount will be processed at facilities that focus primarily on wood as a
recovered material. These wood processing facilities typically accept wood from yard waste,
land clearing, wood product manufacture, and C&D activities. Depending on the market,
different wood sources can be processed separately. With C&D wood and land clearing
24
-------
Section 2 — C&D Processing Facilities and Material End Uses
debris (LCD),1 the major end uses (boiler fuel or mulch) are the same, and some facilities
will accept and process them at the same time.
During processing, the first step is to remove (frequently by hand) unwanted materials and
then send the remaining fraction through a wood grinder. The ground material then may
pass through a screen to remove wood fines (similar in appearance to sawdust). The
remains from the screen are conveyed under a magnet to extract any ferrous materials
such as screws, hinges, and nails. Larger wood chips can be used as a boiler fuel and the
clean lumber is often used to produce mulch. Figure 2-15 shows the process at a typical
wood processing facility.
Wood
Material
—~
Trommel
Screen
Wood
Grinder
Manual
Sort
I
Unders
Contaminants
Wood
Fines
Magnet
Wood Chips,
Mulch
Ferrous
Metal
Figure 2-15. Flow Diagram of a Typical Wood Processing Facility
2.2.6 Drywall Recovery Facilities
Several facilities in the United States process only drywall from construction sites. Figure
2-16 shows an example of a normal drywall recovery facility process. The recovery
operation primarily involves removing the paper from the drywall followed by size reduction
suitable to market demand. Tub grinders or horizontal mills are most commonly used to
reduce the size of drywall. A dust suppression or collection system is needed as part of this
operation. The size-reduced drywall is then passed through a screen to separate any
remaining paper from the rest of the material. Drywall recovery facilities produce powdered
gypsum that has been marketed to new drywall manufacturing operations and agricultural
consumers, where such use of recycled drywall gypsum in agricultural applications has been
approved by state and local governments. In some cases, the drywall recycler may further
1 LCD consists primarily of the vegetation, soil, and rock resulting from preparing a site for
construction. Much of the soil and rock may remain onsite and be incorporated into the desired site
grades, but excess materials may be transported offsite for processing or recycling.
25
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recycling
process the gypsum (e.g., pelletize the gypsum) to create value-added agricultural products
(e.g., bagged gypsum pellets). If markets exist, the paper may be recovered as well.
Gypsum
Drywalf
Paper
Removal
Horizontal
Mill or Tub
Grinder
Trommel
Screen
Powdered
Gypsum
j Dust
Dust
Collection
Overs
Paper
Backing
i
Fines
Paper
Backing
Figure 2-16. Flow Diagram for a Typical Drywall Recovery Facility That Receives
Segregated Drywall and Produces Gypsum Powder
2.3 Material-Specific End Uses
As discussed in Section 1, C&D is a diverse material stream, with the major components
including PCC, asphalt pavement, wood, LCD, non-asbestos asphalt shingles, drywall, and
metals. This section discusses the traditional end uses for each material. For any of these
uses, it is important to ensure the use is conducted in a manner that protects human health
and the environment.
2.3.1 Portland Cement Concrete
PCC represents the largest single material class encountered in C&D (USEPA, 2016a). PCC is
used for building foundations, structural building components, roads, bridges, and various
miscellaneous structures. PCC mixes consist primarily of coarse and fine aggregate, Portland
cement alone or blended with other supplementary cementitious materials, and water. PCC
is manufactured at concrete batch plants, where the aggregate, cement, and water are
mixed with minor amounts of required admixtures (e.g., accelerators, superplasticizers) to
meet an engineered product design (Nisbet et al., 2002). The PCC is shipped to the
construction site using mixing trucks or used directly to manufacture precast concrete
products such as blocks and pipes.
When PCC is poured in place as part of a construction project, a small amount of the
concrete may remain in the mixing truck. This material is often discharged back at the
concrete batch plant, but at some construction sites it might be discharged, allowed to
harden, and eventually added to the mixed C&D. While the relative contribution from
26
-------
Section 2 — C&D Processing Facilities and Material End Uses
poured PCC to construction debris is small, PCC in the form of the concrete block may
represent a larger fraction of the debris at building sites using the block as a framing
material. Most PCC in C&D results from the demolition of large concrete buildings, roads,
bridges, and other infrastructure, and because PCC is often the dominant material from
these projects, contractors normally manage this material separately from mixed C&D.
The primary end market for crushed PCC has been a replacement for construction stone
used in road and building construction. Examples include aggregate materials in size range
of 3 inches to 1-1/2 inches, 1-1/2 inches to 3A inches, 3/8 inches minus or pea gravel, 3/4
inches drain rock and utility sand. In cases where the products meet the specifications of a
state transportation department or a local public works department, the products may be
marketed specifically by the name of the specified product.
In many states, the department of transportation provides specifications for the use of
crushed concrete in road base or similar applications. The use of crushed PCC as an
aggregate in new PCC or new asphalt pavement has been explored, but the lack of
established specifications has limited this practice in the United States. Other recovered
uses of PCC include riprap for erosion control, clean fill material, and artificial reefs.
2.3.2 Masonry Products
Masonry products include a wide variety of building materials such as brick, block, stone,
and tile. Masonry products are typically held together by a mortar or joint compound that is
usually processed along with the primary material. In most C&D recovery operations,
masonry products are commonly classified into the same aggregate sizes and stockpiles as
processed PCC, although crushed concrete products containing too much foreign material
may not command as high a price. Some facilities that receive source-segregated loads of
brick have marketed the crushed end product to landscapers for application as an
ornamental stone. Recovery of whole masonry product and subsequent use in building
applications has been reported for some materials, primarily clay brick.
2.3.3 Asphalt Shingles
Asphalt shingles consist of an asphalt-impregnated mat, with the bottom coated with a fine
mineral surface and the top coated with a coarser mineral fraction. The coarse minerals are
colored to meet the desired product appearance. The asphalt content of an asphalt shingle
is 19% to 36% by weight (USEPA, 2015d).
The lifespan of an asphalt shingle roof depends on the quality of the shingle product and the
environmental exposure conditions, but a common replacement period for shingle roofs is
27
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recycling
approximately 20 years (NCHRP, 2013). Upon re-roofing, the old shingles are typically
removed (along with the roofing felt and other materials, as required) and replaced with
new materials. In some cases, new asphalt shingles will be placed on top of the older
shingles. Re-roofing projects produce a relatively large amount of uniform material over a
short time.
Size-reduced and screened recycled asphalt shingles (RAS) are commonly marketed as
feedstock in the manufacture of HMA, where asphalt in the ground shingles offsets the
consumption of virgin asphalt. NAPA (2015) estimates that nearly 2 million tons of asphalt
shingles were recycled into asphalt pavement in 2014; on average, asphalt shingles
represented approximately 0.5% to 1.5% of pavement mixes.
Minor markets for ground non-asbestos asphalt shingles include pothole patch and surfacing
material for unpaved roads. Non-asbestos asphalt shingles have a relatively high BTU value
and thus have the potential to be combusted for energy in waste-to-energy facilities or
industrial facilities such as cement kilns. However, these practices are not common in the
United States. Landfill operators will often stockpile dedicated loads of shingles for later use
in landfill road construction, especially for wet weather conditions.
2.3.4 Asphalt Pavement
Asphalt pavement also referred to as asphalt concrete or bituminous concrete, is heavily
employed in the United States as a paving layer in roadways and parking lots. Asphalt
pavement consists of a mixture of coarse and fine aggregate (approximately 95% by mass)
and asphalt cement or bitumen (roughly 5% by mass). Asphalt pavement is typically
produced in hot mix asphalt plants, which may consist of drum or batch mix plants where
the aggregate, bitumen, and in many cases recycled materials (predominantly RAP) are
blended to meet an engineering mix design. The mix is then hauled by truck to the
construction site where the pavement is compacted in place.
Most RAP is entering the C&D stream from milling existing asphalt pavement as part of road
resurfacing. However, some milled asphalt pavement is recycled in place, as described in
Section 2.2.4. Due to the nature of the in-place recycling process, it does not appear that
there are any estimates of the nationwide quantity of in-place recycled RAP.
In some cases, asphalt pavement is demolished using heavy equipment, resulting in much
larger pieces. While some of this debris might be transported to an asphalt pavement
production facility for additional processing, in many cases pavement in this form is sent to
a mixed debris processing facility or an aggregate recycling facility.
28
-------
Section 2 — C&D Processing Facilities and Material End Uses
Asphalt pavement is frequently recycled in the United States. In 2013, 67.8 million tons of
RAP were recycled, corresponding to a recycling rate of over 99% (NAPA, 2014). Smaller
amounts of asphalt pavement are recycled as construction aggregate.
2.3.5 Wood and Land-Clearing Debris
Wood products are heavily used in building construction in the United States, as well as for
outdoor structural applications (fences, decks, utility poles). Wood products take numerous
forms, including dimensional lumber, engineered wood (e.g., plywood, oriented strand
board), and poles. Depending on end use, some wood products may be treated with
chemicals to delay natural decay. Wood products enter the C&D stream both as scrap from
new construction and from the demolition of in-service wood structures.
Under certain scenarios (e.g., see Section 2.1.1), wood components may be targeted for
select removal from a building and eventual reuse in another structural or architectural
application. In most cases, however, the markets for recovered wood products from C&D
have not been for building or structural purposes. One of the largest markets for recovered
wood has been as a fuel source for industrial boilers or other energy production facilities. In
recent years, a growing number of facilities have been constructed to convert biomass to
energy, and C&D wood represents a large potential feedstock for this market. C&D wood in
many locations is used to create a landscape mulch product (Figure 2-17), particularly after
the addition of a coloring agent to increase visual appeal. Smaller end uses for C&D wood
have been reported, ranging from high-value utilized in the manufacture of new engineered
wood products (e.g., oriented strand board, fiberboard, particle boards) to lower-value uses
such as a compost feedstock, animal bedding, and erosion control material. Fines from
wood or LCD processing may serve as a fill material, but the potential for the reuse of fines
in this application depends on the quality of the incoming material stream.
Identified challenges associated with creating a C&D wood product of sufficient quality
revolve around minimizing impurities, including factors that affect heating value (moisture,
soil content) and those that pose environmental concerns (e.g., lead from painted wood,
arsenic from treated wood).
29
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recycling
Figure 2-17. Mulch and Wood Chips Can Be Produced from C&D Wood Using a
Grinder or Mill
2.3.6 Drywall
In the United States, drywall (also referred to wall board or plasterboard) is a major interior
wall material in residential and commercial buildings. Drywall consists of a gypsum core
covered on each side with a paper backing; Gypsum contributes over 90% of the weight of
the drywall product. During the construction process, drywall sheets are fixed to the internal
framing of a building with nails, and the joints and nail locations are then covered with a
joint compound and sanded to form a smooth surface. Numerous vendors sell drywall
products of different sizes in the United States. Some specialty drywall products are also
marketed, including type X drywall (for higher fire rating) green board (for greater moisture
resistance), and blue board (for plaster applications).
Drywall must be cut to meet the dimensions and openings of the building, so a relatively
large percentage is wasted at construction sites compared to other materials. Because a
specialized drywall contractor is scheduled to work during one specific period in the
construction process, a significant amount of drywall scrap is produced during that time. In
some cases, during demolition or renovation, drywall is removed and managed as a distinct
material (Figure 2-18). However, in many demolition projects, drywall is not removed
separately but is mixed with other debris as the structure is torn down.
30
-------
Section 2 — C&D Processing Facilities and Material End Uses
Figure 2-18. Drywall Has the Potential to Be Recycled into New Drywall, as an
Agricultural Amendment, or as an Ingredient in Portland Cement
Recycling markets have been developed for scrap drywall, although in many cases these
markets are limited to scrap from new construction. In some areas of North America
(particularly the Northwest), scrap drywali is used in the manufacture of new drywall.
Drywall manufacturing facilities often recycle a small amount of their scrap into the
production process, and thus they can accommodate some amount of recycled material. As
gypsum is an ingredient in the manufacture of Portland cement, some cement plants have
attempted to incorporate gypsum from recovered drywall. This practice has been limited in
the United States because of the need for an abundant and constant supply of stable
material. In areas where local and state governments allow the use of recovered gypsum
from wall board in land applications, gypsum from drywall has been used as a soil and plant
amendment. Unlike lime, gypsum does not dramatically change the pH of the soil; thus,
gypsum has been used in applications as a calcium where a pH increase is not desired.
Some recyclers have marketed a gypsum powder resulting from crushed drywall, while
others produce specialty agricultural products (e.g., gypsum pellets). Other markets for
recovered drywall have included animal bedding and compost amendment.
Recovered drywall end markets often require that the gypsum is separated from the paper.
This separation can be accomplished with a combination of grinders and screens. This
31
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recycling
process can be extremely dusty and appropriate dust containment is necessary. Some
markets can accommodate a small amount of clean paper without deleterious effect.
2.3.7 Metals
Metal products are used in various building applications and in other structures including
structural components, flashing, piping, and wiring. Metals and alloys commonly
encountered in C&D include steel (including galvanized steel), cast iron, aluminum, brass,
tin, lead, and copper. A small amount of metal may result as scrap during the construction
process. In demolition, large buildings usually will be stripped of metal products prior to
bulk demolition of the structure, or, as necessary; metals will be separated during the
demolition process itself. The photograph in Figure 2-19 shows a significant amount of scrap
metal from a demolition project.
Magnets for removing ferrous metal from other C&D components are present at nearly all
mechanized C&D recovery facilities. The scrap metal market is well established, and C&D
processing facility operators will market their metals to scrap metal recyclers or through
brokers. The end use of metal from C&D is generally the production of metal precursor
products (e.g., billets, ingots), where its use offsets the consumption of virgin ore.
Figure 2-19. Scrap Metal Has a Weil-Established Market, Making It One of the
Most Commonly Recycled C&D Materials
2.3.8 C&D Fin es and Processing Residua Is
Depending on the configuration of the C&D processing operation, facility operators may
produce various product streams referred to by names such as fines, residuals, or screened
materials (see Figure 2-20). Reuse markets for these materials may exist but depend
32
-------
Section 2 — C&D Processing Facilities and Material End Uses
heavily upon their physical and chemical characteristics, local market conditions, and
applicable regulatory allowances.
Figure 2-20. C&D Fines are a Major Component of Mechanized C&D Recovery
Operations, and Historically Have Been Used as Cover Material at
Landfills
As indicated in Figures 2-3 and 2-4, mechanized processing facilities typically employ a
screening step early in the operation with the intention of removing smaller components
from the processed C&D stream. These screenings commonly referred to as C&D fines or
recovered screened material (RSM), are generally less than 1 to 2 inches in width. Their
composition is dominated by soil and similar particles but may include small pieces of wood,
gypsum, asphalt pavement, glass, and plastic. The composition of C&D fines depends on the
source material and the level and types of processing prior to the screening step. For
example, C&D fines that originate from materials just crushed or processed in some manner
will contain less soil and more waste materials.
Some operators may deliberately size reduce part of the incoming material if recovery
markets are less than favorable. The objective of this step is either to reduce the volume
needed for transport or to create a material that can be used as alternative daily cover
(ADC) at a landfill (as discussed in more detail in Section 3.4.7). In the industry, these
materials are more commonly referred to as process residuals or simply ADC, rather than
fines, although definitions differ regionally.
Residuals remaining from a mixed C&D MRF (i.e., materials remaining after targeted
materials have been removed) consist largely of paper, plastics, and small pieces of wood.
An example of these residuals is shown in the photograph in Figure 2-21. Processing
residuals and unwanted materials produced at C&D processing facilities are typically
disposed of at an MSW landfill or waste-to-energy facility, but they may be recovered and
marketed as refuse-derived fuel (RDF).
33
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recycling
Figure 2-21. Much of the Remaining Material on a C&D Processing Line Has a
High Caloric Value and May Be Used as a Fuel Source
2.3-9 Other Materials
Other materials that comprise a noteworthy portion of recovered C&D include cardboard and
plastics. Cardboard is highly recyclable and can be retrieved during C&D sorting (Figure
2-22). At some recovery operations, plastics (e.g., plastic buckets) are targeted as a
recovered material. Facilities may also target the recovery of carpet. However, a nationwide
survey of C&D processing facilities suggested that only approximately 30% of mixed C&D
processing facilities recover carpet and, at these facilities, carpet typically represents less
than 2% (by mass) of the recovered materials (CDRA, 2015).
Figure 2-22. Cardboard Is Commonly Recovered From C&D and Recycled
34
-------
3. FACTORS IMPACTING C&D RECOVERY
In this section, the different factors that affect C&D recovery are reviewed. These factors
include various considerations related to the economics of different C&D management
options, public policy-related topics, corporate policies (e.g., green building certifications,
intracompany building deconstruct ion/demolition standards), and mate rial-specific market
considerations. As mentioned previously, tipping fee information presented here was
gathered from publicly available information posted on C&D management facility websites,
as well as through contact and discussion with facility owners, operators, and personnel
(IWCS, 2016). Unless otherwise noted, state
C&D management public policy information was
summarized from US EPA (2015a).
3.1 Economics
3.1.1 Economic Decisions by the C&D Contractor
When site managers have the option of disposing of or recovering C&D, economic factors
are typically the driving force behind their decisions. C&D recovery generally becomes a
more attractive option in situations where recovery is more economically advantageous;
however, nonmonetary incentives can also influence decision-making.
Transportation costs and the variability in tipping fees for recovery and disposal facilities
play a major role in C&D end-of-life (EOL) management decision-making. For example, a
demolition contractor may have to choose between hauling materials from an inner-city
demolition site to a nearby C&D processing facility for a higher tipping fee, or transporting
the material to a C&D landfill on the outskirts of the city for a lower tipping fee.
Alternatively, depending on location, construction contractors may have the option of
securing C&D roll-off containers (large open dumpsters) from local recovery companies or
disposal companies; the distance between the job site and each C&D management facility
(recycler or landfill) will impact the fees associated with the roll-off services of each.
Depending on the nature of the specific C&D, costs associated with site C&D removal and
offsite management may be reduced as some states allow the onsite beneficial use of clean
fill material.
The existence of established, local markets for specific C&D materials is another vital
economic factor that influences EOL C&D management practices. For example, competition
among several PCC processing facilities in an area may lower the price of recycling
demolished PCC and may favor the selection of PCC recycling in that locality. C&D
Selected factors that influence C&D recovery rates
include economics, material-specific market
considerations and public and corporate policies.
35
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recycling
contractors will typically review material markets to estimate the worth of the different
materials that will be generated from the project, and then use this information to
determine the most cost-effective management practice. Table 3-1 provides a summary of
various economic factors and considerations that influence C&D EOL management decisions.
Table 3-1. Economic Considerations of the C&D Contractor
Economic Factor
Considerations
Jobsite
Economics of recovery versus disposal of construction discards/scraps
Management
Economics of deconstruction versus demolition
Impact on recyclability and material value of commingled versus source-
segregated C&D
Transport
Economics of self-haul versus retaining a C&D hauler or recovery/disposal
company to provide roll-off containers
Distance from the construction/demolition site to the nearest
recovery/disposal facility
Tipping Fees and
Economics of C&D disposal facility tipping fees versus C&D recovery facility
Onsite Use
tipping fees
Potential savings associated with onsite recovery
3.1.2 Labor Requirements
The previous section of this report summarized C&D separation strategies used by C&D
contractors. The selection of a separation method can play a role in labor requirements,
which in turn may influence a contractor's decision to pursue recovery or disposal. When
discarded materials are commingled in a common container for removal from the job site,
labor requirements at the job site are at their minimum. If the debris is transported to a
processing facility, the labor associated with material separation is integrated into the
processing facility's tipping fee.
A processing facility's level of automation will also directly impact its personnel
requirements. A facility that solely uses manual picking requires more low-skill laborers
compared to a highly-automated facility, which would require a smaller workforce with a
more advanced skill set.
When a centralized processing facility is not available or economically viable, the contractor
may attempt to separate desired materials at the job site. Depending on the degree to
which materials are commingled, separation may require little in the way of additional labor.
For example, drywall scrap at a construction site is generally produced during a specific
window of time in the project's schedule; therefore, a contractor can place segregated
material in a specified container in the staging area with little or no additional effort. When
36
-------
Section 3 — Factors Impacting C&D Recycling
activities result in naturally commingled materials (e.g., a renovation project), material
separation will require additional labor.
The impact of labor is most pronounced in demolition projects where a large amount of soft-
stripping or deconstruction occurs. The value of recovered materials may be much higher as
they command a high-end market, but this requires more time for the manual separation of
components (USEPA, n.d.). The cost of deconstructing is estimated to range from $2 to $16
per square foot, and the economies are highly dependent on the value of the recovered
material and the cost of labor in the locality (Dantata et al., 2005). Local prevailing wages
may influence the viability of deconstruction for a given project due to the relatively large
amount of manual labor associated with deconstruction. Traditional demolition of a given
structure is often quicker and generally, requires fewer workers. The lower cost of material
disposal in deconstruction may offset some of the additional labor cost (Kibert and Languell,
2000). Additional information on the practice of deconstruction can be found in Section
2.1.1.
3.1.3 Hauling Distance
The distance between the job site and disposal/recovery facilities is an important economic
consideration. C&D typically includes heavy or bulky materials (e.g., PCC, asphalt, bricks).
Hauling fees can become costly, particularly when road weight restrictions limit the per-load
quantity of C&D carried.
There are more than 1,500 C&D-specific disposal facilities in the United States (USEPA,
2012). In addition, C&D can often be disposed of at other disposal facilities (e.g., municipal
solid waste [MSW] landfills, inert waste landfills, dry waste landfills). In comparison, there
were only 512 C&D recovery facilities as of 2012 (USEPA, 2015a). Figure 3-1 shows the
distance to the nearest C&D landfill and mixed C&D MRF. The difference between these
maps indicates that there are regions of the country where reaching a C&D MRF requires
hundreds of miles of additional transport.
Major costs associated with C&D transportation include fuel, driver labor, vehicle
maintenance, and hauler permit/certification fees. Transportation costs can vary
dramatically both regionally and over time. As of the date of the development of this report,
U.S. diesel prices are relatively low; however, historically, the highest diesel prices have
been on the West Coast, and Rocky Mountain states (respectively), and the lowest diesel
prices are typically found in the Gulf Coast states.
37
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recycling
Distance (miles)
to the nearest
C&D Landfill
I 0-83
84- 161
162-248
249 - 347
348 - 465
466 - 686
Distance (miles)
to the nearest
C&D MRF
1 0-83
84- 161
162-248
249 - 347
348 - 465
466 - 686
Figure 3-1. Distance in Miles to the Nearest C&D Landfill (Top) and Mixed C&D
MRF (Bottom) (USEPA, 2014a [C&D Landfill Locations] and WBJ,
2012 [Mixed C&D MRF Locations])
Contractors can self-haul materials to a disposal or recovery facility, hire a hauling
contractor, or use C&D recovery/disposal facility hauling services to transport materials.
Commonly, roll-off containers are used at construction and demolition worksites to collect
C&D. The hauling contractor transports the empty roll-off to the construction site, and the
container remains onsite until it is filled or a predetermined rental period is reached (e.g.,
7 days). Once filled, the hauler picks up the container and delivers it to a disposal facility or
MRF. This delivery can be done as a one-time service, or the container can be regularly
emptied and returned for ongoing projects. Depending on the resources of a construction or
demolition contractor, it may be more economical to use a hauling service rather than to
provide their own equipment and employees to haul C&D.
Hauling Contractors may charge different fees based on the type of material, such as a
reduced rate for segregated C&D loads (i.e., loads with only one type of C&D). Construction
38
-------
Section 3 — Factors Impacting C&D Recycling
sites located far from an MRF may also be charged additional fees to account for extra
transport costs.
3.1.4 Materials Storage
Traditional demolition practices face additional challenges in dense urban areas where
staging space for demolition is limited (Dantata et al., 2005). This reduced staging space
requirement is advantageous for deconstruction because the less mechanized strategies
used in deconstruction require less staging space and may have less impact (e.g., noise,
dust) on the surrounding community. However, multiple containers may be necessary to
store the various materials removed through the deconstruction process. Restrictions in
space for job site material separation can potentially be mitigated by selecting smaller
containers with more frequent material collection, choosing containers with multiple
compartments, carefully selecting the number and size of containers based on the current
phase of the job and the expected quantity of materials to be generated, or a combination
of these strategies (CSB, 2008; TIRN, 2005).
Whether the C&D contractor elects to manage materials through recovery or disposal, the
cost of renting a roll-off will generally include the drop-off and pick-up transportation costs,
the tipping fee, and other environmental fees. Roll-off hauling services may be owned by or
may be a subsidiary of the recovery or disposal facility company. The rates of these services
are based on the distance to and from the delivery endpoint, the size of the container, and
the type and weight of materials being hauled. Haulers provide differently sized roll-offs,
which commonly range from 10 to 40 cubic yards. Some companies charge a flat, all-
inclusive fee, but the bins typically have weight limits—loads exceeding those limits are
charged additional fees. Some facilities charge a flat fee for delivery and pick up (a
container charge) with a separate per-ton fee. C&D projects with considerably heavier C&D
materials (e.g., PCC) will likely have greater hauling charges than projects that generate
lighter C&D.
3.1.5 Tipping Fees
The tipping fee for C&D disposal versus recovery is one of the primary economic factors that
influence C&D EOL management. This section discusses regional variations in tipping fees
associated with offsite recovery and disposal and reviews economic considerations with
onsite material use. While tipping fees are presented and reviewed according to the region,
it should be noted that these regional variations are the result of several factors. Some
factors that may be contributing to this regional variation include market demand for the
recovered materials, regulations on the disposal of C&D, policies encouraging reuse of C&D,
39
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recycling
operational costs of disposal and reuse facilities, characteristics of the local C&D material
stream, and local land value.
Figure 3-2 shows the average U.S. recovery facility tipping fee for various materials,
summarizing the results of publicly available tipping fee data from 123 C&D landfills (in 41
states) and 85 C&D MRFs (in 25 states) including recyclers that accept only one type of
material (IWCS, 2016). It is important to note that Figure 3-2 and Figure 3-3 are not
intended to accurately portray average tipping fees for different C&D materials, regions, and
management practices, but to roughly illustrate nationwide, material-specific and region-
specific tipping fee variability. Of the landfills reviewed, only 9 offered prices for uniform
loads of materials other than mixed C&D loads—these prices are not included in the figure.
The observation that mixed C&D tipping fees are higher at recovery facilities compared to
landfills reflects that C&D recovery facilities are generally located only in areas with greater
landfill tipping fees; to remain competitive, C&D recovery will charge tipping fees similar to
those at local landfills. When a price for an out-of-county customer was available, it was
used instead of the resident price. When a different residential and business rates were
available, the average of the two was used. Metal, PCC, and wood were accepted with no
tipping fee at some MRFs.
V
Q.
ai
o
'C
a.
$100
$90
$80
$70
$60
$50
$40
$30
$20
$10
$0
1
1
-
w
Mixed C&D Drywall
Concrete Shingles Asphalt
IC&DMRFs % C&D Landfill
Wood
Metal
Figure 3-2. Tipping Fee Variability for C&D Materials in the United States (IWCS,
2016)
40
-------
Section 3 — Factors Impacting C&D Recycling
Figure 3-3 shows the regional variations in C&D MRF tipping fees, where the regions are
organized per the U.S. Census Bureau's (n.d.) classifications. Mixed C&D tipping fees can
vary widely with values ranging from $30 per ton to over $100 per ton. Tipping fees in the
West and Northeast tend to be higher for mixed C&D than the U.S. average, and tipping
fees in the Midwest and South tend to be lower. Variability in tipping fees may be driven by
several factors, such as communities that have implemented mandatory recovery (which
allows MRFs to charge higher fees without the need to be priced as competitively with
landfills). MRFs, that have a tipping fee structure that varies by material, typically charge a
higher fee for lower-value materials and materials that are harder to process/recycle (or
dispose of) to cover the additional expenses necessary for managing the material. The
tipping fee for non-asbestos asphalt shingles had the greatest range of values and the
highest average tipping fee per short ton at C&D MRFs; the average tipping fee for this
material exceeded the cost for mixed C&D. Metals, as previously described, have well-
established recovery markets and most facilities charge no or minimal fees for them.
i§^
i|5&
Jo.
= S;:::
Mixed C&D
Drywall
Concrete
Shingles
Asphalt
Wood
Metal
US Average = South & Northeast iSWest
Midwest
Figure 3-3. C&D MRF Tipping Fees by Region and Material for Several Facilities
(IWCS 2016)
41
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recycling
Additional fees or management costs may be incurred if harmful materials (e.g., lead-based
paint, asbestos) are identified in discharged loads in the tipping area at C&D recovery or
disposal facilities. Construction and demolition contractors are typically held responsible for
properly disposing of any harmful or unacceptable materials discharged at recovery or
disposal facilities.
The national average tipping fee at MSW landfills in 2013 was $49.78 per ton (USEPA,
2015b). In 2011, the weighted average tipping fee charged for C&D landfills was $31 per
ton (WBJ, 2012).
3.1.6 Material Markets
The value of recyclable materials is often
dictated by the current regional market forces.
The demand for construction materials and
supply of recoverable C&D materials varies over geography as well as time. Some materials,
such as metal, have a relatively established market because their value is worth the cost of
transporting the material long distances. Other materials, such as non-asbestos asphalt
shingles, have strongly variable, region-specific demand.
The value of recovered materials compared to the value of the same materials
manufactured from virgin resources also has a significant impact on material recovery. For
example, asphalt pavement is one of the more commonly recycled C&D materials because it
reduces the need for relatively expensive virgin asphalt. However, the cost of recovering
dimensional lumber (e.g., through deconstruct ion) may be greater than the price of new
lumber, which may discourage the recovery of this material.
3.2 Public Policy
3.2.1 Public Policy Options
Solid waste management public policy options may also influence C&D management
decisions. State environmental and/or health departments have jurisdiction over solid waste
management policy; this has created differences in how each state classifies and manages
C&D (USEPA, 2015a). In some states, specific C&D materials may be exempt from solid
waste public policy directives, which can allow more flexible EOL management options. In
other states, depending on how C&D is defined, these materials may be banned from
land filling. C&D banned from landfills will require the availability of alternative management
practices and communities that implement this policy would be expected to have an
increased C&D recovery rate. Additionally, some state recycling goals prioritize recovery
The local market and opportunity for recovery and
reuse of C&D vary based on the material, the way
the material is recovered, and the presence of
contaminants.
42
-------
Section 3 — Factors Impacting C&D Recycling
over landfilling C&D, as do local initiatives and incentives to encourage recovery. Table 3-2
summarizes public policy options that different state and local governments have used to
help increase recovery.
Table 3-2. Policy Options for Promoting Solid Waste Recovery (Cochran et al.,
2007)
Name
Description
Disposal Ban
Disposal Tax
Subsidized Recycling
Percentage Recycling
Requirement
Material Recycling
Requirement
Deposit/Advanced
Disposal Fee/Rebate
A law or ordinance that specifically bans the disposal of certain waste
materials from being disposed of in a landfill or restricted to certain
landfills that have increased protection of the environment, such as
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) Subtitle D or C
landfills.
Artificially inflating the cost of disposal to make recycling or reuse a
more economical option to the public.
Artificially decreasing the cost of recycling to make recycling or reuse a
more economical option to the public.
A law or ordinance that requires that a percentage of the waste stream
be recycled.
A law or ordinance that requires certain waste materials to be recycled.
A law or ordinance that requires the public to pay for disposal before
waste generation (generally at the time that the building permit is
applied for). This fee is returned if proof is provided that the material is
recycled.
A law or ordinance that says that all government agency construction
activity that produces waste (including C&D debris) must recycle or
divert from the landfill some portion of that waste.
A law or ordinance that requires government agencies to purchase
materials that have recycled content.
Finances that are provided by the government to businesses to help
develop recycling.
Educational efforts performed by the government to increase recycling
awareness specifically for C&D debris.
Legislation that provides a recycling percentage goal
A regulation or legislation that encourages green building certification in
the region.
Demolition contractors are required to post notice of an impending
demolition to allow parties to salvage materials from the building.
In addition, as demonstrated in Portland (OR), cities can adopt ordinances or building codes
requiring deconstruction for particular types of buildings or historic buildings (City of
Portland, 2017b).
Public policy impacts on C&D recycling are also seen in road construction. Many C&D
materials have established uses in transportation applications, and guidelines and
Government Waste
Recycling Requirement
Government Recycling
Purchasing Requirement
Business Development
Education
Recycling Goal
Green Building
Salvage Requirement
43
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recycling
specifications established by federal and state departments of transportation (DOTs) affect
the rate of C&D recycling for use as road base, in paving applications, and for other
construction applications. As an example of the established support for the use of recovered
materials in highway construction, over a decade ago, the FHWA (2002) published its policy
on using recovered materials in highway applications, which included statements
encouraging use and reducing barriers: "Recycled materials should get first consideration in
materials selections..." and "Restrictions that prohibit the use of recycled materials without
technical basis should be removed from specifications." This is an important aspect for the
utilization of any reclaimed material since it must perform with known engineering
properties that could differ from virgin materials.
3.2.2 Material Definitions and Exclusions
As previously mentioned, each state establishes its own set of solid waste public policy
directives. These directives provide definitions of the materials the state considers to be
C&D (and solid waste) and direction for how to manage C&D. These definitions often
encourage recovery and reuse by exempting certain materials from solid waste public policy
directives.
Because each state has adopted its own unique public policies, definitions of C&D vary
throughout the country. C&D may be defined broadly as materials resulting from C&D
activities. For example, one state lists that "[construction debris is the] solid waste derived
from the construction, repair, or remodeling of buildings or other structures." Another state
definition includes a specific list of materials that meet the definition of C&D, "...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. "A few states do not define C&D at
all, but rather classify C&D as a different waste type; one state lists C&D under the
definition of inert waste, while another includes C&D under the definition of rubbish. As a
result of these different definitions, certain materials, or even classes of materials, may be
considered C&D in some states but not in others.
There are also differences in the types of C&D materials that states exempt from public
policy directives (examples presented in Table 3-3). Exempt materials have fewer
management constraints and may be entirely excluded from solid waste public policy or
may only be excluded in cases where they are beneficially reused, thereby reducing hurdles
related to solid waste management such as permitting, material reporting, and
documentation (USEPA, 2015a). Due to the less stringent directives for the management of
44
-------
Section 3 — Factors Impacting C&D Recycling
materials no longer considered to be part of a waste stream, C&D recovery may be more
economically competitive in states with C&D exemptions from solid waste management
public policy. Exempt materials are typically deemed as inert or clean fill (e.g., bricks,
blocks, rocks, soil), and to maintain exempt status, these materials cannot be commingled
with other mixed C&D.
Table 3-3. Examples of C&D Exempt from Solid Waste Disposal Public Policy
Directives in Five States (USEPA, 2015a)
State
Examples of Exempt C&D Materials
California
Fully cured asphalt, uncontaminated concrete (including steel reinforcing rods
embedded in the concrete), crushed glass, brick, ceramics, clay, and clay
products for road work.
Delaware
Asphalt shingles specifically used for recycling.
Iowa
Asphalt shingles, glass, gypsum wallboard, rubble, or wood pre-approved for
specific beneficial use applications.
Maine
Chipped wood from LCD and timber-harvesting debris used at generation site
(provided affected area is less than 1 acre in size).
Inert material for fill, drainage material (for construction projects), or raw
material for cement, concrete or asphalt production.
Oil-contaminated soil stabilized with emulsified asphalt as aggregate for
asphalt pavement production.
Wood waste and land clearing debris (LCD) generated and combusted at the
same facility in a specific set of combustion unit types.
Ohio
Tree stumps in a C&D landfill.
LCD used as fill at the site of generation/removal.
Nonhazardous C&D including concrete, asphalt concrete, brick, block, tile,
and stone, used as fill.
Note: These examples are only provided to illustrate the variety of C&D materials that may be exempt from solid
waste public policy directives. These materials are typically only exempt from the solid waste public policy if used in
specific applications. This table should not be used for C&D management purposes. State solid waste public
policies should be reviewed for additional details.
Another example of how state C&D public policy variability can affect C&D recovery is the
classification of land-clearing debris (LCD). Some states include LCD in the definition of
C&D, others exempt it from solid waste public policy directives, and others evaluate the
exemption of LCD used as a clean fill on a case-by-case basis. Since there is often no
requirement to track the quantity of construction and demolition materials that are exempt
from the state's definition of C&D (or solid waste), and due to the differences in the types of
materials that fall within or outside states' C&D definitions, some states may be accounting
for recovered C&D materials that others are not.
State public policy directives commonly list the types of facilities that may receive and
manage C&D, such as MSW landfills, different classes of landfills specific to the state, inert
45
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recycling
waste landfills, and various types of recovery facilities (USEPA, 2015a). All else being equal,
the cost of C&D disposal/recovery may be lower in states that have provisions for C&D
management at a wider variety of disposal/recovery facility types. State public policy may
also impact the cost of different C&D management options by having different material
tracking directives for C&D disposal facilities compared to C&D recovery facilities. At least
one state has provisions that do not require smaller C&D processing facilities (i.e., less than
50 tons per day) to obtain a solid waste management facility license—only facility
registration is necessary.
Some states and local jurisdictions have banned C&D from landfills. For example,
Massachusetts has banned certain C&D management methods; it first implemented
disposal, combustion, and transfer bans for major C&D materials in 2006. The materials
banned from these management practices included asphalt pavement, brick and concrete,
metal, and wood (though wood could still be sent to an incineration facility). Clean gypsum
wallboard was added to the list of banned materials in 2011 (MassDEP, 2014). A study
conducted after the implementation of the wood disposal ban concluded that while the ban
increased the amount of C&D waste being processed, it also may have increased C&D
management costs for C&D generators (DSM Environmental Services, Inc., 2008).
In January 2015, Vermont implemented a ban on the landfilling of architectural waste
(including drywall, scrap metal, asphalt shingles, clean wood, plywood, or oriented strand
board) from projects that produce 40 or more cubic yards of architectural waste at a
commercial project located within 20 miles of a solid waste facility that recycles
architectural waste. Clean wood waste was proposed to be banned starting in July 2016 (VT
DEC, 2014).
Other states have banned landfilling of materials that may be a component of C&D, such as
cardboard or white goods (e.g., appliances); however, in general, major components of the
C&D stream (e.g., PCC, asphalt pavement, drywall, and asphalt shingles) are not being
banned at the state level. In Washington, demolition and inert waste can be accepted at
limited purpose landfills and inert waste landfills. However, although a statewide ban on
landfilling drywall does not exist, the definition of demolition waste excludes "plaster (i.e.,
sheetrock or plasterboard) or any other material, other than wood, that is likely to produce
gases or a leachate during the decomposition process" (Washington Administrative Code,
Title 173 Chapter 304 Section 100). This exclusion of drywall/sheetrock from the definition
of demolition material may deter its disposal in limited use landfills.
46
-------
Section 3 — Factors Impacting C&D Recycling
In California, jurisdictions are encouraged to report C&D landfill bans as part of their annual
diversion reports. Some counties have incorporated landfill bans with their recovery
ordinances, although C&D has not been banned from landfills at the state level (CalRecycle,
2009).
The banning of certain C&D materials from landfilling is a method that states and
municipalities have used to increase C&D recovery. Successfully implementing such a public
policy directive necessitates careful planning. Developing C&D recovery infrastructure,
researching whether adequate recovery markets exist or how to develop them, providing
comprehensive guidance to communities, and developing a method to encourage adherence
to public policy directives are all important aspects of that planning process.
Although some states are banning certain C&D materials from landfilling, smaller fragments
of those materials may still end up in landfills when the use of C&D fines as landfill
alternative daily cover (ADC) is allowed. State public policy directives which discuss whether
C&D fines (i.e., RSM) can be used as ADC and whether this use counts towards state or
local waste recovery goals vary from state to state. However, it appears that states
commonly include a provision that allows alternative cover materials (such as C&D fines) to
be used provided the alternate material performs to the same standards as cover soil.
Please see Section 3.4.7 for more details on considerations related to the use of C&D fines
as ADC.
3.2.3 Federal and State Recovery Goals
The Federal government is the largest real property owner in the United States with a
domestic building inventory of approximately 300,000 owned and leased buildings requiring
approximately $21 billion of annual operation and maintenance expenditures (Executive
Office of the President of the United States, 2015). The federal government's goal of
diverting at least 50 percent of non-hazardous construction and demolition materials and
debris (Executive Order 13423, 2007 & Executive Order 13693, 2015) has incentivized and
promoted C&D recovery in federal building projects.
Many states have set recycling rate goals for solid waste to promote material recycling.
Increasing C&D recycling has been perceived as a key to achieving these aims because C&D
typically comprises a large proportion of the total quantity of discarded materials. Examples
of some state recovery goals that include a C&D recycling component are presented in Table
3-4.
47
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recycling
Some states (e.g., Delaware, New Jersey) have separate recovery goals for different types
of material streams, or have different recovery goals for different areas (e.g.,
metropolitan/populous counties versus rural counties); and some have different recovery
goals for various material generation sectors (e.g., residential, commercial, industrial). Also,
while state diversion goals can increase material reuse rates and reduce the overall C&D
generation and virgin material consumption, these benefits are not easily measured and
counted toward meeting diversion goals that produced them.
Table 3-4. Examples of U.S. State Recovery Goals that Include C&D with Current
Recycling Rates
State
Recycling Goal
Goal
Target
Year
Current
Recycling Rate
Source
California
75% solid waste
2020
50% (2014)
CalRecycle (2014a,
2015)
Delaware
50% for MSW; 72% for all
solid waste (including MSW,
C&D, and other solid waste
materials)
2015
41.9% (2013)
MSW
DNREC (2015)
Florida
75% solid waste
2020
49% (2013)
FDEP (2013a,
2013b)
Massachusetts
None; proposed goal of 58%
diversion rate by 2020 based
on goal to reduce solid waste
disposal by 30; 90% diversion
rate by 2050 (zero waste goal)
None
42% (2009)
EEA (2013)
New Jersey
50% MSW; 60% Total
1995
54% (2012) Total
NJ DEP (2006a),
DSHW (2014)
Oregon
50% MSW (includes some C&D
materials)
2010
53.9% (2013)
DEQ (2011, 2014)
Texas
40% MSW (includes C&D)
—
18.9% (2013)
TNRCC (2002),
TRDI(2015)
3.2.4 Local Policies and Initiatives
Although a state material management public policy might not include state-wide bans of
C&D from landfills, some municipalities and counties within the state may choose to
incorporate their own bans. Examples include Seattle and King County, Washington; Orange
County, North Carolina; and many jurisdictions in California.
In 2012, Seattle Municipal Code 21.36.089 established a prohibition schedule for banning
recyclable C&D materials from landfills. As of July 2014, asphalt paving, brick, concrete,
metal, cardboard, and new gypsum scrap were prohibited from being sent to a landfill for
disposal within Seattle. Unpainted and untreated wood was scheduled to be banned by
48
-------
Section 3 — Factors Impacting C&D Recycling
January 2015, and carpet, plastic film wrap, and tear-off asphalt shingles were scheduled
for banning in 2017 (Department of Planning and Development, 2014; SPU, 2015).
However, there are certain exceptions to this landfill ban including materials that are
painted, have hazardous constituents, are difficult to separate from others, and are present
in minimal quantities (SPU, 2015).
As of January 1, 2016, King County banned the following C&D materials from landfill
disposal: clean wood (clean, untreated, unpainted); cardboard; metal; gypsum scrap (new);
and asphalt paving, bricks, and concrete. Also, the county required that mixed and non-
recyclable C&D must be sent to county-designated material recovery facilities or transfer
stations (King County, 2017).
Orange County, North Carolina has a Regulated Recyclable Material Ordinance that includes
bans on clean wood waste (excludes treated, painted, or stained wood), scrap metal, and
corrugated cardboard (Orange County North Carolina, 2004, 2015).
C&D diversion initiatives and incentives at local levels, such as ordinances and deposit
systems, also can impact C&D recovery. Table 3-5 summarizes several local diversion
initiatives. The essential elements include incentives to increase diversion or penalties if
projects fail to achieve certain recovery goals.
Lee County, Florida, is one example of a community with an established C&D diversion
initiative (Lee County, 2007). This initiative, which was implemented in 2008, requires that
recyclable materials generated and accumulated by multi-family properties, commercial
establishments, and construction and demolition activities are source separated at the site
of generation. The initiative has had a positive impact on the diversion of C&D from
landfills; over 75% of applicable building project permit holders have opted to comply with
the C&D diversion initiative (SWANA, 2011).
Portland, Oregon's C&D diversion initiative directs construction and demolition contractors
to recycle at least 50% of wood, cardboard, metal, rubble, and LCD (City of Portland,
2005). During the project approval process, developers are given C&D recycling information
that includes a one-page form on which they must explain how they plan to recycle the
materials listed in the initiative. In 2008, the City of Portland (n.d.) established a 75% C&D
material recycling initiative. In 2009, the city updated its Green Building Policy for city-
owned facilities that directed recycling of at least 85% of all C&D from new construction and
major renovations. Additionally, Metro (2010) implemented the Enhanced Dry Waste
Recovery Program in 2009, which required Multnomah, Clackamas, and Washington
counties in Oregon to deliver dry waste that is primarily composed of C&D to a Metro-
49
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recycling
authorized MRF. In 2016, Portland became the first city in the country to ensure C&D
materials from older homes and duplexes are salvaged for reuse instead of crushed and
land filled.
Table 3-5. Examples of County- and Municipality-Implemented C&D Diversion
Initiatives
Lee County, Florida
Effective Date
January 1, 2008
Policy Diversion Rate
50%
Details
Not applicable to:
Projects limited to plumbing work, electrical work, or mechanical work
Construction projects less than $90,000 and alterations less than $20,000
Roofing projects that do not include removal of the existing roof
In the event of deviation from the recycling initiative, and if a waiver reducing
the diversion percentage was not granted, a diversion fee would be assessed.
Portland, Oregon
Effective Date
October 31, 2016
Policy Diversion Rate
N/A
Details
• A demolition permit for a house or duplex must deconstruct the structure if
it was built in 1916 or earlier or is a designated historic resource.
• Previously, less than 10 percent of houses were deconstructed; now
approximately 33 percent of single-family demolitions are subject to the
deconstruction requirement
Effective Date
October 10, 2008
Policy Diversion Rate
75%
Details
Not applicable to:
Projects valued at less than $50,000
The first deviation from the recycling initiative may be subject to an assessment
of up to $500. The second deviation may be subject to an assessment of up to
$1,000. Third and subsequent deviations may be subject to an assessment of up
to $1,500. Assessments may be imposed per month, per day, or per incident.
San Mateo, California
Effective Date
2002
Policy Diversion Rate
100% of asphalt, concrete, rock, stone, brick, sand, soil and fines and 50% of
remaining materials
Details
• Contractors encouraged to make every structure planned for demolition
available for deconstruction, salvage, and recovery prior to demolition and
maximize recovery of reusable and recyclable materials prior to demolition.
• Materials recovered through deconstruction and salvage are counted toward
diversion requirements
• Diversion to facilities approved by the County.
San Jose, California
Effective Date 2001
50
-------
Section 3 — Factors Impacting C&D Recycling
Lee County, Florida
Policy Diversion Rate 50% for private projects; 75% for public projects
Details In lieu of a deposit, the following projects are required to pay a nonrefundable
flat fee:
New construction, demolition, and nonresidential additions greater than
1,000 square feet in size
Nonresidential alterations greater than $200,000 in value
Residential alterations and/or additions that increase a building's
area/volume
Abandoned project deposits and those not eligible to be returned support a
variety of city activities.
Lake County, Illinois
Effective Date January 1, 2014
Policy Diversion Rate 75%
Details Not applicable to:
Construction, renovation, demolition, entire re-roofing, or entire re-siding
projects of less than 1,500 square feet
In the event of deviation from the C&D Compliance Plan, the plan shall be
returned to the applicant and be marked as "Failed," but the applicant may
make necessary changes and resubmit the plan. In the event of failure, the
Administrative Adjudication Hearing Officer may assess fines.
Madison, Wisconsin
Effective Date January 1, 2010
Policy Diversion Rate 70%
Details Not applicable to:
Remodeling projects with a value of less than $20,000
Township of Woolwich, New Jersey
Effective Date 2007
Policy Diversion Rate 65%
Details Not applicable to:
Roofing projects that do not include the tear-off of the existing roof
Installation, replacement, or repair of a retaining wall, carport, patio cover,
balcony, trellis, fireplace, deck, fence, swimming pool or spa, prefabricated
sign that does not require modification to the structure to which the sign is
attached, and storage racks
Projects requiring only an electrical permit, only a plumbing permit, or only
a mechanical permit
Depending on the number of deviations from the initiative, project owners may
be fined from $50 up to $5,000.
Forty-seven percent of California counties representing 88% of the total state population
have implemented C&D diversion initiatives based on suggested legislation drafted by the
state (CalRecycle, 2014b). The wide adoption of these C&D diversion initiatives is due to the
state's targeted goal of 75% solid waste recycling by 2020. Some California jurisdictions set
51
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recycling
different diversion requirements for various materials. In Alameda County, California, nine
local governments have required the diversion of 100% of C&D concrete and asphalt and at
least 50% of the remaining C&D (StopWaste, 2016).
The Solid Waste Agency of Lake County (SWALCO), Illinois, amended its Solid Waste
Management Plan in 2013, directing diversion of 75% of all C&D generated by new
construction, renovation, demolition, entire re-roofing, or entire re-siding projects of 1,500
square feet or greater gross floor area (SWALCO, 2013).
Starting in 2010, Madison, Wisconsin, established a directive that new construction projects
that use concrete and steel support recycle 70% of their construction debris by weight (the
City of Madison, WI, n.d.). New construction projects that use wood framing and remodeling
projects with a value in excess of $20,000 must recycle clean wood, clean drywall, shingles,
corrugated cardboard, and metal. The city diverted 66% of waste from landfills in 2011, due
in part to the construction and demolition program (City of Madison, 2011).
In 2007, the Township of Woolwich (2007), New Jersey, adopted a C&D recycling initiative
requiring that 65% of C&D be diverted from landfill disposal. The New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection (NJ DEP) observed that, due to the implementation of the
initiative, recycling rates in Gloucester County increased from 49.7% in 2006 to 54.8% in
2007 and to 59.1% in 2008 (NJ DEP 2006b, 2007, 2008).
3.3 Corporate Policy
Like public policy, corporate policies may also have an impact on C&D management
practices. For example, numerous corporations have made it a policy to use the U.S. Green
Building Council's LEED certification for building projects. Johnson and Johnson (2012)
instituted a policy that all new construction and major renovations (totaling $5 million and
all standalone buildings of lesser value) must meet the requirements of "LEED Certified or
Equivalent." Similarly, all new facilities and renovations at Avon must be designed and built
in accordance with the LEED Green Building Rating System, and Avon (2016) highlights five
facilities that have received various LEED certifications. Google (n.d.) sets goals and
benchmarks for building performance based on LEED, the Living Building Challenge, or other
green building standards and rating systems; Like public policy, corporate policies may also have
.. , . A .... r . an impact on C&D management practices,
the company claims over 4 million square feet K a K
of LEED-certified buildings.
The prevalence of corporate C&D management policies is also noticeable in the marketing
that several large-scale, waste handling/management companies employ to capture waste
52
-------
Section 3 — Factors Impacting C&D Recycling
management contracts. Progressive Waste Solutions, Waste Management, and Republic
Services advertise that their C&D collection and recovery services meet LEED's waste
management requirements and help businesses achieve LEED certification (Progressive
Waste Solutions, Ltd., 2016; Republic Services, 2014; Waste Management, 2016).
No corporate deconstruction/demolition policies were identified outside of those that
appeared to be a direct result of public policy directives.
3.4 Material Markets
3.4.1 Marketability
Physical and chemical characteristics of recovered C&D are important factors in determining
their suitability for a specific recycling use/end market. For example, C&D materials are
commonly recovered and used as secondary materials to replace virgin materials in
construction applications (particularly in road projects). Because the utilization of these
materials can impact the overall strength and durability of the final product (e.g., a road,
bridge, or building), the suitability of recovered C&D materials must typically be
demonstrated through rigorous testing prior to approval. In this case, the technical
specifications in national and state-specific highway transportation guidelines and Federal
Aviation Administration (FAA) guidelines for airport construction help C&D recyclers and
construction contractors navigate appropriate uses for recovered C&D materials in
construction applications. Table 3-6 presents a summary of material-specific considerations
that influence the viability of a given end-use market for different C&D materials.
53
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recycling
Table 3-6. Summary of Markets and Unique Recovery Considerations by Material
C&D Material
Major Material-Specific Markets and Considerations with Recovery
Portland Cement
Concrete
Asphalt Pavement
Gypsum Drywall
Wood
Asphalt Shingles
Fines and Residuals
Commonly recycled as aggregate in transportation applications;
sometimes recycled in place (after processing) as a fill material; must
meet specifications in construction applications; the presence of rebar and
large oversize pieces are factors impacting market suitability.
Most commonly recycled into new asphalt pavement, sometimes recycled
in place, recycling can help reduce the high cost of raw material (asphalt).
Quality; the amount of paper in processed gypsum drywall (in
remanufacture); few U.S. recovery facilities; competes with FGD gypsum
in the manufacture of new drywall; state and local restrictions may apply
for land application, which is historically the major reuse application where
approved.
Identification and removal of treated or painted wood; large trees and
stumps cost more to process; wood processors typically charge less than
for other C&D materials; meeting boiler fuel specifications (e.g., moisture
content, size, the level of contaminants); leaching concerns with mulch
and boiler fuel ash.
Used in paving applications but not universally; can offset some of the
pavement virgin asphalt cost; must be non-asbestos; must meet
specifications in construction applications.
Fines typically used as alternative daily cover for landfills and residuals
may be used as a refuse-derived fuel; the amount of drywall in fines a
major consideration for use in landfill cover applications since drywall
presence is directly related to the potential for hydrogen sulfide release;
contaminant level and moisture content of residuals are major
considerations for marketability as a fuel.
3.4.2 Portland Cement Concrete
PCC can be accepted at a mixed C&D MRF or a designated PCC (aggregate) processing
facility (often referred to as a concrete crushing plant); large amounts of PCC are most
often managed at dedicated concrete crushing operations. Two factors that may influence
the acceptability of PCC at receiving facilities are the size of the PCC pieces and whether
they contain rebar. Some facilities specify the acceptable size of PCC pieces that can be
accepted (usually less than 2 feet) and may charge a higher fee for larger pieces. Most
facilities accept PCC with rebar, but protruding rebar may be required to be cut to a
specified length (e.g., less than 2 feet). Some facilities do not accept PCC with rebar or
charge a higher fee, which may influence a contractor's decision to choose PCC disposal
over recovery.
PCC processing facility tipping fees vary locally and depend on factors such a local landfill
tipping fees and the availability and cost of comparable aggregate products from virgin
sources. As with other C&D materials, facilities charge by the truckload, cubic yard, or ton.
Example tipping fees identified as part of the IWCS (2016) study included PCC processors
54
-------
Section 3 — Factors Impacting C&D Recycling
that may accept material free of charge, one that charged $16 per ton in one area of the
country, and another that charged fees between $50 and $1,000 per truck load in a
different location. Mixed C&D processors will typically not take PCC free of charge, and their
fee will generally be higher than the fee charged by PCC processors.
PCC recycling operations, whether as part of a mixed C&D recovery facility or PCC crushing
plant, produce various products. Some state DOTs have published specifications for specific
recovered concrete products for applications such as road base. Through various crushing,
screening, re-crushing, and re-screening steps, crushing facility operators produce DOT-
specified products (as applicable) and create a wide variety of other products to meet local
market demands. The prices charged to customers for their products depend on local
market needs for the specific products and the market prices for comparable virgin
products. Facilities may sell crushed concrete products on either a per-ton or a per-cubic-
yard basis, and publicly available product prices ranged from $5 per ton to $22 per ton and
$6 per cubic yard to $20 per cubic yard (IWCS, 2016).
In addition to being recovered at C&D MRFs and designated aggregate facilities, PCC has
also been recycled at project sites. Many companies offer mobile crushing services that
serve the locations where the crushed PCC will be used for construction. Crushing PCC
onsite saves the cost of transporting PCC between a crushing plant and construction site, in
addition to saving costs of purchasing new construction materials.
As shown in Figure 3-4, several states are using recycled concrete aggregate (RCA) as an
ingredient in road bases.
The Construction & Demolition Recycling Association (CDRA) conducted a survey related to
the use of RCA in all the states and discussed the cost savings of using recycled PCC
aggregate with several state materials engineers (CDRA, 2012). Responses suggested that
using RCA instead of virgin aggregates could provide cost savings ranging from $2 to $4 per
ton (up to $6 per ton in areas lacking natural aggregate resources). The cost of recovered
PCC has remained relatively constant over time, varying from about $5 per ton to $7 per
ton between 2003 and 2014 (USGS, 2015). Figure 3-5 shows the 2013 price of recycled
PCC based on data from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS, 2015). It seems likely that a
primary factor depressing the price of RCA for a given location is the availability of, or
proximity to, virgin aggregate (e.g., limestone, granite) resources.
55
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recycling
Use of RCA as
Road Base in 2012
~ No Known RCA
Use in Road Base
~ RCA Used in Road Base
<3000 TPY Used
~ RCA Used in Road Base
>3000 TPY Used
Figure 3-4. U.S. RCA Application in Road Base (CDRA, 2012)
2013 RCA Price
per Short Tons
No Data
| <$4.00
$4.01 - $8.00
$8.01 -$12.00
¦ >$12.00
Figure 3-5. 2013 RCA Price by State (USGS, 2015)
While RCA is commonly recycled at the site of generation and used in transportation
projects, the FHWA reviewed the five states consuming the most RCA—Minnesota,
California, Virginia, Texas, and Michigan —and observed that although PCC is commonly
recovered and primarily used as a road base material, the use of RCA as aggregate in HMA
and PCC is not as widely accepted (FHWA, 2004). The use of RCA as a virgin aggregate
substitute is limited in the production of new PCC because this use is typically not approved
by state DOTs. It appears that the lower compressive strength of RCA also makes it less
desirable for use as an aggregate substitute in HMA mixes.
RCA used in transportation applications must meet appropriate specifications (e.g.,
strength, gradation). Out of 40 respondents to CDRA's survey, 33 states allow the use of
RCA as a base material (CDRA, 2012).
56
-------
Section 3 — Factors Impacting C&D Recycling
The FAA (2014) Airport Construction Standards (AC150/5370-10) provide specifications for
the use of RCA as a base course under airport pavements. Comparing the requirements for
RCA base course and virgin crushed aggregate base course, there are some differences and
additional requirements and restrictions for the use of RCA base course. Table 3-10 provides
examples of some of the provisions of these specifications. As described in FAA (2014), up
to 10% (by weight) of the RCA base course can consist of foreign material; Table 3-7
provides the maximum amounts of particular foreign materials. Also, FAA (2014) waives the
sodium sulfate soundness test that is required for the virgin aggregate materials. The
waiving of this test and the allowance of some foreign material in RCA could make it easier
for contractors to obtain material that meets construction standards; however, the other
two listed specifications with respect to weight and soil type could limit the use of RCA in
some airport construction projects.
Table 3-7. Example Specifications for RCA Use as Base Course at Airports (FAA,
2014)
Specifications Recycled Concrete Aggregate Base Course
Allowed foreign The total foreign material must be less than 10%, individual material limits:
material (by ^ ^ . Wood (0.1%)
• Brick, mica, schist, or other friable materials (4%)
• Asphalt concrete (10%)
percent weight)
Weight restrictions Recommended restrictions to where RCA can be used in the pavement when
loads are greater than 60,000 pounds.
Other restrictions Not to be used in locations with high sulfate content soils (no more than 0.5%).
There are also examples of local governments that have established requirements for using
recovered PCC (and often asphalt pavement) in road construction applications. In 1995, the
City of Los Angeles began requiring city projects to use 100% recovered asphalt, PCC, and
other inert materials (crushed miscellaneous base) in city projects that require road base
(CalRecycle, 2014c). Requiring recovered materials in construction and transportation
applications may assist in developing a local market for materials that local PCC processors
produce and sell. CalRecycle (2014c) identifies several other local governments (e.g., cities
of Modesto and Palo Alto, and Butte County) in California that have promoted the use of
recovered aggregates in city and county projects. Specifications for the use of recovered
aggregate in California can be found in Caltrans' specifications and the Greenbook (Standard
Specifications for Public Works Construction). The 2010 Caltrans specification allows up to
100% use of recovered aggregate (which can include reclaimed PCC and processed asphalt
concrete) for both base and subbase aggregate applications (Caltrans, 2010).
57
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recycling
3.4.3 Asphalt Pavement
Asphalt pavement is commonly recycled back into new asphalt pavement mixes. Asphalt
pavement incorporated into new hot mix asphalt (HMA) provides a source of aggregate and
binder. The fraction of newly placed asphalt consisting of RAP in 2013, by state, is shown in
Figure 3-6. Most states used reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) in HMA generation in the
range of 11% to 32% (NAPA, 2014). The regional variation in the price of RAP as obtained
from USGS (2015) is shown in Figure 3-7. Based on these numbers, the price of RAP
appears to have little correlation with the fraction of RAP used in new asphalt.
Fraction of RAP in
New Asphalt
Pavement
¦ No Data
~ <15%
~ 16% - 20%
O 21% - 25%
Figure 3-6. 2013 RAP Fraction in New Asphalt Pavement (NAPA, 2014)
2013 RAP Price
per Short Ton
No Data
| | < $4.00
$4.01 - S8.00
$8.01 -S12.00
>$12.00
Figure 3-7. 2013 RAP Price by State (USGS, 2015)
58
-------
Section 3 — Factors Impacting C&D Recycling
While the price of RAP appears, on average, similar to that of RCA, it has fluctuated more
over the same period from 2003 to 2014 and has varied from approximately $5.50 per ton
to nearly $10 per ton (USGS, 2015). This fluctuation is likely impacted by the relationship in
virgin asphalt and oil prices.
FHWA (2014) provides specifications for asphalt pavement construction (with HMA), which
limits the use of RAP to no more than 20% by mass of a mix's composition. For each
different mixture of HMA, FHWA (2014) also requires details on RAP used in the mix to be
submitted for verification and for pavement test strips to meet targeted criteria. Details on
the RAP used in the mix that must be reported include the source and percentage of RAP in
the mix, the specific quantities of the different aggregate sizes/aggregate gradation of the
RAP, specific gravities of RAP stockpiles, percentage asphalt binder in RAP, and samples of
RAP used from each stockpile to be used in construction projects.
However, the amount of RAP used in asphalt mixes appears to be increasing with the use of
pavement mixes, with 30% to 50% RAP becoming more common (West and Willis, 2014).
When higher percentages of RAP are employed in HMA, additional mix testing requirements
may become necessary. For example, Washington State DOT (WSDOT, 2014) allows for
HMA production with greater than 20% RAP by total weight. If greater than 20% is used,
the RAP is to be processed such that 100% passes a sieve twice the size of the maximum
aggregate size for the class of mix to be produced.
3.4.4 Dry wall
The primary markets for recovered drywall are soil amendments and in the manufacture of
new drywall. Recovered drywall has also been used as a gypsum substitute in the
production of Portland cement. Few processing facilities focus exclusively on drywall, but
several C&D MRFs accept drywall.
Two drywall recyclers (facilities accepting gypsum drywall as the only C&D material) were
identified in the United States, one in the Northwest and one in the Northeast. The company
that owns the Northwest site is in Washington State and accepts construction and
demolition drywall (including drywall with paint and wallpaper) from public sources, and wet
or dry gypsum drywall from manufacturers. As of the time of information gathering for this
report, their tipping fee for waste drywall was $85 per metric ton. It is estimated that the
plant can recycle and process 25 tons of drywall per hour (New West Gypsum, 2015).
The gypsum recycler in the Northwest United States was the only identified recycler/
processor producing gypsum from demolition drywall exclusively for use in the
59
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recycling
remanufacture of drywall. As discussed in Section 2.3.6, drywall manufacturers often
recycle preconsumer drywall back into the production of new drywall, but recycling of
postconsumer drywall into new drywall is not common. The material must meet
specifications that allow only small amounts of paper in the gypsum mix, and it may be
difficult for smaller recyclers to achieve these minimum standards.
The gypsum recycler in the Northeast (i.e., Pennsylvania) has two facilities and has recycled
drywall for nine different states (USA Gypsum, n.d.). This recycler accepts mostly scrap
drywall from other C&D recyclers, but scraps from construction contractors and off-
specification drywall from manufacturers are also accepted. Demolition drywall cannot be
recycled at these facilities. The recycler estimated in 2011 that over 30,000 tons of drywall
were managed at their facility. The recovered drywall is processed and ground into mostly
agricultural products (granular, pulverized, and ultrafine gypsum for amending soil). Various
types of animal bedding and other products are advertised as well.
C&D drywall gypsum used in drywall manufacturing must compete with flue gas
desulfurization (FGD) gypsum, the synthetic gypsum produced at coal plants as a byproduct
from air pollution control "scrubbing" devices. One gypsum drywall manufacturer advertises
drywall products consisting of 99% recycled materials, which uses FGD gypsum exclusively
for the drywall gypsum core (Continental, 2015). Since FGD gypsum is a byproduct of the
coal combustion process and coal plants would otherwise pay for the material to be
managed, FGD gypsum generally is an inexpensive material that drywall manufacturers can
access. Unlike postconsumer drywall, FGD gypsum is free of paper contamination.
States and local communities often provide standards for the application of gypsum
produced from C&D drywall. These conditions broadly require that drywall cannot be
contaminated with non-drywall materials (e.g., paint, glue), must be processed to a certain
size, can only be applied to particular types of land that need fertilizer, and cannot exceed a
location-specific application rate.
Some facilities accept drywall but do not actually recycle it due to inefficiencies in
transportation and recoverable costs. The tipping fee structure for facilities throughout the
United States for C&D MRFs that charge a different fee for drywall compared to mixed C&D
material ranged widely, from $12 per ton to $93 per ton, with MRFs in the Northwest
charging among the highest rates (IWCS, 2016). Most facilities were charging less for loads
of drywall compared to mixed C&D; prices for drywall ranged from $10 more per ton to $85
less per ton (IWCS, 2016).
60
-------
Section 3 — Factors Impacting C&D Recycling
Cement kilns use gypsum in the production of cement to aid in the cement setting time. The
gypsum is added post-kiln to the cement clinker as it is crushed in the ball mill. Although
cement production is not an established market for recovered gypsum, some facilities have
explored using drywall as a potential virgin gypsum substitute. However, this possible use
requires special care to remove the paper and minimize the number of impurities from
drywall.
3.4.5 Wood
Wood is the third-most used construction material in the United States after asphalt
pavement and PCC. Approximately 60% of the total wood products consumed in the United
States are used for residential and nonresidential building construction and renovation
(Cochran and Townsend, 2010; Falkand McKeever, 2012). Wood is used in building
structural frames, flooring, interior finishes, and outside structures such as fences. The
wood waste generated by construction and demolition activities includes dimensional lumber
(e.g., 2x4s, 2x6s), engineered wood (e.g., plywood, particle board, medium-density
fiberboard, structural laminated veneer lumber, glue-laminated timber, wood I-joists),
pallets, sawdust, tree stumps, branches, and twigs.
Estimates of wood waste vary. In 2013, approximately 40 million tons of wood waste was
produced in the United States (USEPA, 2015b). Six C&D waste composition studies
observed that wood waste ranges from 8% to 36% in C&D (CCG, 2006, 2008, 2009; CDM,
2009; R.W. Beck et al., 2010; USEPA, 2015b). Falkand McKeever (2012) estimated that
approximately 52% of C&D wood waste generated across the United States is recovered.
There are limited options for reusing wood waste as building materials, and this practice is
not common in the United States. Wood waste could be recovered and reused from building
deconstruction projects, but this has been practiced only on a very small-scale (Denhart,
2010; NAHB, 1997). Furthermore, since not all cities have capabilities to grade structural
wood for reuse, this need for grading can be a major challenge in its reuse.
The largest market for wood waste, since most wood is generated during demolition, is as a
raw material for biomass fuel, and for mulch and compost production if the wood is clean.
Wood waste in C&D may be mixed with other C&D materials that then need to be separated
at C&D processing facilities. Once separated from other C&D, wood waste can be size
reduced and processed to desired specifications depending on the intended use of the
product.
61
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recycling
Biomass-to-fuel facilities can potentially use C&D wood waste as a raw material. Eighty
facilities in the country are listed by the Biomass Power Association (n.d.). Jambeck et al.
(2007) observed that 280,000 tons of C&D wood waste release 1.2 million more BTU when
combusted than the same amount of virgin wood and emits less particulate matter, nitrogen
oxides, sulfur dioxide, and carbon monoxide. Air pollution emissions are an important
regulatory consideration for biomass facilities. Biomass facilities burning fuel such as C&D
wood previously had to comply with air pollution regulations promulgated under the Clean
Air Act (CAA), Section 129. In December 2011, the USEPA amended the rule related to Non-
Hazardous Secondary Materials, which allowed biomass facilities that burn C&D to instead
meet the requirements of CAA Section 112 (Federal Register, 2011).
In 2016, USEPA classified additional C&D materials as non-waste fuels, including C&D wood
processed from C&D according to best management practices, and creosote-treated railroad
ties that are processed and combusted by certain types of combustion units (USEPA,
2016b).
In addition to regulatory concerns for using C&D wood waste as a fuel source at biomass
facilities, moisture content and impurities in C&D wood waste (e.g., dirt) also need to be
addressed by these facilities. Impurities and variable moisture content can impact the
performance of the energy-generation operation, and thus for quality control purposes,
facilities limit permissible levels of contaminants and the moisture content of the fuel.
Wood waste has historically been used for mulch production, which has the largest market
share in terms of C&D wood waste recovery. The use of colored dye in mulch has also
increased its popularity. Due to health concerns with treated wood and some types of
painted wood, treated and painted C&D wood wastes are not suitable for use as mulch.
3.4.6 Asphalt Shingles
As previously discussed, postconsumer non-asbestos tear-off asphalt shingles are typically
recycled in road paving applications. Between 2009 and 2013, the use of recovered asphalt
shingles (RAS) in asphalt paving increased by approximately 135%, and by 2013, all but 12
states have used at least some RAS in paving applications (NAPA, 2014). Although RAS is
widely used in pavement, each state sets its own limit on RAS use. For example, one state
allows no more than 5% of RAS in its pavement while another has a 25% RAS mixture limit.
The tipping fee for asphalt shingles at MRFs throughout the country varies. Some MRFs
charge the same rate as mixed C&D, some charge more for shingles-only loads, and some
charge less for shingles-only loads. Compared to the tipping fee for mixed C&D material,
62
-------
Section 3 — Factors Impacting C&D Recycling
mixed C&D processing facilities in the states examined charged from $40 less to $150 more
per ton of asphalt shingles (IWCS, 2016).
RAS is used less commonly in pavement construction applications than RAP and RCA. RAS
pavement mix specifications are continually changing and being updated. The American
Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has provided guidelines
for designing new HMA material using RAS. AASHTO recommends that the particle size and
a binder content of the new HMA be determined, as the presence of RAS binder greater than
0.75% by weight can considerably change the performance grade of the HMA. AASHTO also
provides estimation methodologies for determining the performance grade of new HMA, and
the percentage contributions of RAS into new HMA (AASHTO, 2007).
3.4.7 Fines and Other Residuals
The two most common markets for C&D fines are landfill cover and soil fill/replacement.
Landfills, whether for MSW, C&D, or other waste, rely on the application of soil cover to the
surface of placed waste to help control windblown litter, odors, vectors, and fires. Soil cover
also plays a critical role in controlling stormwater run-on and runoff. The conditions that
constitute a suitable alternative soil cover include its ability to suppress fire (e.g., it cannot
have too high a content of combustible materials) and a makeup that will not contaminate
stormwater runoff. The use of C&D fines as alternative daily cover (ADC) is practiced in
many areas of the country, but the allowable use in an area will depend on applicable public
policy limitations and permit conditions.
An issue that has surfaced in the past decade concerning C&D fines and their use as ADC is
the potential for producing hydrogen sulfide (H2S) and other sulfur gases. Gypsum is often
present at elevated concentrations in C&D fines (Townsend et al., 1998) due to drywall and
plaster pieces passing through the screening equipment. In a landfill, the sulfate that
leaches from the gypsum can be biologically reduced to H2S, which poses problems because
of its odor and other deleterious properties (Anderson et al., 2010; Tolaymat et al., 2013).
Elevated H2S can impact landfill gas recovery and conversion equipment, and some landfills
may thus have concerns with the acceptance or use of C&D fines.
The successful use of C&D processing residuals in the refuse-derived fuel (RDF) market
depends on the quality of the material and the ability of the C&D processor to identify and
secure local market demand/end users. Potential buyers of this material include cement
kilns and industrial boilers, and their specifications for acceptable fuels depend on their
particular air emission permit conditions. One issue encountered by some C&D processing
facilities is the need to minimize the amount of PVC plastic in the fuel stream since the
63
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Materiai Recycling
combustion of FVC can lead to the production of harmful air pollutants such as dioxins and
hydrogen chloride gas (Zhang et al., 2015). Figure 3-8 shows a C8D processing facility
using a grinder to further process a fraction of its processing residuals into a refuse-derived
fuel product.
Figure 3-8. Mixed C&D Processing Facility Grinding Mixed C&D Processing
Residuals into a Refuse-Derived Fuel Product
64
-------
4. IMPACT OF GREEN BUILDING MATERIALS
ON C&D RECYCLING
This section of the report introduces the concepts of green building and green building
materials and examines how they have been changing the C&D recycling landscape by
replacing conventional materials for which there are established markets. In addition, to
better understand the potential impact of green building materials, various green building
certification programs are described, emphasizing their role in the adoption of green
building materials.
4.1 Overview of Green Building Materials
The construction and operation of buildings require a significant amount of water, energy,
and materials. Consequently, a large amount of waste is also generated. According to the
U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC), buildings account for approximately 40% of total
energy use, 40% of raw materials use, 30% of waste output, 13.6% of total potable water
consumption, 73% of total electricity consumption, and 38% of greenhouse gas emissions
(USGBC, 2015). In addition, over 4 pounds of waste are generated per square foot of
building space during construction (USEPA, 2009). The construction process can have
significant impacts on the surrounding environment and present challenges for local
ecosystems. As the effects of construction have become more apparent, the field of green
building has become increasingly popular.
4.1.1 Green Building
The USEPA defines green building as "the practice of creating structures and using
processes that are environmentally responsible and resource-efficient throughout a
building's life-cycle from siting to design, construction, operation, maintenance, renovation,
and deconstruction" (USEPA, 2014b). Green building is used synonymously with sustainable
building, sustainable development/design, natural building, high-performance construction,
eco-construction, green construction, and green architecture. This report uses the term
"green building" as defined by USEPA.
Green building is a growing trend due in part to government incentives and tax breaks at
local and national levels for builders, developers, and homeowners. Examples of financial
incentives for the green building include tax credits, fee reductions, and expedited
permitting. The State of New York was the first in the nation to sign a green building tax
credit into law in 2000. Over a 9-year period, it provided $25 million in income tax credit for
owners and tenants of buildings that met certain criteria related to building size,
65
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recycling
construction materials, energy and water use, and select other issues (Kneeland, 2006).
Houston offered property tax credits for commercial buildings that are certified through the
LEED program (USDOE, n.d.). Maryland gave $25 million in tax credits to businesses
between 2001 and 2005 for constructing and operating energy-efficient buildings under the
state's green building tax credit program (MEA, 2015).
There are multiple environmental, economic, and social benefits to green buildings when
compared with conventional buildings. They are described in the following sections.
Example Environmental Features
The environmental advantages associated with green buildings include:
Air pollution reduction. Using local materials reduces transportation distances and the
associated air emissions and petroleum consumption. Transportation costs for locally
sourced materials are also lower, yielding cost efficiencies. Energy-efficient buildings
require less electricity and reduce air emissions from power generation. Green buildings
require the use of materials that generate fewer emissions, improving indoor air quality.
Water pollution reduction. Green buildings employ high-efficiency water fixtures,
which reduces water consumption, as well as the use of gray water recycling systems
that filter and reuse water. If buildings include limited areas of impervious surfaces,
stormwater pollution is also reduced.
Waste minimization. The construction of green buildings aims to minimize site
disturbance and involves the diversion of materials from landfills and incinerators,
increasing C&D reuse and recycling. Retaining existing structures lowers material costs
and generates less waste.
Efficient energy use. When buildings are designed to use passive heating and cooling,
the use of and wear on heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) systems is
minimized, as is energy consumption.
Reduced impact on ecosystems, biodiversity, and natural resources. Choosing
green building materials generally, reduces the environmental footprint and burdens on
natural resources. Green buildings often incorporate renewable wood or products with
recycled content. Using these products can reduce habitat destruction and deforestation.
Example Economic Features
Economic advantages associated with green buildings include:
Operating costs reduction. Many green buildings incorporate long-lasting, durable
equipment and materials, which require less maintenance and lower maintenance costs.
66
-------
Section 4 — Impact of Green Building Materials on C&D Recycling
A decrease in energy consumption associated with energy-efficient equipment, such as
energy-efficient lighting and heating, cooling, and water systems equates to a reduction
in operating costs. Light-colored and vegetated roofs reduce cooling needs, further
lowering energy costs.
New markets developed for green products. Used building products that enter the
C&D recycling market generate additional revenue.
Green jobs creation. Consistent with the development of new markets for recovered
C&D is the demand for a workforce that understands the industry from product
development to product certification, distribution, and use. This may result in the
creation of new jobs or may require retraining of the existing workforce.
Example Social Features
Social advantages associated with green buildings include:
Healthier buildings that support improved occupant productivity, aesthetics,
and quality of life. The use of natural lighting can enhance employee well-being and
productivity at the workplace. Redevelopment of abandoned buildings helps surrounding
businesses and the local economy, revitalizes neighborhoods, and prevents resources
from leaving communities (USEPA, 2014b).
Increased environmental awareness. Learning about the principles of green building
may lead to changes in personal behavior and benefit the overall society. Lessons
learned from obtaining green building certification can be applied to other work and
future projects.
4.1.2 Green Building Materials
The use and recycling of green materials
are integral to the green building
process. Green building products use
natural resources in an environmentally responsible way and are resource, energy, and
water efficient (Spiegel & Meadows, 2010). They also improve indoor environmental quality.
These additional benefits may result in a greater up-front cost compared to conventional
building materials. Figure 4-1 illustrates the criteria often used to classify green building
materials.
Standards-setting bodies and industry organizations are
collaborating to examine the multi-attribute further, life
cycle performance of building material types, potentially
including and validating select examples in Table 4-1.
67
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recycling
The green building materials
characteristics can generally be
grouped into four categories:
1) resource efficiency, 2) indoor
environmental quality, 3) energy
efficiency, and 4) water efficiency.
Table 4-1 provides examples of
materials with various
characteristics commonly
considered to offer benefits within
these four categories.
Figure 4-1. Characteristics of Green Building
Materials
Recycled
Content
Renewable
Materia s
Water
Efficie-i:
Low Energy
Lite Cycle
Energy
Efficient
Green
Building
Materials
Locally-
Scurced
Recuced
Chemical
Moisture
Resistant
Bio-based
or Natural
Materia s
Third-Pa rt\
Certification
Non-Toxic
Table 4-1. Examples of Building Materials with Potential Green Features (Spiegel
& Meadows, 2010)
Use
Examples of Materials with Potential Green Features
Resource Efficiency
Base, foundation
Autoclaved aerated, insulated concrete
Flooring
Bamboo, cork, linoleum
Insulation
Contains cellulose; cotton, fiberglass, mineral wool
Masonry
Adobe unit; rammed earth, stone assemblies, manufactured masonry
Roofs
Designed to incorporate live vegetation
Structural support
Recycled steel
Various (e.g., structure
Reclaimed lumber, Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)-certified wood
and siding)
Flooring
Paint and glue
Lighting
Indoor Environmental Quality
Carpet made of wool, cotton, jute, hemp, seagrass, sisal
Volatile organic compound (VOC)-free/Iow-VOC, water-based, nontoxic
Natural light
(continued)
68
-------
Section 4 — Impact of Green Building Materials on C&D Recycling
Table 4-2. Examples of Building Materials with Potential Green Features (Spiegel
& Meadows, 2010) (continued)
Use
Examples of Materials with Potential Green Features
Doors and windows
HVAC
Lighting
Heating and cooling
Plumbing
Energy Efficiency
FSC-certified wood windows, low-energy glass, multipane designs
Properly sized equipment
Light-emitting diode (LED)
Water Efficiency
Solar water heater or heat pump
Low-flow fixtures, automated controls, dual-flush option toilets
4.1.3 Prefabricated Components
Prefabricated components are frequently used in many types of building projects. In 2011,
prefabricated components were used on more than half of the construction projects but on
less than 25% of the individual project components. Continued market growth is expected
(McGraw-Hill Construction, 2012). While the primary driver for their use is improved
productivity, prefabrication and modularization have been reported to reduce onsite waste
and decrease project materials use by at least 5% (McGraw-Hill Construction, n.d.).
4.2 Green Building Material Requirements in Various Certification
Programs
The global market value of green construction materials was $116 billion in 2013, and that
number is projected to grow to more than $254 billion in 2020 (Navigant Consulting, 2016).
This growth in the availability of green building materials can be credited to an increase in
the number and awareness of green building certification programs. These voluntary
certification programs are intended to provide construction companies with the criteria for
determining the performance of their buildings, and their adoption continues to increase.
Green building rating and certification systems can be local, state, regional, national, or
international programs. Some are broad in the environmental areas they address, while
others address a specific issue, product, or sector. The types and quantities of new
materials that have resulted from the increase in green buildings will change the character
and composition of the C&D recycling stream in the future.
69
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recycling
4.2.1 Green Building Certification Programs
Green building programs generally have similar goals regarding sustainable use of water,
energy, and materials. LEED is the most common green building certification program in the
United States. Its certification can be awarded to new or existing commercial, industrial, or
residential buildings, as well as neighborhood developments or homes. Green Globes is
primarily granted to commercial buildings, but is also available for institutional and
multifamily residential buildings. The Living Building Challenge is an international
certification that has been granted to both residential homes and commercial buildings. The
National Green Building Standard (NGBS) applies to the residential sector, as well as to
hotels and motels. It can be used for new homes and the sites on which they are built,
home remodeling, and high-rise multifamily buildings.
LEED
Since its inception, LEED has transformed the high-performance green building industry and
subsequently helped grow the green building materials market. Today, it is the most well-
known and widely used certification program with standards that rate the environmental
merits of new and existing buildings and entire neighborhoods.
LEED version 1.0, launched in 1998, focused primarily on the owner-occupied new
construction of commercial buildings (Home Innovation Research Labs, 2015). The current
version, 4.0, was launched in November 2013 and is a voluntary rating system for new and
existing buildings, neighborhood development, and schools (USGBC, 2015). Specifically,
with respect to C&D recycling, LEED version 4.0 requires the development and
implementation of a C&D waste management plan. At least five materials must be targeted
for diversion as part of the plan, and the project teams must specify whether these
materials will be separated or mixed. The plan must also describe where the materials will
be taken and how the recycling center will process them. In addition, points can be earned
through reduction of total construction waste materials generated per square foot of a
building's area or diversion by salvage or recycling.
Green Globes
Green Globes certification was established in 2004 in the United States and is administered
by the Green Building Initiative (ECD Energy & Environment Canada Ltd., 2004a). Based on
the United Kingdom's BREEAM and developed by the Canadian Standards Association, it was
initially created to assist the National Association of Homebuilders (NAHB) in promoting its
Green Building Guidelines for Residential Structures. There are currently two certification
programs: Green Globes New Construction and Green Globes Continual Improvement of
70
-------
Section 4 — Impact of Green Building Materials on C&D Recycling
Existing Buildings. The Green Globes New Construction assessment can be used for
commercial, institutional, and multifamily residential buildings. Among its core criteria and
requirements for certification are sustainable materials management and seven
environmental components or assessment areas: management, site, energy, water,
materials & resources, emissions, and indoor environment (Martin et al., 2013). Green
Globes includes credits for Building Durability, Adaptability and Disassembly, and Reduction,
Reuse & Recycling of Demolition Waste.
Living Building Challenge
The Living Building Challenge is an international sustainable certification program that
provides a framework for the design and construction of buildings, including residential and
commercial projects (International Living Future Institute, n.d.). It was launched in 2006 by
the International Living Future Institute. Among its criteria is a requirement for certified
projects to reduce or eliminate waste during the entire life cycle of buildings, and to identify
ways to integrate waste back into industrial or natural nutrient loops. Table 4-2 provides the
required amount of material that must be diverted from disposal during construction under
the Living Building Challenge.
Table 4-3. Living Building Challenge Material Diversion Requirements
(International Living Future Institute, n.d.)
Material Minimum Percentage Diverted
Metal 99
Paper and cardboard 99
Soil and biomass 100
Rigid foam, carpet, insulation 95
All others—combined weighted average 90
National Green Building Standard
A national standard definition for green homes was developed by the NAHB and the
International Code Council (ICC). To date, over 50,000 households in the United States
have the ICC 700 NGBS certification, and the standard has been approved by the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) (NAHB, 2015). Projects adhering to this standard are
evaluated on their resource efficiency, energy efficiency, and water efficiency; indoor
environmental quality; lot and site development; and operation, maintenance, and building
owner education. Included are requirements related to the quality of construction materials
and waste, reused or salvaged materials, recycled-content building materials, recovered
construction waste, renewable materials, resource-efficient materials, and local materials.
71
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recycling
4.2.2 Green Building Material Specifications in Various Certification
Programs
One indication of the progress that green building certification systems are making is
evidenced by the emergence of green products for construction. Table 4-3 provides
examples of green product requirements from three different green building certification
programs (Wang et al., 2012).
Table 4-4. Select Building Component and Product Guidelines from Green
Building Certification Programs3 (Wang et al., 2012)
Green Globes(ECD
Building
National Green Building
Energy & Environment
Component
Standard
Canada Ltd, 2004b and
and Product
LEED
(Home Innovation
Green Building
Guidelines
(USGBC, 2015)
Research Labs, 2015)
Initiative, Inc., 2015)
Building Component Specific Requirements
Foundations
Framing
Flooring
Roofingc
> 50% of the building
component must be
manufactured locally (< 100
miles); concrete that
consists of at least 30% fly
ash or slag used as a
cement substitute and 50%
recycled content or
reclaimed aggregate OR
90% recycled content or
reclaimed aggregate.
> 90% of each framing
component must follow
optimum value engineering
(OVE) measures in exterior
walls and common walls.b
100% of the flooring
products must achieve the
threshold level of
compliance with emissions
and content standards.
Use materials that have
specific solar reflectance
index values based on slope
or install a vegetated roof.
> 50% of the footprint uses
green materials such as
frost-protected shallow
foundations, isolated pier and
pad foundations, deep
foundations, post
foundations, or helical piles
as opposed to concrete,
which is the most common
material for foundations.
Credit is given for the life-
cycle assessment of the
building envelope, which
could include concrete with
recycled components.
> 75% of the gross exterior
wall area with green
materials such as adobe,
concrete and/or masonry,
logs, or rammed earth as
opposed to traditional wood,
engineered wood, or
structural steel.
Prefabricated components for
> 90% system; prefinished
hardwood flooring; > 50% is
third-party certified to
NSF/ANSI 332, which
certifies the sustainability of
resilient flooring products
across their entire product
life cycle.
Green product examples
include OVE wood framing
and cold-formed steel
framing, modular sizing of
openings in walls, open-
web steel joints,
castellated and cellular
steel beams.
Green product examples
include post-tensioned
concrete floors; composite
steel/concrete floors as
opposed to conventional
concrete floors.
Prefabricated components for > 40% of roof surface is
> 90% system, >90% of roof vegetated and/or has a
surface constructed with high solar reflectance
Energy Star cool roof index,
certification or equivalent, or
a vegetated roof.
(continued)
72
-------
Section 4 — Impact of Green Building Materials on C&D Recycling
Table 4-3. Select Building Component and Product Guidelines from Green
Building Certification Programs3 (Wang et al., 2012) (continued)
Green Globes(ECD
Building
National Green Building
Energy & Environment
Component
Standard
Canada Ltd, 2004b and
and Product
LEED
(Home Innovation
Green Building
Guidelines
(USGBC, 2015)
Research Labs, 2015.)
Initiative, Inc., 2015)
Biobased
Products
Wood-based
Products for
Trim,
Cabinetry,
Millwork,
Walls, Floors,
or Roof
Carpet
At least 25%, by cost, of the
total value of permanently
installed building products in
the project must meet the
Sustainable Agriculture
Network's Sustainable
Agriculture Standard. Bio-
based raw materials must
be tested using ASTM Test
Method D6866 and be
legally harvested, as defined
by the exporting and
receiving country.
Wood products must be
certified by the FSC or
USGBC-approved
equivalent.
All carpet must meet the
testing and product
requirements of the Carpet
and Rug Institute Green
Label Plus program and
meet maximum VOC
concentrations established
for California.
Two types of the following
are used for at least 0.5% of
the project: certified wood;
engineered wood; bamboo;
cotton; cork; straw; natural
fiber products made from
crops; products with
minimum biobased contents
of the USDA 7 CFR Part
2902; other biobased
materials with a minimum of
50% biobased content.
Minimum of 2 certified
products from the following:
American Forest Foundation's
American Tree Farm System;
Canadian Standards
Association's Sustainable
Forest Management System
Standards; FSC; Program for
Endorsement of Forest
Certification Systems;
Sustainable Forestry
Initiative Program.
> 50% to be third-party
certified to NSF/ANSI 140, a
sustainability assessment for
carpet, that evaluates carpet
based on public health and
environment; water and
energy efficiency; biobased,
recycled content materials
and environmentally
preferable materials;
manufacturing; reclamation
and EOL management;
innovation.
Credit can be given for
third party certifications
that focus on bio-based
products.
> 10% is third-party
certified by the following:
American Forest
Foundation's American Tree
Farm System; Canadian
Standards Association's
Sustainable Forest
Management System
Standards; FSC; Program
for Endorsement of Forest
Certification Systems;
Sustainable Forestry
Initiative Program.
> 10% to be third-party
certified or have
Environmental Product
Declarations that minimally
include cradle-to-grave
scopes.
(continued)
73
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recycling
Table 4-3. Select Building Component and Product Guidelines from Green
Building Certification Programs3 (Wang et al., 2012) (continued)
Green Globes(ECD
Building
National Green Building
Energy & Environment
Component
Standard
Canada Ltd, 2004b and
and Product
LEED
(Home Innovation
Green Building
Guidelines
(USGBC, 2015)
Research Labs, 2015.)
Initiative, Inc., 2015)
Insulation > 90% of insulation's
component to have been
tested and found compliant
with the California
Department of Public Health
Standard Method VI.1-
2010, using CA Section
01350, Appendix B for VOC
emissions.
Interior Wall > 90% of a wall covering's
Coverings component to have been
tested and found compliant
with the California
Department of Public Health
Standard Method VI.1-
2010, using CA Section
01350, Appendix B for VOC
emissions.
Gypsum All gypsum board must
Drywall meet the testing and
product requirements
established in accordance
with California Department
of Public Health Standard
Method vl. 1-2010.
> 50% to be third-party
certified to EcoLogo CCD-016
for environmental impact in
materials; energy;
manufacturing and
operations; health and
environment; product
performance and use; and
product stewardship and
innovation.
> 50% to be third-party
certified to NSF/ANSI 342, a
sustainability assessment for
wall coverings that evaluates
raw material inputs; indoor
air quality; product
recyclability; energy use.
> 50% to be third-party
certified to ULE ISR 100 for
environmentally preferable
gypsum wallboard and
panels.
> 10% to be third-party
certified or have EPDs that
minimally include cradle-
to-grave scopes.
> 10% to be third-party
certified or have EPDs that
minimally include cradle-
to-grave scopes.
> 10% to be third-party
certified.
(continued)
74
-------
Section 4 — Impact of Green Building Materials on C&D Recycling
Table 4-3. Select Building Component and Product Guidelines from Green
Building Certification Programs3 (Wang et al., 2012) (continued)
Green Globes(ECD
Building
National Green Building
Energy & Environment
Component
Standard
Canada Ltd, 2004b and
and Product
LEED
(Home Innovation
Green Building
Guidelines
(USGBC, 2015)
Research Labs, 2015.)
Initiative, Inc., 2015)
Product Guideline
Life Cycle
Analysis (LCA)
Conduct a life-cycle
assessment of the project's
structure and enclosure that
demonstrates a minimum of
10% reduction, compared
with a baseline building, in
at least three of six impact
categories, one of which
must be global warming
potential; (2) depletion of
the stratospheric ozone
layer; (3) acidification of
land and water sources;
(4) eutrophication;
(5) formation of
tropospheric ozone;
(6) depletion of
nonrenewable energy
resources.
LCA tool is used to select
environmentally preferable
products/assemblies, or an
LCA is conducted on the
entire building; 2+ products
with the same intended use
are compared based on LCA
and the product with at least
a 15% average improvement
is selected. The
environmental impact
measures to be considered
are chosen from the
following: (1) fossil fuel
consumption, (2) global
warming potential,
(3) acidification potential,
(4) eutrophication potential,
(5) ozone depletion potential.
The Athena Impact
Estimator or another LCA
tool should be used during
the design of the building.
a A comparison with the Living Building Challenge is not provided because details are available only to
members of the International Living Future Institute.
b Optimal value engineering (OVE) consists of designing wood-framed homes or additions with
advanced framing techniques. These techniques reduce the amount of lumber typically wasted when
constructing a building, while maintaining structural integrity and meeting the building code.
Advanced framing techniques also allow for more insulation in the walls, which improves energy
efficiency and comfort.
c Asphalt shingles are the most common roofing material in the United States. The solar reflectance of
all commercial asphalt shingles is low. Premium white shingles are only about 30% reflective, and
other colors reflect even less.
4.3 Impact of Green Materials on the Building Materials Market
According to the 2013 Dodge Construction Green Outlook report, the demand for green
building products has risen as owners look for materials to help them meet their
sustainability goals (McGraw-Hill Construction, 2012). Figure 4-2 shows the increase in
spending on green building versus the reduction in total building construction spending
during 2005 through 2012. Expenditure in the green building market increased from 1% in
2005 to approximately 10% in 2012, with indications that the market will continue to grow
(McGraw-Hill Construction, 2012). In 2016, overall green building market value is projected
75
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recycling
to be between $204 billion and $248 billion. Tables 4-4 and 4-5 present the projected
values for the nonresidential and the residential sectors.
1000
900
800
700
(/)
c
600
o
=
500
1q
-------
Section 4 — Impact of Green Building Materials on C&D Recycling
Table 4-6. Green Building Market Value for the Residential Sector (2005-2016)
Compared with the Total Residential Building Construction Market
Value (McGraw-Hill Construction, 2012)
Year
Single-Family Residential
Market ($ Billion)
$ Billion
Green Market
Upper Estimate %
of Market
2005
315
7
—
2008
122
10
—
2010
100
14
—
2011
97
17
—
2012
123
25
—
2013
153
34-38
22-25
2016
306
88-115
29-38
With a 45% to 55% and 22% to 38% market
value increase in green building over a decade
for the nonresidential and the residential
sectors, respectively, the impact on the
production and use of conventional materials as
replaced by green building materials is
expected to be significant in the coming
decades. Construction in the nonresidential
sector, in particular, is predicted to play the largest role.
Which conventional material markets are affected by this increase in green building will
depend primarily on the requirements of the certification programs. Other factors that
influence the adoption of green building materials include government regulations, changes
in energy costs, increasing awareness of the benefits of green technologies, decrease in the
costs of green building materials, product improvements, changes in construction design,
and higher resale value of green buildings.
4.3.1 Market Trends Example 1—Recovered Aggregates versus
Natural Aggregates
With the growth in the green building sector, the construction industry is increasingly
seeking materials that have lower life cycle environmental impacts. Due to the
competitiveness in price and quality of recovered aggregates, aggregate recycling has been
economically viable in locations where C&D from replaced or reconstructed old roads and
buildings is abundant and where there are limitations on the use of landfills. Recovered
aggregates may add strength to the overall composite material or provide a low-cost
By 2016, spending related to green buildings was
expected to be up to 55% for nonresidential
construction and up to 38% for residential
construction.
The uncertainty in these estimates was not
evaluated in the 2013 Dodge Construction Green
Outlook Report (McGraw-Hill Construction, 2012).
However, for discussion purposes, the market
trend examples in Sections 4.3.1 to 4.3.3 assume
the growth trend in the green building sector to be
22% to 55%.
77
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recycling
extender that binds with more expensive cement
or asphalt to form concrete. Aggregates are also
used to aid with differential settling as a base
material under foundations, roads, and railroads.
Figure 4-3 presents the production trends for
aggregates(USGS, 2000).
Using the range of green market share
percentages presented in Tables 4-4 and 4-5 and the production trends for aggregates
shown in figure 4-3, and assuming that the recovered aggregate trends mirror the trends in
the overall green building sector, 22% to 55% of the total amount of aggregate material
produced in 2016 (i.e., ~600 million to 1.5 billion metric tons) could be recovered
aggregate destined for green building. This transition to greater use of recovered materials
would represent a reduction in environmental impacts associated with the mining,
processing, and storage of virgin aggregates. Mining can degrade air quality through air
emissions, disturb areas of land, and impact surface and groundwater quality. Other
environmental and social benefits associated with recovered aggregate use may include
reduced traffic on new or existing roads to and from aggregate quarries and aesthetic
degradation caused by both active and abandoned mine sites.
3,000
co
Sand and gravel H Crushed stone
Z
O
I—
2,500
O
a:
i—
LU
2
2,000
LL
O
CO
z 1,000
h-
z
<
r)
a
500
1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Figure 4-3. Market Trends for Aggregates in Terms of Production (adapted from
USGS, 2000)
The supply of materials like recycled
aggregates that are industrial byproducts or
C&D is limited by the corresponding industrial
and construction trends.
One of the main sources of recovered
aggregates is predicted to be C&D from
concrete structures. Mobile recycling facilities
have been used to recover material on-site,
thereby reducing transportation costs and
environmental impacts associated with
transportation.
78
-------
Section 4 — Impact of Green Building Materials on C&D Recycling
4.3.2 Market Trends Example 2—Green Building Product Labels
Product labels sometimes are given to materials attempting to indicate lower life-cycle
environmental emissions than conventional materials in the market. Various product labels
exist, and in response to Executive Order 136933, "Planning for Federal Sustainability in the
Next Decade/' which promotes sustainable acquisition and procurement of products and
services by federal agencies, the US EPA has provided
standards, and ecolabels to be used in federal
purchasing. This section does not attempt to
endorse a particular product label but merely
reflects the characteristics of the most common
ones in the United States: FSC, Green Seal,
formaldehyde-free insulation, and GREEN GUARD.
Table 4-6 summarizes the main characteristics of
these labels.
Table 4-7. Key Characteristics of the Green Building Product Labels Most
Prevalent in the United States
Product Labels
Key Formaldehyde-free
Characteristics FSC Green Seal Insulation GREENGUARD
Definition
Third-party certification
Third-pa rty
Manufacturer claim
Third-pa rty
body
certification body
certification body
Start year and
1994, global
1989, United
Not applicable
2001, global
geographical
States
coverage
Product/Material
Wood
Better known for
Insulation material
10,000 products
certification of
paints, coatings,
and windows, but
covers 375
products and
service categories.
Description
Certification program
Sustainability
Testing that
GREENGUARD Indoor
with two main
standards for
demonstrates the
Air Quality
components:
products, services,
absence of
Certification relies on
(1) certification of
and companies are
formaldehyde in the
test res"uIts to
responsible forest
based on life-cycle
product.
demonstrate that
management and
research.
products meet strict
(2) chain-of-custody
chemical emissions
certification, which is
limits and are
available to all
designed for use in
companies that process
office environments
or sell forest products.
and other indoor
spaces.
Life Cycle Stage
The entire life cycle from
Entire life cycle
Not applicable
Targeted
sawmills and fabricators
to distributors and
retailers.
Source
Sullivan & Kahn (2013)
htto://www.areens
Various
htto://areenauard.or
eal.ora/
a/en/index.asox
recommendations of specifications.
The growth of green building certified
materials, which are those with green building
product labels, is tied to the growth of green
building certification, which credits the use of
materials with product labels.
With an increasing number of green certified
materials, the release of environmental
contaminants during the life cycle of the
product, including recycling, will be minimal, as
will be the infrastructure requirements to deal
with these contaminants.
79
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recycling
Figure 4-4 uses data presented in the 2011 Green Building Market and Impact Report
(GreenBiz, 2011). While the use of FSC-certified wood increased in all categories from 2009
to 2010, decreases were observed from 2010 to 2011, which could be a result of the
reduction in the overall building markets that was illustrated previously in Tables 4-4 and
4-5.
50% | 1 47%
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
2009 2010 2011
¦ New construction ¦ Core and Shell ¦ Commercia I interiors
Figure 4-4. Use of FSC-Certified Wood in LEED Projects (GreenBiz, 2011)
In addition to LEED, other green building programs acknowledge and incorporate FSC
certification, including model green building codes and other voluntary standards. The Living
Building Challenge, for example, requires FSC certification for all virgin wood used in
building construction. Regional green building programs that focus on residential
construction provide additional market incentives for FSC-certified products. Examples
include California's Build It Green; Earth Advantage based in Portland, Oregon; the Seattle
area's Built Green program; the Chicago Green Home Program; and Minnesota Green Star.
Additionally, many companies have policies that state a strong preference for FSC-certified
products, including Home Depot, Office Depot, Kimberly-Clark, and Hewlett Packard (FSC,
2014).
4.4 Green Building Materials Recycling
C&D material recycling technologies may be impacted or require modifications when the
characteristics of the green building material differ significantly from those of conventional
materials. However, many green building products primarily differ from conventional
80
-------
Section 4 — Impact of Green Building Materials on C&D Recycling
products in the way they are sourced (e.g., FSC-certified wood) and do not necessarily
include new or different materials. Therefore, existing recycling technologies and practices
still apply to many of these materials. The main difference in these green building materials
is that they have lower life-cycle environmental impacts. According to BuildingGreen
(2015):
The surest way to reduce the environmental impact of a material is simply to use
less, usually by design.
There are products that serve their function using less material than the standard
solution and products that are especially durable and therefore won't need
replacement as often. Efficient use of materials also means moving from linear
"cradle-to-grave" to cyclic "cradle-to-cradle" use of materials.
If, by design, the recyclability of green building materials was expanded, the potential
increase in the stream of recovered C&D could lead to an expansion of the existing
infrastructure to accommodate higher material flows.
However, the number of times that a material can be recycled before final disposal varies
depending on its physical and chemical characteristics and the changes that occur during
remanufacturing. Therefore, repeated recycling of certain C&D materials could potentially
impact their ability to be recycled in the future. In the future, the increased popularity of
green building programs may also spur development of new recycling technologies as well
as more durable building materials and products capable of preserving functional
characteristics through multiple recycling processes. Table 4-7 provides information on the
recyclability of various materials based on current technological conditions.
Recycling of some types of emerging green materials frequently encounters two significant
issues: (1) there are not enough facilities able to recycle them, and (2) there is not enough
of the emerging material to recycle and thus create a market that enables the recycling to
be economically viable. Recycling of existing materials is of particular importance when the
virgin materials are scarce, or the processes used to manufacture the new materials are
resource intensive. For example, the silicon used to make photovoltaic cells is abundant, but
manufacturing a silicon-based solar cell requires a significant amount of energy. The source
of that energy ultimately determines how large the cell's carbon footprint is. However,
green building materials are increasingly being developed with the goal of reducing their
environmental footprint, which includes finding EOL recycling options.
81
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recycling
Table 4-8. Summary of Factors Affecting Materials Recyclability (Adapted from
GD Environmental, 2016; Glass Packaging Institute, 2016; Scott,
1996; Steel Recycling Institute, 2014; The Aluminum Association,
2016)
Factors Affecting Recyclability
Recycling Process
Materials Number of Cycles Characteristics Type of Material
Metals
Number of cycles does not
affect the physical and
chemical characteristics.
Contamination during the
process may degrade
quality. Proper sorting is
key.
All metals.
Glass
Number of cycles does not
affect the physical and
chemical characteristics.
Glass color mixing should be
avoided. Proper sorting is
key.
Some glass cannot be
recycled, e.g., window
panes, some glassware, and
light bulbs.
Plastics
After one cycle the quality
degrades for most plastics,
and down-cycling to
nonrecyclable materials such
as plastic lumber may be
required.
All plastics.
82
-------
5. ENVIRONMENTAL AND HEALTH CONSIDERATIONS
ASSOCIATED WITH C&D RECOVERY
Although C&D recovery provides numerous environmental benefits (e.g., reduced
consumption of virgin construction materials, emissions reductions, smaller landfill space
demands), potential risks associated with the processing and recycling of these materials
must be considered. As described in USEPA (2004), there are several hazardous or
potentially harmful materials that may be present in C&D that can cause harm or pose a
risk to human health and the environment, if improperly handled. These include asbestos,
lead-based paint (LBP), polychlorinated bi phenyls (PCBs), mercury, and treated wood.
Federal and state regulations address the handling of these materials during both the
construction and demolition process, and as part
of disposal and recovery. In addition to complying
with these regulations, it is necessary for the C&D
contractor and recycler to be aware of the
potential human health and environmental issues
and to implement best management practices.
5.1 Materials and Constituents of Potential Concern in C&D
Some products historically used in building construction contain chemicals, elements, or
minerals that cause harm or pose a risk to human health and the environment if improperly
managed. Additionally, some materials used in modern buildings contain chemicals that
may also pose a risk. Examples include mercury lighting, batteries, some types of paints,
treated wood, and various construction chemicals. Table 5-1 provides an overview of some
example materials that should be considered during any construction or demolition project.
The possible transfer of pollutants into recycled products from some of these materials is
described in greater detail in Section 5.2.
The best approach to minimize the contamination
of C&D destined for recovery is to remove
materials of potential concern prior to starting
demolition or renovation work—or, in the case of
construction projects, to segregate and manage
them separately. Several U.S. states have developed policy and educational guidance for
the removal of specified building components.
EPA has prepared a methodology for evaluating
the beneficial use of industrial non-hazardous
secondary materials, including C&D. This
voluntary methodology is available at
https: //www, e pa. g ov/s ites/p rod u cti on/f i les/2016 -
10/documents/methodology for evaluating be
neficial use of secondary materials 4-14-
16.pdf.
The use of asbestos, LBP, PCBs, and other
such products has largely been banned or
discontinued, but they remain in the built
infrastructure and must be handled
appropriately when present during demolition
and renovation work.
83
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recycling
Table 5-1. Partial List of Possible Contaminants in C&D Waste Streams and Some
Potential Sources (EES, 2004)
Potential
Contaminant
Possible Locations of Contaminants
Asbestos
Heat and acoustic insulation, flooring, roofing, noncombustible materials, ducts, etc.
Lead
Lead paint, lead objects, lead acid batteries, roof flashings, pipes
Mercury
Light bulbs, high-intensity lamps, thermostats, switches
PCB
Lighting ballasts, caulk, paint
Batteries
Emergency lights, alarm systems
Treated wood
Wood, especially outdoor structural wood
Refrigerant
Appliances, dehumidifiers, vending machines, air conditioners, heat pumps, ice
machines
Minnesota is an example of a state that has issued a mandatory pre-renovation/demoiition
environmental checklist, listing numerous items and materials that must be removed prior
to initiating a renovation or demolition project (MPCA, 2009). Florida has a guidance
document that provides an overview of materials that should be removed, with a checklist
for demolition contractors to follow as part of the pre-demolition process (EES, 2004;
Sheridan et al., 2000). Best management practices for general construction and demolition
typically also include extensive information on removing hazardous materials (DGS, 2007;
IDNR, 2008; OGS, 2014).
Although removing materials of concern before they become mixed with other C&D
materials best addresses the objective of producing a clean recycled stream, unwanted
materials will, at times, find their way into C&D processing and recycling facilities. Because
C&D processing may distribute unwanted constituents into recovered products (see Section
5.2), facility operators must develop and maintain plans for identifying and removing
materials of concern prior to processing. Depending on the state, these requirements might
be included as part of the site's operating permit. Common steps to achieve these
objectives include providing clear and visible signage of the facility's acceptance policy to
contractors dropping off materials at the facility, and inspecting each load of material as it
arrives at the facility (at the gatehouse).
Because not all materials will be visible to the inspector at the gatehouse, additional
inspections should take place where the debris is unloaded from the container or vehicle. A
common regulatory requirement integrated into a site's operation permit is the use of
spotters to inspect each incoming load after the load is discharged onto the tipping floor.
Many states require that spotters undergo periodic training on the identification of
84
-------
Section 5 — Environmental and Health Concerns Impacting C&D Recyclability
problematic materials and procedures for their safe management. Facility operators often
track C&D loads through job tickets so that haulers (and generators) can be notified and
held responsible should unacceptable materials be brought to a site.
The products from a C&D recovery facility may require testing to meet regulatory
requirements or customer demands; thus, operators often know the chemicals of concern
and can be especially aware of their presence in the material. With this knowledge,
operators can best avoid or redirect sources of debris prior to processing. For example, in
the case of recovered wood products, operators often reject or redirect loads of treated
wood or painted wood, so they do not commingle with other wood products destined for size
reduction and recovery.
5.2 Cross-Media Pollution and Exposure
This section discusses the potential for cross-
media contamination as a result of processing a
select set of C&D materials. Although various
materials may involve the transfer of chemicals,
this section reviews wood, drywall, asphalt
shingles, and C&D fines. Because harmful chemicals may be transferred from C&D streams
into recycled end products, this discussion addresses the potential for cross-media
contamination during the recovery process.
5.2.1 Facility Considerations
Workers at C&D processing facilities may be exposed to several different types of
occupational hazards that could impact their health and safety, including dust, LBP, and
asbestos. Therefore, proper equipment and health and safety training are necessary to
protect processing facility workers, given that harmful materials may be present in a C&D
load. Existing federal (Occupational Safety and Health Administration) and state regulatory
provisions address occupational hazards and preventive measures that should be taken to
prevent exposures to harmful materials, although these provisions are typically not specific
to the C&D recovery industry. C&D processing facilities are responsible for understanding
general provisions for health and safety and for providing worker training that specifically
identifies and explains the situations they may encounter and how to protect themselves
while on the job.
As previously discussed, a crucial step in preventing processing facility workers from
exposure to harmful materials begins at the job site, where the deleterious materials are
While C&D recovery provides a variety of
benefits over the consumption of virgin
resources, those making decisions about
community material management should be
aware of the potential for cross-media transfer
of pollutants.
85
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recycling
identified and removed and managed prior to the construction, demolition, or renovation
work. The removal of harmful materials from C&D is a responsibility of the C&D contractor
or party delivering C&D to the processing facility. It is paramount that facilities have in
place a specific plan that outlines methods for preventing unwanted materials from arriving
and explains the proper operational procedures to identify and remove contaminants safely
before processing.
Permitted facilities are typically required to have a site-specific operation plan that outlines
best management practices and methods to keep employees safe. Included with such plans
are methods for identifying and addressing contaminants observed on the tipping floor,
steps to follow in case of emergencies, operational procedures for equipment, maps, and
provisions to allow safe navigation of the facility, and information on personal protective
equipment (PPE). PPE commonly used in C&D recovery facilities includes dust masks and
other methods of respiratory protection, equipment to protect against physical contact with
C&D (i.e., gloves), hearing protection, and other standard equipment such as steel-toe
boots, hard hats, and high-visibility vests.
Assurance Safety Consulting (ASC) prepared a health and safety manual for Construction &
Demolition Recycling Association (CDRA)-member C&D recovery facilities to help develop
and implement health and safety policies for employees and administration (ASC, 2013).
The manual provides a list of safe work practices to be implemented in various situations
during C&D recovery facility operation. The guidelines for employees' health and safety
include following all the safety rules and practices provided by the employer, working on the
specific tasks assigned, reporting any unsafe condition, using proper tools, following good
housekeeping and hygiene practices, familiarizing oneself with location and content of
material safety data sheets, using proper PPE, and being aware of the premises. The
manual also includes guidelines for safety at the tipping floor, during emergencies, near
heavy equipment (such as blind spots for heavy equipment used in the facility), equipment
lockout and tag out, machine guarding, and fall protection policies.
5.2.2 Material-Specific Considerations
Treated Wood
Treated wood is a ubiquitous construction material in much of the country, and wood
products may be treated with various chemicals including creosote, pentachlorophenol,
chromated copper arsenate (CCA), alkaline copper quaternary, borates, copper azole,
cyproconazole, and propiconazole. Creosote and pentachlorophenol are used primarily in
utility poles and railroad ties, so most C&D processing facilities that produce a mulch end
86
-------
Section 5 — Environmental and Health Concerns Impacting C&D Recyclability
product will not accept these treated wood products. However, some facilities may accept
utility poles or railroad ties for other reuse opportunities (e.g., retaining walls, building
purposes).
The treated wood type that has received the most attention with regard to the C&D
recovery industry is CCA. CCA-treated wood can be difficult to distinguish from other types
of commonly recovered C&D wood. Although the use of CCA-treated wood has been
discontinued for most U.S. residential construction applications since January 2004, much of
this material remains in service. CCA-treated wood contains high concentrations of arsenic,
chromium, and copper; arsenic has been the chemical of most concern. Solo-Gabriele et al.
(1998) reported average arsenic concentrations of 1,200 mg/kg and 33,000 mg/kg for
unburned CCA-treated wood and ash produced from combusting CCA-treated wood,
respectively.
The presence of CCA-treated wood in a C&D boiler fuel product can also be problematic.
Many boiler facilities limit the amount of CCA-treated wood that can be included in their fuel
product. Some states allow the combustion of creosote and other treated wood products in
commercial or industrial solid waste incinerators, which must meet the stringent air
emission standards of the Clean Air Act (CAA) Section 129 (where air emissions and ash
management are stringently controlled). As discussed in Section 3.4.5, the USEPA recently
modified the applicable air emission standards (i.e., CAA Section 112) for biomass facilities,
and biomass facilities must now comply with the less stringent, CAA Section 112, standards.
However, the presence of CCA-treated wood in a fuel product can affect the biomass
facility's ability to meet CAA Section 112 standards related to the fuel product.
The presence of CCA-treated wood in a fuel product can also dramatically alter the ash
characteristics; Solo-Gabriele et al. (2002) observed that if mixed wood waste contains
more than 5% of CCA-treated wood, the ash generated from its combustion would leach
enough arsenic to be characterized as a hazardous waste based on the toxicity
characteristic. Even in small amounts, the elevated metals concentrations in the ash
resulting from CCA-treated wood could limit land disposal options.
Because of the concerns CCA-treated wood poses, many states require, as part of
regulatory permit conditions, that CCA-treated wood is separated from other wood and
managed distinctly (not recycled). The challenge in meeting these requirements is to
identify the CCA-treated wood for segregation properly. Identifying treated wood can be
accomplished to some extent through visual means if operators are trained, and sound
inspection practices are implemented. Furthermore, the Florida Department of
87
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recycling
Environmental Protection (FDEP) published a best management practices guide for
identifying and removing CCA-treated wood from the C&D stream (FDEP, n.d.). The guide
discusses several specific identification strategies that include the use of stains and X-ray
fluorescence (XRF) detectors, as well as arsenic test kits and laser-based technologies.
The phase-out of CCA from the residential market has resulted in the introduction of a new
suite of replacement preservatives. Copper compounds and, in some cases, added
chemicals provide wood preservation and protection from biological decay.
Lead-Based Paint
Although LBP was banned from use in the United States, the presence of lead in painted
wood from older buildings remains a concern in many areas of the country. If present in
sufficient quantities, wood with LBP may pose some of the same issues as CCA-treated
wood. Lead from painted wood may leach into soil and groundwater (although lead tends to
be much less mobile than arsenic), and combustion of fuel products with high lead levels
may violate air emission standards.
Visual screening and XRF analyzers can be used to identify materials coated with LBP.
Certain wood materials have a higher likelihood of containing an LBP coating, as LBP has
frequently been used to coat wood components exposed to outdoor conditions (e.g., door
frames, window sills).
As part of a facility's regulatory permit, conditions are often in place to limit the acceptance
of painted wood. While the best way to ensure against contamination is to segregate all
painted wood, those interested in specifically identifying lead paint can use portable XRF
analyzers. R. W. Beck et al. (2010) described the use of these devices to identify painted
surfaces with a concentration of lead higher than 1 milligram per square centimeter.
The presence of lead is the largest paint-associated issue affecting C&D recovery, but some
specialty paints may also contain elements or chemicals of concern. PCBs have been used in
some specialty paints to provide fire resistance. Cadmium has been used in pigment and
mercury, tin, and zinc have been used to prevent biological growth. Many of these specialty
paints will be associated with various substrates such as concrete and metal.
Drywall
Depending on adjacent C&D materials at the time of demolition and on the additives used
by the drywall manufacturer, gypsum from demolition drywall may contain small amounts of
LBP, asbestos, and boron. Drywall debris from older structures may contain LBP and may
also contain asbestos, which was added to improve its strength, fire resistance, and noise-
88
-------
Section 5 — Environmental and Health Concerns Impacting C&D Recyclability
absorbance. Asbestos was also added to the wall patching compounds, but the use was
banned in 1977. Boron was used in several different brands of drywall as a form of
fiberglass to enhance mechanical strength and as a fire retardant (SWRCB, 2016; Townsend
et al., 2013). Because of concerns related to older drywall sources, many C&D recovery
facilities only accept construction scrap.
Asphalt Shingles
The primary concern with the recovery of asphalt shingles is the potential presence of
asbestos. Historically, asbestos was used as the fiber material by a few shingle
manufacturers to provide mechanical strength and fire resistance. That said, most asbestos
occurrences associated with asphalt roofing products are not associated with shingles. To
fully address contamination concerns, regulatory permit requirements for shingle recyclers
typically include a provision for sampling and analyzing incoming shingles loads for
asbestos. A study conducted by the Construction Materials Recycling Association detected
asbestos in approximately 1.5% of 27,000 samples collected from 10 facilities in six states,
although the observed asbestos was due to the presence of mastic and not the asphalt
shingles themselves (IWCS, 2007). Currently, dedicated shingle processing facilities or
mixed C&D processing facilities may accept non-asbestos shingle loads. Facilities may test
for asbestos contamination in shingles and sort out the load as described by Powell et al.
(2015).
C&D Fines
As described in Section 2.3.8, C&D fines are often used as alternative daily cover (ADC) at
landfills. In this use, the primary area of concern that has been noted in the industry is the
potential for H2S production because of the elevated gypsum content in C&D fines, also
known as recovered screened materials (RSM), which has been observed to vary from 1%
to over 25% of the total material in the fines (Musson et al., 2008). Several states have
developed reuse criteria and guidance. For example, the FDEP describes sampling and
analysis requirements for C&D processing facilities to demonstrate the appropriateness of
an intended beneficial use of RSM (FDEP, 2011).
89
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recycling
6. DATA GAPS AND ADDITIONAL RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES
This section identifies data gaps and additional research opportunities that were identified
during the review of the state of the practice of C&D recovery in the United States.
1. Quantifying Reuse of C&D. Insufficient information exists on quantities and types of
C&D materials that are recovered for reuse. A nationwide, region-specific study that
analyzes the amount and type of C&D being diverted through salvage and reuse would
help community decision-makers identify the potential of, and encourage the
implementation of, this practice.
2. Quantifying Recovered C&D Material Markets. With the exception of asphalt
pavement, very little information appears to exist that quantifies the end uses of
different recovered C&D materials. A nationwide, region-specific study that analyzes the
amount of recovered C&D being diverted to different end uses would help community
decision-makers identify diversion options in their area.
3. Identification of Factors that Promote Community C&D Recovery. While
resources exist for estimating the total amount of nationwide C&D that is recovered
versus disposed of, a detailed, large-scale analysis of factors which contribute to
successful C&D recovery does not exist. A national review of public policy, economic,
and social factors that promote C&D recovery would provide an additional means by
which communities could increase the recovery and beneficial use of C&D.
4. Beneficial Use of C&D Fines. Based on CDRA (2015), C&D fines/RSM represents
nearly 18% of the material recovered from mixed C&D processing facilities across the
United States. However, there appears to be no national characterization study of this
material. Also, while it is generally understood that one of the primary end uses of C&D
fines is as a landfill ADC, no large-scale studies were found that document the success
or challenges of this use at landfill sites across the country. Examples of pertinent
questions to explore through a review of landfill case studies include, "How common is it
for sites using RSM as an ADC to experience issues with the release of H2S?" and "Do
landfills using RSM generally experience less, more, or the same number of odor
complaints from surrounding properties after switching from daily cover soil to an RSM
ADC?"
5. Beneficial Use of Processing Residuals. Results from CDRA (2015) suggest that
nearly 20% of the output of mixed C&D processing facilities is a solid waste; the use of
these processing residuals as a refuse-derived fuel can significantly reduce the quantity
of C&D being landfilled. A nationwide study that reviews case studies where this
90
-------
Section 6 — Summary of Major Findings and Data Gaps
beneficial use is practiced would be helpful for community decision-makers considering
ways of improving C&D diversion rates.
6. Market Analysis of C&D Diverted from Landfills. Landfills may financially benefit by
diverting some C&D from disposal from an airspace-preservation perspective. A
nationwide, region-specific market analysis of diverting source-segregated loads of
certain bulky C&D materials (e.g., concrete, shingles, LCD) with onsite processing may
show that this practice could benefit the landfill owner/operator, the surrounding
community, or both. These materials may provide a valuable resource because markets
and material processing strategies are well established, and fewer obstacles prevent
their beneficial use.
91
-------
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recycling
7. References
AASHTO (2007). Standard Recommended Practice for Design Considerations when using
Recycled Asphalt Shingles in New Hot Mix Asphalt. Report # R-2005A TS-2c.
http://www.crushcrete.com/pdf/Considerations shingles hot-mix.pdf. Accessed 28
October 2016.
Anderson, R., Jambeck, J.R., McCarron, G.P. (2010). Modeling of Hydrogen Sulfide
Generation from Landfills Beneficially Utilizing Processed Construction and Demolition
Materials. A Report Prepared for the Environmental Research and Education
Foundation, Alexandria, VA. February 2010. https://erefdn.ora/wp-
content/uploads/2015/12/H2SModelina Jambeck-UNH 2-26-10 FINAL.pdf. Accessed
31 October 2016.
ASC (2013). Health and Safety Manual. A Manual Prepared by Assurance Safety Consulting
for Construction and Demolition Association.
Avon (2016). Operations: Green Buildings, http://www.avoncompanv.com/corporate-
responsibilitv/environmental-sustainabilitv/operations/. Accessed 28 October 2016.
Bannink, D., Falk, R., Klane, J., McKinney M., Wassink D., Building Materials Reuse
Association (2012). Introduction to Deconstruction: A Comprehensive Training Workbook.
Biomass Power Association (n.d.). U.S. Biomass Power Facilities.
http://www.biomasspowerassociation.com/docs/biomass map.pdf
BuildingGreen (2015, original 2012). What Makes a Product Green? Environmental Building
News 21(2). https://www2.buildinaareen.com/article/what-makes-product-areen.
Accessed 24 June 2015.
California EPA (2001). Deconstruction Training Manual: Waste Management Reuse and
Recycling at Mather Field. Integrated Waste Management Board Publication #433-
01-027.
http://www.calrecvcle.ca.aov/Publications/Documents/ConDemo%5C43301027.pdf
CalRecycle (1997). Construction and Demolition Recycling: Job Site Source Separation.
http://www.calrecvcle.ca.aov/condemo/Materials/SourceSep.htm. Accessed 7 March
2016.
CalRecycle (2009). Diversion Programs System Program Codes Glossary. Policy Incentives.
http://www.calrecvcle.ca.aov/LGCentral/PARIS/Codes/Policv.htm. Accessed 12
August 2015.
CalRecycle (2014a). California's Estimated Statewide Diversion Rates Since 1989. California
Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery.
http://www.calrecvcle.ca.aov/lacentral/aoalmeasu re/disposalrate/Graphs/EstDiversio
n.htm. Accessed 4 June 2015.
CalRecycle (2014b). California Beverage Container Recycling & Litter Reduction Act.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery.
R-l
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recycling
http://www.calrecvcle.ca.aov/Publications/Documents/1478/20131478.pdf. Accessed
28 October 2016.
CaiRecycie (2014c). Construction and Demolition Recycling, Recycled Aggregate.
http://www.calrecvcle.ca.aov/condemo/Aaareaate/. Accessed 12 August 2015.
CaiRecycie (2015). California's 2014 Per Capita Disposal Rate. California Department of
Resources Recycling and Recovery.
http://www.calrecvcle.ca.aov/lacentral/aoalmeasu re/disposalrate/MostRecent/defaul
t.htm. Accessed 22 June 2015.
CaiRecycie (2017). Title 27, Environmental Protection - Division 2, Solid Waste - Chapter 3.
Criteria for All Waste Management Units, Facilities, and Disposal Sites - Subchapter
4. Criteria for Landfills and Disposal Sites - Article 1. CIWMB - Operating Criteria -
Section 20690. http://www.calrecvcle.ca.aov/laws/reaulations/title27/ch3sb4a.htm.
Accessed 30 May 2017.
CaiRecycie (n.d.) Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste Diversion in California.
California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery.
http://www.calrecvcle.ca.aov/condemo/CaseStudies/DGSDiversion.pdf
Caltrans (2010). Standard Specifications - State of California - Business, Transportation and
Housing Agency - Department of Transportation - 2010. Published by the
Department of Transportation.
http://www.dot.ca.aov/hq/esc/oe/construction contract standards/std specs/2010
StdSpecs/2010 StdSpecs.pdf. Accessed 28 October 2016.
CA PRC (2017). California Public Resources Code, Division 30. Waste Management, Part 2.
Integrated Waste Management Plans, Chapter 6. Planning Requirements, Section
41781.3.
http://leainfo.leaislature.ca.aov/faces/codes displavSection.xhtml?lawCode=PRC&s
ectionNum=41781.3. Accessed 30 May 2017.
CCG (2006). Targeted Statewide Waste Characterization Study: Detailed Characterization of
Construction and Demolition Waste. A Report for California Integrated Waste
Management Board, June 2006.
http://www.calrecvcle.ca.aov/publications/Documents/Disposal%5C34106007.pdf
Accessed 28 October 2016.
CCG (2008). Construction & Demolition Waste Composition Study Final Report. Seattle
Public Utilities. July 2008.
http://www. Seattle, aov/util/cs/g roups/public/@spu/@aarbaae/documents/webconte
nt/SPUOl 003891.pdf Accessed 28 October 2016.
CCG (2009). King County Waste Monitoring Program. 2007/2008 Construction and
Demolition Materials Characterization Study. February 2009.
https://vour.kinacountv.aov/solidwaste/about/documents/CD-characterization-
studv-2008.pdf Accessed 28 October 2016.
CDM (2009). Illinois Commodity/Waste Generation and Characterization Study. Contracted
by Illinois Recycling Association. May 2009. http://illinoisrecvcles.ora/wp-
content/uploads/2014/10/ICWCGSReport052209.pdf Accessed 28 October 2016.
R-2
-------
References
CDRA (2012). Recycled Concrete Aggregate: A Sustainable Choice for Unbound Base. A
white paper Prepared for the Construction and Demolition Recycling Association
prepared by Diversified Engineering Services.
CDRA (2014). The Benefits of Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling in the United
States. Prepared for the Construction and Demolition Recycling Association and
prepared by the Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of
Florida.
CDRA (2015). The Benefits of Construction and Demolition Materials Recycling in the United
States. Report prepared for the Construction and Demolition Recycling Association by
the Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences, Engineering School of
Sustainable Infrastructure and Environment, University of Florida. Version 1.1
updated 14 January 2015.
City of Madison (2011). Madison Sets Waste Diversion Rate. The City of Madison, Wisconsin.
https://www.citvofmadison.com/news/madison-sets-waste-diversion-record.
Accessed 28 October 2016.
City of Madison (n.d.). Streets & Recycling: Construction and Demolition Recycling. The City
of Madison, Wisconsin.
http://www.citvofmadison.eom/streets/recvclina/demolition/constructionDemolition.c
fm. Accessed 15 June 2015.
City of Portland (2005). Construction and Demolition Recycling Cuts Waste in Tri-County
Area. The Plans Examiner. The City of Portland, Oregon.
https://www.portlandoreaon.aov/bds/article/85506. Accessed 28 October 2016.
City of Portland (2017a). Explore Deconstruction.
https://www.portlandoreaon.aov/bps/68520. Accessed 10 May 2017.
City of Portland (2017b). BPS News: Portland City Council adopts new deconstruction
ordinance to save quality, historic materials.
https://www.portlandoreaon.aov/bps/article/582914. Accessed 8 May 2017.
City of Portland (2017c). New Deconstruction Requirements.
https://www.portlandoreaon.aov/bps/70643. Accessed 8 May 2017.
City of Portland (n.d.). Garbage, Recycling, and Composting Program History. The City of
Portland, Oregon, https://www.portlandoreaon.aov/bps/article/363515. Accessed 11
June 2015.
Cochran, K., Henry, S., Dubey, B., Townsend, T. (2007). Government Policies for Increasing
the Recycling of Construction and Demolition Debris. Prepared for Clay County Solid
Waste Division.
https://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/quick topics/publications/shw/recvclina/Innovativ
eGrants/IGYear7/finalreports/ClavIRGRecvclinaFinalDeliverable 10 23 2007.pdf
Cochran, K., Townsend, T. (2010). Estimating Construction and Demolition Debris
Generation Using a Materials Flow Analysis Approach. Waste Management, 30, 2247-
2254. doi: 10.1016/j.wasman.2010.04.008
R-3
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recycling
Coelho, A., de Brito, J. (2011). Economic Analysis of Conventional versus Selective
Demolition—A Case Study. Resources, Conservation, and Recycling 55(3), 382-392.
doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.11.003
Continental (2015). Continental Building Products, Sustainable Building.
http://www.continental-bp.com/en/sustainabilitv/sustainable-buildina. Accessed 12
August 2015.
CSB (2008). Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling Guide & Directory. Developed by
the County of San Bernardino. Revised August 2008.
http://cms.sbcountv.aov/portals/50/solidwaste/CandD Recycling Guide.pdf.
Accessed 15 November 2016.
Dantata, N., Touran, A., Wang, J. (2005). An analysis of cost and duration for
deconstruction and demolition of residential buildings in Massachusetts. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling 44, 1-15. DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2004.09.001
Delta Institute (2012). Deconstruction and Reuse. Second Edition. October 2012.
http://delta-institute.ora /delta/wp-
content/uploads/DeconstructionAndReuseGoGuide2ndEd Web.pdf. Accessed 8 May
2012.
Denhart, H. (2009). Deconstructing Disaster: Psycho-social impact of building
deconstruction in Post-Katrina New Orleans. Cities 26 (4), 195-201. DOI:
10.1016/j.cities.2009.04.003.
Denhart, H. (2010). Deconstructing Disaster: Economic and environmental impacts of
deconstruction in post-Katrina New Orleans. Resource Conservation and Recovery 54
(3), 194-204. DOI: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.07.016
Department of Planning and Development (2014). New Requirements for Construction and
Demolition Waste, 30 May 2014.
http://buildingconnections.seattle.gov/2014/05/3Q/new-requirements-for-
construction-and-demolition-waste/. Accessed 12 August 2015.
DEQ (2011). Oregon's Material Recovery Rate for 2010 Increases to 50.0 Percent, Meeting
State Goal. State of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
http://www.deq.state.or.us/news/prDisplav.asp?docID=3715. Accessed 22 June
2015.
DEQ (2014). 2013 Oregon Material Recovery and Waste Generation Rates and Report. State
of Oregon Department of Environmental Quality.
http://www.oregon.gov/deg/docs/2013MRWGRatesReport.pdf. Accessed 28 October
2016.
DGS (2007). California Best Practices Manual. Department of General Services, Building and
Property Management Branch, Sacramento, CA.
http://www, documents, dgs.ca.gov/g reen/BPM-bbmbt.pdf
DNREC (2015). Calendar Year 2014 Recycling Reporting Guidance. Delaware Department of
Natural Resources and Environmental Control.
http://www.dnrec.delaware.gov/dwhs/recvcling/Documents/2012%20Recvcling%20
Reporting%20Guidance%20(2').pdf. Accessed 24 October 2016.
R-4
-------
References
DSHW (2014). 2012 Generation, Disposal, and Recycling Rates in New Jersey.
http://www.state.ni.us/dep/dshw/recvclina/stat links/2012disposalrates.pdf.
Accessed 4 June 2015.
DSM Environmental Services, Inc. (2008). 2007 Massachusetts Construction and Demolition
Debris Industry Study: Final Report, www.mass.aov/eea/docs/dep/recvcle/reduce/06-
thru-l/07cdstdv.doc„ Accessed 28 October 2016.
ECD Energy & Environment Canada Ltd. (2004a). About Green Globes.
http://www.areenalobes.com/about.asp. Accessed 1 April 2015.
ECD Energy & Environment Canada Ltd. (2004b). Green Globes Design for New Buildings
and Retrofits, Rating System and Program Summary.
http://www.areenalobes.com/desian/Green Globes Design Summarv.pdf. Accessed
2 June 2015.
EEA (2013). Massachusetts 2010-2020 Solid Waste Master Plan—Pathway to Zero Waste.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection Executive Office of Energy
and Environmental Affairs.
http://www.mass.aov/eea/docs/dep/recvcle/priorities/swmpl3f.pdf. Accessed 24
October 2016.
EES (2004). Recommended Management Practices for the Removal of Hazardous Materials
from Buildings Prior to Demolition, 2nd Edition. Prepared by the Department of
Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida.
http://www.hinklevcenter.ora/imaaes/stories/publications/Demo Guide 04 FINAL.p
df. Accessed 28 October 2016.
Executive Office of the President of the United States (2015). National Strategy for the
Efficient Use of Real Property 2015-2020. Reducing the Federal Portfolio through
Improved Space Utilization, Consolidation, and Disposal. Spring 2015.
FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) (2014). Airport Construction Standards (AC150/5370-
10), Part 3 - Flexible Base Courses. Airport Engineering Division, July 2014.
http://www.faa.aov/airports/enaineerina/construction standards/. Accessed 12
August 2015.
Falk, R., and McKeever, D. (2012). Generation and Recovery of Solid Wood Waste in the
U.S. BioCyde, August, pp. 30-32.
FDEP (2011). Guidelines for the Management of Recovered Screen Material from C&D Debris
Recycling Facilities in Florida, Revision No. 1. Report developed by the Office of the
Division of Waste Management, Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/quick topics/publications/shw/solid waste/RSMFIN
ALTotal.pdf. Accessed 15 November 2016.
FDEP (2013a). Florida 75% Recycling Goal. Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/recvclinaaoal75/. Accessed 22 June 2015.
FDEP (2013b). Table 6A Summary of Recycling Credits (2013) By Descending Population.
Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
ftp://ftp.dep.state.fl.us/pub/reports/Recvclina/Reports/2013AnnualReport/AppendixA
Z6A.pdf. Accessed 28 October 2016.
R-5
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recycling
FDEP (n.d.) Guidance for the Management and Disposal of CCA-Treated Wood. Prepared by
Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, and Florida Department
of Environmental Protection. http://www.ccaresearch.ora/CCA%20BMP%20cor.pdf
Federal Register (2011). Volume 76, Number 247, Page 80470.
FHWA (1997). Pavement Recycling Guidelines for State and Local Governments Participant's
Reference Book, FHWA-SA-98-042. December 1997.
https://www.fhwa.dot.aov/pavement/recvclina/98042/index.cfm. Accessed 11
October 2016.
FHWA (1998). User Guidelines for Waste and Byproduct Materials in Pavement Construction.
Federal Highway Administration: Research and Technology. Publication Number:
FHWA-RD-97-148.
http://www.fhwa.dot.aov/publications/research/infrastructure/structures/97148/cfa5
3.cfm.
FHWA (2002). Memorandum. Information: Formal Policy on the Use of Recycled Materials.
February 7, 2002.
https://www.fhwa.dot.aov/leasrea s/directives/policv/recmatmemo.htm. Accessed 28
October 2016.
FHWA (2004). Transportation Applications of Recycled Concrete Aggregate.
http://www.cdrecvclina.ora/assets/concrete-recvclina /applications.pdf. Accessed 28
October 2016.
FHWA (2014). Standard Specifications for Construction of Roads and Bridges on Federal
Highway Projects, http://flh.fhwa.dot.aov/business/resources/specs/. Accessed 6
August 2015.
FSC (2014). https://ic.fsc.ora/preview.2014-fsc-market-info-pack.a-3692.pdf. Accessed 16
June 2015.
GD Environmental (2016). How Many Times Can You Recycle A... http://www.ad-
environmental.co.uk/bloa/how-manv-times-can-vou-recvcle/. Accessed 8 June 2016.
Glass Packaging Institute (2016). Recycling, http://www.api.ora/recvclina/alass-recvclina-
facts. Accessed 8 June 2016.
Google (n.d.). Google Green, Campus Operations: Building.
https://www.aooale.eom/a reen/efficiencv/oncampus/. Accessed 28 October 2016.
Green Building Initiative, Inc. (2015). Green Globes for New Construction Technical
Reference Manual, Version 1.4.
http://www.theabi.ora/files/trainina resources/Green Globes NC Technical Referen
ce Manual.pdf. Accessed 2 June 2015.
GreenBiz (2011). https://www.greenbiz.eom/research/report/2011/ll/07/green-building-
market-and-impact-report-2011
Guy, B., Ciarimboli, N. (2007). DfD Design for Disassembly in the Built Environment: a
guide to closed-loop design and building. Prepared by the Hamer Center for
Community Design at The Pennsylvania State University for the King County, WA.
R-6
-------
References
https://vour.kinacountv.aov/solidwaste/areenbuildina/documents/Desian for Disass
emblv-auide.pdf . Accessed 7 June 2017.
Guy, B., & McLendon, S. (2000). Building Deconstruction: Reuse and Recycling of Building
Materials. University of Florida.
Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management (n.d.). Construction and
Demolition Waste Management: A Contractor's Guide for Organizing Waste
Diversion, http://www.cce.ufl.edu/wp-
content/upload s/2012/08/Waste%20Guideline%20no%20appendix.pdf. Accessed 7
March 2016.
Home Innovation Research Labs (2015). Certification, Green Homes, and Products.
http://www.homeinnovation.com/areen. Accessed 5 June 2015.
IDNR (2008). Best Management Practices Waste Reduction: Construction and Demolition
Debris. Iowa Department of Natural Resources.
http://iwrc.uni.edu/services/resou rces-tools/documents/best-manaaement-
practices-waste-reduction-construction-and-demolition-debris-a-auide-for-buildina-
construction-and -environmental-professionals-november-2008/.
International Living Future Institute (n.d.). Living Building Challenge 3.0. http://livina-
future.org/sites/default/files/reports/FINAL%20LBC%203 0 WebQptimized low.pdf.
Accessed 3 April 2015.
IWCS (2007). Environmental Issues Associated with Asphalt Shingle Recycling. A White
Paper prepared by Innovative Waste Consulting Service for Construction Materials
Recycling Association.
https://www.shinglerecvcling.org/sites/www.shinglerecvcling.org/files/shingle PDF/E
PA%20Shingle%20Report Final.pdf. Accessed 31 October 2016.
IWCS (2016). Internal Technical Memorandum on C&D Management Facility Tipping Fees.
Developed through a review of publicly-available facility data and personal
communication with facility personnel. October 2016.
Jambeck, J., Carpenter, A., Gardner, K. (2007). University of New Hampshire Life-Cycle
Assessment of C&D Derived Biomass/Wood Waste Management. A report prepared
by the Environmental Research Group, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/etaac/meetings/012508pubmeet/comments received sin
ce 12-12-07/turlev2-nh lea report 05dec07.pdf. Accessed 10 October 2016.
Johnson and Johnson (2012). Policy for the Sustainable Design and Construction of Johnson
and Johnson Facilities. Issued by Johnson and Johnson, Worldwide Engineering and
Technical Operations, Worldwide Environment, Health and Safety, 17 September
2012. http://www.ini.com/sites/default/files/pdf/Policv-for-Sustainabilitv-Design-
Construction-09-17-12.pdf. Accessed 28 October 2016.
KCSWD (King County Solid Waste Division) (2010). Construction and Demolition Debris
Recycling and Diversion.
http://vour.kingcountv.gOv/solidwaste/g reenbuilding/debris-recvcling.asp. Accessed
7 March 2016.
R-7
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recycling
Kibert, C.J., Languell, J.L. (2000). Implementing Deconstruction in Florida: Materials Reuse
Issues, Disassembly Techniques, Economics and Policy.
https://www.researchaate.net/profile/Charles Kibert/publication/237639751 Imple
mentina Deconstruction in Florida Materials Reuse Issues Disassembly Techniau
es Economics and Policv/links/54c0f9520cf28a6324a4df23.pdf?oriain=publication
detail. Accessed 15 November 2016.
King County (2017). Construction and Demolition Recycling.
http://vour. king county, aov/solid waste/a reenbuildina/construction-demolition.asp.
Accessed 10 May 2017.
Kneeland, C. (2006). New York State's Green Building Tax Credit.
http://docplaver.net/5696660-New-vork-state-s-areen-buildina-tax-credit.html.
Accessed 28 April 2016.
Lee County (2007). Lee County Ordinance No. 07-25. Florida Department of State.
https://www.leeaov.com/bocc/Ordinances/Q7-25.pdf. Accessed 28 October 2016.
Life Cycle Building Challenge (2013). Rating Systems, http://lifecvclebuilding.org/rating-
svstems.php. Accessed 8 May 2017.
Lifecycle Building Challenge (n.d.). http://www.lifecvclebuildina.ora. Accessed 7 June 2017.
Martin, D., Vinci, S., Prows, D. (2013). Green Globes for New Construction.
https://www.theabi.ora/content/misc/White Paper for an Overview of Green Glob
es New Construction.pdf. Accessed 10 March 2017.
MassDEP (2014). 310 CMR 19.017(3): Department of Environmental Protection, Solid Waste
Management, Waste Bans.
http://www.mass.aov/eea/docs/dep/service/reaulations/310cmrl9.pdf. Accessed 12
August 2015.
McGraw-Hill Construction (2012). 2013 Dodge Construction Green Outlook. McGraw-Hill.
http://triloav-
solutions.com/site/assets/files/1057/dodae 2013 construction outlook.pdf.
Accessed 28 October 2016.
McGraw-Hill Construction (n.d.). Prefabrication and Modularization: Increasing Productivity
in the Construction Industry.
http://www.nist.gov/el/economics/upload/Prefabrication-Modularization-in-the-
Construction-Industrv-SMR-2011R.pdf. Accessed 28 April 2016.
MEA (Maryland Energy Administration) (2015). Maryland Green Building Tax Credit.
http://enerav.marvland.gOv/Business/areenbuild.html. Accessed 30 April 2015.
Metro (2010). Enhanced Dry Waste Recovery Program (EDWRP) Frequently Asked
Questions. Metro Regional Services.
http://www.oregonmetro.gov/sites/default/files/032010 enhanced drv waste recov
erv program EDWRP frequently asked questions.pdf. Accessed 28 October 2016.
MPCA (2009). Pre-Renovation/Demolition Environmental Checklist. Prepared by the
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
R-8
-------
References
https://www.pca.state.mn.us/sites/default/files/w-sw4-20.pdf. Accessed 14
November 2016.
Musson, S.E., Xu, Q., Townsend, T.G. (2008). Measuring the Gypsum Content of C&D
Debris Fines. Waste Management 28 (11), 2091-2096.
NAHB (1997). Deconstruction—Building Disassembly and Material Salvage: The Riverdale
Case Study. NAHB Research Center. Prepared for U.S. EPA. Assistance Agreement
CX 8244809. http://www.lifecyclebuilding.org/docs/Riverdale%20Case%20Study.pdf
NAHB (2000). A Guide to Deconstruction. National Association of Homebuilders Research
Center. Prepared for: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
http://www.huduser.ora/publications/pdf/decon.pdf
NAHB (2001). Report on the Feasibility of Deconstruction: An Investigation of
Deconstruction Activity in Four Cities. Contract OPC-21289, Task Order T0004.
https://www.huduser.aov/publications/pdf/deconstruct.pdf
NAHB (2015). 50,000 Homes certified to National Green Building Standard.
http://nahbnow.com/2015/05/5000Q-homes-certified-to-national-green-building-
standard/. Accessed 28 May 2015.
NAPA (2014). Annual Asphalt Pavement Industry Survey on Recycled Materials and Warm-
Mix Asphalt Usage: 2009-2013. National Asphalt Pavement Association, Lanham,
MD. 4th Annual Asphalt Pavement Industry Survey.
https://www.asphaltpavement.org/PDFs/IS138/IS138-2013 RAP-RAS-
WMA Survey Final.pdf. Accessed 28 October 2016.
NAPA (2015). Asphalt Pavement Industry Survey on Recycled Materials and Warm-Mix
Asphalt Usage 2014. National Asphalt Pavement Association, Lanham, MD. 5th Annual
Asphalt Pavement Industry Survey.
https://www.asphaltpavement.org/PDFs/IS138/IS138-2014 RAP-RAS-
WMA Survey Final.pdf. Accessed 31 October 2016.
Navigant Consulting (2016). Green Building Materials Will Reach $254 Billion in Annual
Market Value by 2020. http://www.navigantresearch.eom/newsroom/green-building-
materials-will-reach-254-billion-in-annual-market-value-bv-2020. Published 2 May
2013.
NCHRP (2013). Recycled Materials and Byproducts in Highway Applications. Volume 6:
Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement, Recycled Concrete Aggregate, and Construction
Demolition Waste. NCHRP Synthesis 435, National Cooperative Highway Research
Program, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington,
D.C., USA.
New West Gypsum (2015). http://gypsumrecvclingwa.com/. Accessed 12 August 2015.
Nisbet, M.A., Marceau, M.L., VanGeem, M.G. (2002). Environmental Life Cycle Inventory of
Portland Cement Concrete. Portland Cement Association. Revised July 2002.
NJ DEP (2006a). New Jersey Statewide Mandatory Source Separation and Recycling Act.
State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.
R-9
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recycling
http://www.ni.aov/dep/dshw/recvclina/recv act link.htm. Accessed 31 October
2006.
NJ DEP (2006b). 2006 Generation, Disposal, and Recycling Rates in New Jersey (Tons).
State of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.
http://www.ni.aov/dep/dshw/recvclina/stat links/06%20Disposal %20Rates %20C
ountv.pdf. Accessed 31 October 2016.
NJ DEP (2007). 2007 Generation, Disposal, and Recycling Rates in New Jersey (Tons). State
of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.
http://www.ni.aov/dep/dshw/recvclina/stat links/07%20disposal%20rates.pdf.
Accessed 31 October 2016.
NJ DEP (2008). 2008 Generation, Disposal, and Recycling Rates in New Jersey (Tons). State
of New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.
http://www.ni.aov/dep/dshw/recvclina/stat links/08%20disposal%20rates.pdf.
Accessed 31 October 2016.
OGS (2014). OGS Design Procedures Manual: A Guide to Designing Projects for Design &
Construction. Chapter 9 - Design Guides. Section 9.8 - Hazardous Materials Guide.
Office of General Services, New York.
http://oas.nv.aov/BU/DC/docs/pdf/09080HazardousMaterialsGuide.pdf
Orange County North Carolina (2004). Solid Waste Management, Regulated Recyclable
Materials Ordinance.
http://www.oranaecountvnc.aov/departments/solid waste management/ordinance.p
hp. Accessed 12 August 2015.
Orange County North Carolina (2015). Solid Waste Management, Construction, and
Demolition.http://www.orangecountvnc.gov/departments/solid waste management/
landfill.php. Accessed 12 August 2015.
Powell, J., Jain, P., Bigger, A., Townsend, T. (2015). Development and Application of a
Framework to Examine the Occurrence of Hazardous Components in Discarded
Construction and Demolition Debris: Case Study of Asbestos-Containing Material and
Lead-Based Paint. Journal of Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste (ASCE). DOI:
10.1061/(ASCE)HZ.2153-5515.0000266.
Progressive Waste Solutions, Ltd. (2016). Business and LEED - Recycling.
http://www.prog ressivewaste.com/en/business/leed/recvcling-leed. Accessed 28
October 2016.
Public Architecture (2010). Design for Reuse Primer. Version 2.0.
http://www.usgbc.org/resources/design-reuse-primer-15-successful-reuse-proiects-
within-different-sectors-explored-depth. Accessed 8 Mav 2017.
Rl DEM (2001). Solid Waste Regulation No. 7 - Facilities that Process Construction and Demolition
Debris. State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Department of Environmental
Management, Office of Waste Management.
http://www.dem.ri.gov/pubs/regs/regs/waste/swrg01 7.pdf. Accessed 30 May 2017.
R-10
-------
References
R.W. Beck, CCG, IWCS (2010). Statewide Construction and Demolition Debris
Characterization Study. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Sustainability
Division. June 2010.
https://epd.aeoraia.aov/sites/epd.aeoraia.aov/files/related files/site paae/CandDSt
udv.pdf. Accessed 31 October 2016.
Republic Services (2014). Business Solutions: Construction and Demolition Waste and
Recycling Solutions.
http://site.republicservices.com/corporate/business/construction-recvclina-
waste.aspx. Accessed 28 October 2016.
San Mateo County (2017). Code of Ordinances, Title 4 - Sanitation and Health, Chapter
4.105 - Recycling and Diversion of Debris from Construction and Demolition.
https://www.municode.com/librarv/ca/san mateo countv/codes/code of ordinances
?nodeId=TIT4SAHE CH4.105REDIDECQDE 4.105.020DESARE. Accessed 8 May 2017.
Scott, G. (1996). Recycling of PVC: Effect on the processing operation. In La Mantia, F. P.
(ed), Recycling of PVC & Mixed Plastic Waste. ChemTec Publishing, University of
Palermo, Italy. ISBN: 1-895198-11-9.
Sheridan, S.K., Townsend, T.G., Price, J.L, Conell, J.T., (2000). Policy Options for
Hazardous-Building-Component Removal before Demolition. Practice Periodical of
Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste Management 4(3) 111-117.
Solo-Gabriele, H., Townsend, T., Tolaymat, T., Penha, J., Catilu, V. (1998). Generation, Use,
Disposal, and Management Options for CCA Treated Wood; Report 98-1; Florida
Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management: Gainesville, FL, 1998.
http://www.ccaresearch.ora/CCA-treated wood options 98-l.pdf. Accessed 31
October 2016.
Solo-Gabriele, H., Townsend, T.G., Messick, B., Catilu, V. (2002). Characteristics of
Chromated Copper Arsenate-Treated Wood Ash. Journal of Hazardous Materials B89,
213-232.
Spiegel, R., and Meadows, D. (2010). Green Building Materials: A Guide to Product
Selection and Specification. John Wiley &Sons, 2010.
SPU (Seattle Public Utilities). (2015). Recycling Required for Construction and Demolition
Projects.
http://www.seattle.aov/Util/ForBusinesses/Construction/CDWasteManaaement/Recvc
Una Requirements/index, htm. Accessed 12 August 2015.
Steel Recycling Institute (2014). Steel Markets, At a Glance, http://www.recvcle-
steel.ora/steel-markets.aspx. Accessed 8 June 2016.
StopWaste (2016). Construction and Demolition (C&D) Recycling Requirements in Alameda
County.
http://www.stopwaste.ora/sites/default/files/C8i.D%20Svnopsis%20Matrix March%2
02016.pdf. Accessed 8 May 2017.
Sullivan, C.C., &Kahn, B. (2013). Mastering FSC Wood in Green Building. Environmental
Design & Construction 16 (11), 79.
R-ll
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recycling
SWALCO (2013). Solid Waste Hauling and Recycling Ordinance. Solid Waste Agency of Lake
County. http://swalco.ora/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/64. Accessed 31 October
2016.
SWANA (2011). 2011 Integrated Solid Waste Management Excellence Award Nomination:
Lee County Integrated Solid Waste Management System. Solid Waste Association of
North America.
SWRCB (2016). Groundwater Information Sheet: Boron (B). Developed by the State Water
Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality, GAMA Program.
http://www.swrcb.ca.aov/aama/docs/coc boron.pdf. Accessed 15 November 2016.
The Aluminum Association (2016). Recycling.
http://www.aluminum.ora/industries/production/recvclina. Accessed 8 June 2016.
Thomark, C. (2001). Conservation of Energy and Natural Resources by Recycling Building
Wastes. Resource Conservation and Recycling 33 (2), 113-130.
TIRN (2005). Recycling Construction and Demolition Wastes: A Guide for Architects and
Contractors. Prepared by the Institution Recycling Network, Mark Lennon, Principal
Author, http://www.mass.aov/eea/docs/dep/recvcle/reduce/06-thru-l/cdrauide.pdf.
Accessed 15 November 2016.
TNRCC (2002). Subchapter B: Recycling, Reuse, and Materials Recovery, 328.6 - 328.9.
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission.
http://www.tcea.state.tx.us/assets/public/leaal/rules/rules/pdflib/328b.pdf Accessed
7 August 2015
Tolaymat, T.M., El Badawy, A. M., Carson, D.A. (2013). Estimate of the Decay Rate
Constant of Hydrogen Sulfide from Drywall in a Simulated Bench-Scale Study.
Journal of Environmental Engineering, ASCE, 139, 538-544.
Townsend, T. Jang, Y.C., Lee, S., Leo, K., Messick, B., Tolaymat, T., Weber, W. (1998).
Characterization of Recovered Screened Material from C&D Recycling Facilities in
Florida. The Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management.
http://www.hinklevcenter.ora/imaaes/stories/publications/townsend 98-13.pdf
Townsend, T., Kim, H., Lott, R., Krause, M. (2013). Investigation of Potential Emerging
Groundwater Contaminants at Construction and Demolition Debris Disposal Facilities.
Prepared by the Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences for the Hinkley
Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, University of Florida. March
2013.
Township of Woolwich (2007). An Ordinance Amending Chapter 155 of the Township of
Woolwich Code by Adding Article III Section 155-27—155-37, Relating to the
Diversion of Construction and Demolition Debris from Landfill Disposal. Committee of
the Township of Woolwich, http: //bit. lv/2esfbhA. Accessed 31 October 2016.
TRDI (2015). Texas Recycling Data Initiative, http: //www. reeve I i na sta r. o ra /w p -
content/uploads/2015/02/TRDI Report print-0204.pdf. Accessed 7 August 2015.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2005). Market Valuation of Demolition and Salvage
Materials. Public Works Technical Bulletin PWTB 200-1-26; April 2005.
R-12
-------
References
https://www.wbda.ora/ccb/ARMYCOE/PWTB/pwtb 200 1 26.pdf. Accessed 31
October 2016.
U.S. Census Bureau (2015). Building Permits Survey: Permits by State-Annual.
http://www.census.aov/construction/bps/stateannual.html
U.S. Census Bureau (n.d.) Census Bureau Regions and Divisions with State FIPS Codes.
http://www2.census.aov/aeo/pdfs/maps-data/maps/reference/us readiv.pdf
University of Michigan (n.d.). Construction and Demolition (C&D) Recycling.
http://www.umich.edu/~nppcpub/resources/compendia/ARCHpdfs/ARCHr&rB.pdf.
Accessed 7 March 2016.
USA Gypsum (n.d.). Welcome to USA Gypsum, Green Building Drywall Recycling.
http://www.usaavpsum.com/. Accessed 12 August 2015.
USDOE (U.S. Department of Energy) (n.d.). City of Houston - Property Tax Abatement for
Green Commercial Buildings, http://www.enerav.aov/savinas/citv-houston-propertv-
tax-abatement-areen-commercial-buildinas. Accessed 28 May 2014.
USEPA (2004). RCRA in Focus: Construction, Demolition, and Renovation. EPA530-K-04-
005. September 2004.
https: //nepis. epa.aov/Exe/ZvPDF. ca i/3000665I. PDF? Dockev=3000665I. PDF.
Accessed 15 November 2016.
USEPA (2008). Lifecycle Construction Resource Guide,
https: //nepis.epa.aov/Exe/ZvNET.exe/P1009HHl.TXT?ZvActionD=ZvDocument8i.Clie
nt=EPA8Jndex=2006+Thru+2010&Docs=&Querv=8i.Time=&EndTime=&SearchMetho
d = l&TocRestrict=n8i.Toc=8i.TocEntrv=&QField=&QFieldYear=&QFieldMonth=&QFieldD
av=8JntQFieldOp=0&ExtQFieldOp=08Q(mlQuerv=&File=D%3A%5Czvfiles%5CIndex
%20Data%5C06thrul0%5CTxt%5C00000022%5CP1009HHl.txt8dJser=ANONYMOUS
&Password=anonvmous&SortMethod = h%7C-
&MaximumDocuments=l&FuzzvDea ree=08JmaaeOualitv=r75a8/r75a8/xl50vl50al
6/i425&Displav=hpfr&DefSeekPaae=x&SearchBack=ZvActionL&Back=ZvActionS&Bac
kDesc=Results%20paae&MaximumPaaes=l&ZvEntrv=l&SeekPaae=x&ZvPURI-
Accessed 7 June 2017.
USEPA (2009). Estimating 2003 Building-Related Construction and Demolition Materials
Amounts. EPA530-R-09-002. Washington, D.C.
https://www.epa.aov/sites/production/files/2015-ll/documents/cd-meas.pdf.
Accessed 31 October 2016.
USEPA (2012). Data Gap Analysis and Damage Case Studies: Risk Analyses from
Construction and Demolition Debris Landfills and Recycling Facilities. EPA600-R-13-
303. October 2012. https://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZvPURI-eg i?Dockev= P100NRCJ.txt.
Accessed 31 October 2016.
USEPA (2014a). Drinking Water Contaminants. United States Environmental Protection
Agency, http://water.epa.aov/drink/contaminants/index.cfm. Accessed 10 June
2015.
R-13
-------
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recycling
US EPA (2014b). Why Build Green? October 09, 2014.
https://archive.epa.goV/greenbuildina/web/html/whvbuild.html. Accessed 31
October 2016.
USEPA (2014c). Coal Combustion Residual Beneficial Use Evaluation: Fly Ash Concrete and
FGD Gypsum Wallboard.
https://nepis. epa.aov/Exe/ZvPDF. eg i/P100LD5E. PDF?Dockev= P100LD5E.PDF.
Accessed 14 November 2016.
USEPA (2015a). Methodology to Estimate the Quantity, Composition, and Management of
Construction and Demolition Debris in the United States. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-15/111.
https://cfpub.epa.gov/si/si public record report.cfm?dirEntrvId = 310905. Accessed
31 October 2016.
USEPA (2015b). Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013.
EPA530-R-15-002. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
09/documents/2013 advneng smm fs.pdf. Accessed 31 October 2016.
USEPA (2015c). Deconstruction Rapid Assessment Tool. EPA 905F15001.
https://www.epa.goV/sites/production/files/2015-07/documents/d rat-
instructions. pdf
USEPA (2015d). Asphalt Shingles. WARM Version 13. March 2015.
https://www3.epa.gov/warm/pdfs/Asphalt Shingles.pdf. Accessed 13 October 2016.
USEPA (2016a). Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: 2014 Fact Sheet.
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-
ll/documents/2014 smmfactsheet 508.pdf. Accessed 29 March 2017.
USEPA (2016b). Additions to List of Categorical Non-Waste Fuels. A Rule by the
Environmental Protection Agency on 02/08/2016.
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2016/02/08/2016-Q1866/additions-to-
list-of-categorical-non-waste-fuels. Accessed 8 May 2017.
US EPA (2017). Sustainable Materials Management: Non-Hazardous Materials and Waste
Management Hierarchy, https://www.epa.gov/smm/sustainable-materials-
management-non-hazardous-materials-and-waste-management-hierarchv. Accessed
9 May 2017.
USEPA (n.d). Design for Deconstruction. https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-
11/documents/designfordeconstrmanual.pdf. Accessed 15 November 2016.
USGBC (U.S. Green Building Council) (2015). LEED. http://www.usgbe.org/leed/. Accessed
28 April 2016.
USGS (2000). Recycled Aggregates—Profitable Resource Conservation. USGS Fact Sheet
FS-191-99. http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-0181-99/fs-0181-99so.pdf. Accessed 29 June
2015.
USGS (2015). Crushed Stone Statistics and Information. Minerals Yearbook, 2003-2013.
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commoditv/stone crushed/index.html.
R-14
-------
References
VT DEC (2014). Waste Management & Prevention Division, Construction & Demolition.
http://dec.vermont.aov/waste-manaaement/solid/materials-mamt/construction-
waste. Accessed 12 August 2015.
Wang, N., Fowler, K.M., Sullivan, R.S. (2012). Green Building Certification System Review.
U.S. Department of Energy. PNNL-20966.
http://www.asa.aov/portal/mediaId/197819/fileName/GBCS2012 Cert Svs Review-
action. Accessed 11 June 2015.
Waste Management (2016). Construction and Demolition Debris Collection and Recycling.
http://www.wm.com/enterprise/construction/construction-solutions/c-and-d-
recvclina.isp. Accessed 28 October 2016.
WBJ (2012). Directory of Waste Processing and Disposal Sites 2012.
West, R.C., Willis, J.R., (2014). Case Studies on Successful Utilization of Reclaimed Asphalt
Pavement and Recycled Asphalt Shingles in Asphalt Pavements. A report prepared by
National Center for Asphalt Technology (NCAT). NCAT Report 14-06.
https://ena.auburn.edu/research/centers/ncat/files/technical-reports/repl4-06.pdf.
Accessed 31 October 2016.
WSDOT (2014). Standard Specifications: for Road, Bridge, and Municipal Construction.
Washington State Department of Transportation.
http://www.wsdot.wa.aov/publications/manuals/fulltext/M41-10/SS2014.pdf.
Accessed 31 October 2016.
Zhang, M., Buekens, A., Jiang, X., Li, X. (2015). Dioxins and Polyvinylchloride in
Combustion and Fires. Waste Management and Research, 33 (7), 630-643.
R-15
------- |