Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling: Methods, Markets, and Policy

CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS RECYCLING: METHODS, MARKETS, AND POLICY

KIMBERLY MARIE COCHRAN

A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2006

Kimberly M. Cochran

To my family.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The research performed for this dissertation would not have been possible without

the support of the Science Partners in Inquiry-based Collaborative Education (SPICE)

fellowship (sponsored by the National Science Foundation, the University of Florida, and

Alachua County Public Schools). I also gratefully acknowledge the Florida Center for

Solid and Hazardous Waste and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for their financial support and guidance.

I acknowledge my supervisory committee – Dr. Samuel Barkin, Dr. Joseph

Delfino, Dr. Dr. Jenna Jambeck, and Dr. Angela Lindner – for their support and guidance. I especially thank my committee chair and advisor, Dr. Timothy Townsend, without whom this research would not have been possible. During the five years I have worked with him, I have gained an immeasurable amount of knowledge, wisdom, and hope for the future. It has been a life-altering experience.

I also thank my fellow students, especially Brajesh Dubey, Qiyong Xu, Stephen

Musson, and Stephanie Henry, for their help and support in my research. The support that you all have provided is extremely important in an endeavor such as this.

Finally, I thank my family for supporting my desire to obtain a PhD. Your encouragement and support have allowed me to pursue my dreams. I could not have done it without you.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... iv

LIST OF TABLES...... viii

LIST OF FIGURES ...... x

ABSTRACT...... xii

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1

1.1. Problem Statement...... 1 1.2. Objectives ...... 4 1.3 Research Approach...... 4 1.4 Outline of Dissertation...... 6

2 ESTIMATING US CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION (C&D) DEBRIS GENERATION USING A MATERIALS FLOW ANALYSIS ...... 7

2.1. C&D Debris Generation ...... 7 2.2. Previous Estimates of Waste Generation and Composition ...... 8 2.3. Methodology...... 9 2.3.1. Estimates of Construction Material Consumption in the US ...... 12 2.3.1.1. Concrete ...... 13 2.3.1.2. Wood ...... 14 2.3.1.3. Drywall and plasters...... 15 2.3.1.4. Asphalt shingles ...... 16 2.3.1.5. Steel...... 17 2.3.1.6. Brick and clay tile ...... 17 2.3.1.7. Asphalt concrete...... 18 2.4. Results...... 18 2.5. Discussion...... 24

3 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL MARKET CAPACITY TO ABSORB RECYCLED C&D DEBRIS IN THE US ...... 28

3.1. C&D Debris Recycling in the US...... 28

v 3.2. Methodology...... 30 3.2.1. Concrete...... 30 3.2.2. Wood ...... 32 3.2.3. Drywall...... 34 3.2.4. Asphalt Shingles...... 38 3.3. Results and Discussion ...... 41

4 THE USE OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT (LCA) TO ESTABLISH THE BEST MANAGEMENT METHOD FOR C&D DEBRIS...... 45

4.1. C&D Debris Management ...... 45 4.2. Methodology...... 47 4.2.1. Goal and Scope...... 47 4.2.2. Data Inventory...... 50 4.2.2.1. Disposal scenarios...... 50 4.2.2.2. Recycling scenarios...... 55 4.2.2.3. Incineration scenario ...... 62 4.2.3. Impact Analysis...... 64 4.2.4. Sensitivity Analysis...... 67 4.3. Cost Comparison ...... 68

5 EFFECTIVENESS OF POLICIES THAT ENCOURAGE C&D DEBRIS RECYCLING ...... 70

5.1. Introduction...... 70 5.2. C&D Debris Recycling Barriers...... 70 5.3. Policy Options ...... 73 5.4. Policy Analysis ...... 74 5.4.1. Methodology...... 74 5.4.2. Local Policies ...... 76 5.4.3. State Policies ...... 82 5.5. Discussion/Guidance ...... 84

6 CONCRETE RECYCLING IN FLORIDA: A CASE STUDY ...... 86

6.1. Waste Concrete in Florida ...... 86 6.2. Estimate of Waste Concrete Generation Using a Materials Flow Analysis ...... 87 6.3. Market Capacity Analysis...... 92 6.4. Using LCA to Determine Best Management Practice in Five Major Cities in Florida...... 93 6.4.1. Goal and Scope...... 95 6.4.2. Data Inventory...... 96 6.4.2.1. Disposal scenario...... 96 6.4.2.2. Recycling scenario ...... 97 6.4.2.3. Lake fill scenario...... 99 6.4.3. Impact Analysis...... 100 6.5. Policy Analysis ...... 102

vi 6.6. Discussion...... 106

7 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 108

7.1. Summary...... 108 7.7. Conclusions...... 112 7.8. Academic Contribution...... 113 7.9. Future Research ...... 113

APPENDICES

A LIFE CYCLE EMISSIONS FOR C&D DEBRIS...... 115

B C&D DEBRIS RECYCLING POLICY SURVEY FORM AND RESULTS...... 148

LIST OF REFERENCES...... 160

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ...... 172

vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table page

2-1 Average amount of materials discarded during construction...... 11

2-2 Service lives for building products when used in different construction applications...... 12

2-3 Reported US cement consumption and estimated concrete consumption...... 14

2-4 Comparison of two estimates of building-related C&D debris...... 24

3-1 States that produced crushed stone in the US during 2004...... 32

3-2 Data used to calculate wood recycling markets...... 35

3-3 Data used to estimate recycled gypsum market potential and competition...... 37

3-4 Total value of asphalt pavement and asphalt shingle shipments in the US by state...40

4-1 Amount of pollutants of that will leach from each material in an unlined landfill. ...52

4-2 Amount of pollutants of that will leach from each material in a lined landfill...... 55

4-3 Equipment used in recycling processes and their energy requirements...... 57

4-4 Summary of the energy requirements from each waste management scenario...... 66

4-5 Range of energy amounts needed by methods of C&D debris management...... 68

4-6 Range of national tipping fees for methods of C&D debris management...... 69

5-1 Definitions of policies types that may encourage C&D debris recycling...... 75

5-2 Characteristics of the counties, cities, and states surveyed...... 78

5-3 Results of the local government policy analysis...... 81

5-4 State recycling goals and C&D debris recycling success...... 83

5-5 Guidance questions for implementing C&D debris recycling policies...... 85

viii 6-1 Concrete service life used in different structures...... 90

6-2 Energy requirements of equipment found at concrete and mixed C&D debris recycling and disposal facilities in Florida...... 97

6-3 Assumed distances between the C&D debris landfills and the cities’ centers...... 97

6-4 Assumed distances between recycling facilities, limestone mines, and the city centers...... 99

6-5 Energy requirements of various concrete waste management options in five Florida cities...... 102

6-6 Definitions of C&D debris recycling policies...... 103

6-7 Guidance questions for implementing C&D debris recycling policies...... 104

6-8 Results of a survey of local cities and counties that have enacted C&D debris recycling policies...... 105

6-9 Estimated costs and successes if C&D debris recycling policies are applied in Florida...... 106

A-1 Asphalt shingles life cycle emissions...... 115

A-2 Concrete life cycle emissions...... 125

A-3 Drywall life cycle emissions...... 135

A-4 Wood life cycle emissions...... 145

B-1 Results of the city C&D debris recycling policy survey...... 153

B-2 Results of the county C&D debris recycling policy survey...... 157

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure page

1-1 Basic flow of virgin and waste C&D materials from the cradle to the grave...... 3

2-1 Flow of materials during activities that a building, road, bridge, or other structure can undergo in its lifetime...... 10

2-2 Consumption of US construction materials from 1900 to 2000...... 19

2-3 Amount of US C&D debris generated by .job type in 2002...... 20

2-4 Total US C&D debris composition in 2002 from all job types using different assumptions for service life...... 21

2-5 Composition of building waste only using three different assumptions for building life...... 22

2-6 Projected US C&D debris generation using a materials flow analysis...... 23

2-7 Projected and estimated US construction material consumption...... 23

3-1 Comparison of the amount of C&D debris materials generated, recycled, and potential market capacity...... 41

4-1 Boundaries of the life cycle assessment for drywall, concrete, wood, and asphalt shingles...... 48

4-2 Comparison of global warming potential, human toxicity potential, abiotic depletion potential, and the acidification potential of various methods of management for four C&D debris materials...... 65

4-3 Energy consumption of various transportation methods per Mg of material...... 66

6-1 Historical consumption of concrete in Florida based on reported cement consumption...... 89

6-2 Concrete waste generated in 2002 from various job types as estimated using a materials flow analysis...... 91

6-3 Amount of concrete recycled in Florida during 2004 by permitted and nonpermitted facilities...... 92

x 6-4 Uses of crushed stone produced in Florida during 2003...... 94

6-5 USGS designated districts in Florida...... 94

6-6 Percentage share of crushed stone production and population by district...... 95

6-7 Material flow in the life of waste concrete, including substitution for crushed stone when recycled...... 96

6-8 Global warming potential of various methods of concrete waste management in five Florida cities...... 101

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS RECYCLING: METHODS, MARKETS, AND POLICY By

Kimberly Marie Cochran

December 2006

Chair: Timothy Townsend Major Department: Environmental Engineering Sciences

Construction and demolition (C&D) debris is generated from the construction,

renovation, or demolition of a structure. This waste stream has become a concern across

the United States. Recycling is often seen as a solution, but questions remain regarding

the size of the debris stream, market availability for recycled waste materials, the

environmental impacts from management methods, and how to encourage recycling.

A materials flow analysis was performed to estimate the amount of C&D debris generated from the amount of construction materials consumed each year. It found that approximately 0.8 – 1.3 x 109 Mg were generated in 2002. While this type of estimate

accounts for materials consumed, current assumptions used may result in larger amounts

than the amount actually generated. The size and location of recycled C&D debris

materials markets were investigated to determine if C&D debris recycling programs

across the US are possible. Sufficient market capacity exists for concrete and wood, but

there is not sufficient market for asphalt shingles and drywall faces competition from

xii other materials. A life cycle assessment approach was used to compare environmental

impacts from the various methods of C&D debris management, including disposal,

recycling, and incineration. Recycling was found to be the most beneficial method of

management for concrete, drywall, and asphalt shingles when comparing global warming

potential, human toxicity potential, acidification potential, and abiotic depletion potential.

The best management method for wood was incineration. Policies that encourage C&D

debris recycling around the country were compared. All local policies were successful,

with degrees of success and costs greatly dependent on regional characteristics. State

recycling goals, however, had little impact on increasing recycling.

Finally, a case study was performed for waste concrete in Florida to determine the amount that is generated (40 – 61 x 106 Mg), the market availability, the management

option with the fewest environmental impacts, and the best policy to encourage concrete

recycling. Sufficient market exists to recycle all concrete in Florida. Recycling was

found to have the fewest environmental impacts in most areas of the state. Policies that

required contractors to recycle a percentage of their waste stream were the best for

Florida.

xiii

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1. Problem Statement

Construction and demolition (C&D) debris is the waste material that results from the construction, renovation, or demolition of any structure, including buildings, roads, and bridges. Typical waste components include portland cement concrete, asphalt concrete, wood, drywall, asphalt shingles, metal, cardboard, plastic, and soil. This waste material has only recently gained attention as concerns about its environmental impact have developed.

To fully understand the environmental implications of C&D debris, it is important to understand the size of the C&D debris stream. The exact quantity of C&D debris generated in the US is currently unknown. Many states do not track the amount of C&D debris disposed of or recycled. Some states do collect this data from landfills and recycling facilities, but some facilities do not have scales and report only converted volume estimates.

Methodologies have been developed to estimate how much C&D debris is generated, generally applying average waste generation per unit area amounts to total area of construction, renovation, or demolition activity (Franklin Associates, 1998; Yost and Halstead, 1998; Cochran, 2001). Few other types of national C&D debris estimations have been performed to find a better method or to contrast against the current estimations. A materials flow analysis is routinely used to estimate national municipal

1 2

solid waste (MSW) generation and this method should be tested for the C&D debris

stream.

Recycling is often pursued as the most environmentally preferable method for

managing C&D debris. Finding a market for a recycled waste product is the most

important step in establishing a recycling program. C&D debris is not recycled in many

areas of the US for varied reasons. One reason for the lack of recycling could be that markets for the recycled material do not exist. A market capacity analysis is needed to

determine if there is sufficient demand for recycled materials to warrant C&D debris

recycling programs.

C&D debris is typically disposed, recycled, or incinerated. Because the states

primarily regulate this waste stream and each state has different laws, it can be disposed

in lined and unlined landfills depending on where it is disposed. In a lined landfill,

operators collect leachate from the landfill and either send it to a wastewater treatment

plant or recirculate it in the landfill. In unlined landfills, the leachate escapes into the soil

directly below the landfill, entering the environment. C&D debris may be recycled at a

recycling facility, where it replaces a natural resource or other competitive material in a

new market. C&D debris can be directly reused from the construction site. Some

materials, such as wood, can be incinerated. The energy from incineration can then be

used to generate electricity, although some incinerators do not collect the energy. Figure

1-1 shows the life cycle of typical construction materials.

Although reduction and reuse are the preferred methods of managing the waste

stream according to the USEPA solid waste management hierarchy (2005), recycling is

being pursued as a more realistic method of managing waste with fewer impacts on the

3 environment than the current practice of disposal. There has not been sufficient evidence to determine if recycling C&D debris truly has the fewest environmental impacts of all management methods. Environmental impacts from buildings have been studied extensively, yet the impacts that result from different methods of construction and demolition (C&D) debris management have not (Li, 2006; Junnila and Horvath, 2003;

Scheuer et al., 2003; Harris, 1998). Most building and road life cycle assessments end when waste is dropped off at a landfill. Many options of waste management exist, however, after the waste leaves the job site. A comparison of the environmental impacts of each management method is needed.

Unlined Landfill

C&D Debris Generation Lined Landfill (Buildings, roads, bridges, and WWTP other structures) Incineration without energy recovery Construction and Use Recycling Incineration with Facility energy recovery

Electricity Manufacturers/ generation Materials Preparation Facilities

Natural Resource Extraction

Figure 1-1. Basic flow of virgin and waste C&D materials from the point of generation to point of dissipation into the environment.

Government policies can be use to promote recycling. Although some policies have been implemented to encourage recycling and reuse, regulators can be left wondering where to start. Since the success of policy instruments depends on many regional characteristics, policies should be evaluated to understand which are most effective for encouraging C&D debris recycling.

1.2. Objectives

The objectives of this research were the following:

1. To evaluate the use of a materials flow analysis to estimate the generation amount and composition of C&D debris in the US.

2. To determine if sufficient market capacity exists to recycle all C&D debris materials in the US and to determine which states have the most potential for recycling.

3. To compare the environmental impacts from methods of C&D debris management and determine which method is best for four waste materials: concrete, wood, drywall, and asphalt shingles.

4. To compare the success of policies aimed at encouraging C&D debris recycling and determining how such policies might be applied elsewhere.

5. To determine the amount of concrete debris generated using a materials flow analysis, the potential market capacity for recycled concrete, the concrete debris management method with the fewest environmental impacts, and the best policy instrument to encourage concrete recycling in Florida, US.

1.3 Research Approach

To complete the first objective – evaluating the materials flow analysis method to estimate the US C&D debris generation and composition – consumption of construction materials in the US was analyzed. Typical waste percentages were used to determine the amount of waste generated during construction or the construction phase of renovation.

Average service lives were used to determine when the rest of the consumed materials would be generated as waste during demolition or the demolition phase of renovation.

The approach for achieving the second objective, determining if there are sufficient

US markets for C&D debris recycled materials and determining which states have the most potential for recycling, was to examine markets for materials that could be substituted by recycled C&D debris materials. Demand was analyzed by size and location. Market capacity was then compared to the estimated amount of debris generated, the amount recycled, and the amount of other recycled materials generated that are competitive with recycled C&D debris products.

A life cycle assessment was the approach used to satisfy the third objective of comparing environmental impacts from C&D debris management. Concrete, wood, drywall, and asphalt shingles were investigated. Management methods considered were disposal in an unlined landfill, disposal in a lined landfill, recycling when separated at the job site, recycling when separated at the recycling facility, and incineration (where applicable). Impacts considered were global warming potential, human toxicity potential, abiotic depletion potential, and acidification potential.

To satisfy the fourth objective of evaluating C&D debris recycling policies, policies that can be applied to C&D debris recycling were first compiled and defined.

Locations that had enacted such policies were surveyed. Policies that were considered were those that have been enacted at both the state and local level and their costs, regional characteristics, and recycling rate increases were compared.

Each methodology used in the previous four objectives was applied to concrete waste in Florida to complete the fifth objective. Cochran (2001) found that there is a great potential for recycling concrete in Florida, but much of it is still disposed. Cochran et al. (2006) estimated the amount of concrete generated from building-related C&D

6 debris but the amount of concrete generated from all sources is unknown. Thus, a materials flow analysis was used to determine the amount of waste concrete generated in

Florida. A market capacity analysis was used to determine if sufficient markets exist to recycle concrete in Florida. A life cycle assessment was used to determine if recycling, versus disposal in an unlined landfill or use as lake fill, has the fewest environmental impacts to global warming and surrounding water systems in five Florida cities. Finally, a policy analysis was performed to determine how to encourage concrete waste recycling in the state.

1.4 Outline of Dissertation

The methodology, results, and discussion for each research objective are presented in a separate chapter. Chapter 2 investigates the use of a materials flow analysis in estimating C&D debris generation amounts and composition. Chapter 3 presents the

C&D debris recycling market analysis. Chapter 4 compares C&D debris management methods using a life cycle assessment approach. Chapter 5 evaluates policies used to encourage C&D debris. Chapter 6 applies all methodologies to a case study of waste concrete in Florida. Chapter 7 provides conclusions to all studies used to complete the five objectives. Appendix A provides the life cycle inventory that Sima Pro 5.1 used to calculate final impacts for the life cycle analysis presented in Chapter 4. Appendix B presents results of the local government policy survey discussed in Chapter 5. Full references are provided for all citations in this document following the appendices.

CHAPTER 2 ESTIMATING US CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION (C&D) DEBRIS GENERATION USING A MATERIALS FLOW ANALYSIS

2.1. C&D Debris Generation

Recent concerns over the C&D debris stream and how it is currently managed have

led more state and local governments to review their policies on the material. Solutions

to problems presented by C&D debris require an understanding of what is in the waste stream and how much is generated. Since many regions in the US do not track the amount of C&D debris generated or have an idea of the waste composition, these amounts can only be estimated. Only one method has been used to estimate the amount

of C&D debris generated. This method uses some measure of the current level of

construction, demolition, or renovation activity and applies some waste generation factor

to that level. While this method has produced results acceptable to many, there are no other estimates or definitive numbers to compare them. Other methods of estimation need to be tested for C&D debris.

The materials flow method is often chosen for other waste estimates, but it has never been used to estimate C&D debris. A materials flow analysis estimates the amount of waste generated by determining the amount of material coming into service and approximating when and what proportion of that material will enter the waste stream.

Research was performed to determine if a materials flow method could be used to estimate the amount of C&D debris generated in the US.

7 8

2.2. Previous Estimates of Waste Generation and Composition

Franklin Associates (1998) first estimated the amount of C&D debris generated in the US, using an approach similar to a method reported by Yost and Halstead (1996) to calculate the amount of drywall generated in a specified region. Equations 2-1 and 2-2 show this method, which uses some measure of the level of construction, renovation, or demolition activity in a region (either area, m2, or cost, $) and the average waste

generation per building area (kg/m2) to determine waste generation. Cochran et al.

(2006) used this method to calculate the amount of waste generated in Florida, US.

These estimates investigated building-related C&D debris only.

⎡Area of buildings constructed,⎤ ⎡Average waste generated ⎤ Waste generated (kg) = × (2-1) ⎢ 2 ⎥ ⎢ 2 ⎥ ⎣renovated, or demolished (m )⎦ ⎣per area (kg/m ) ⎦

⎡Cost of construction, renovation,⎤ ⎢ or demolition in a region ($) ⎥ ⎡Ave. waste generation⎤ Waste generated (kg) = ⎣ ⎦ × (2-2) ⎢ 2 ⎥ ⎡Ave. cost of construction, renovation,⎤ ⎣per area (kg/m ) ⎦ ⎢ 2 ⎥ ⎣or demoltion per area ($/m ) ⎦

There are few other methodologies that have been employed in either Florida or the

US to consider. The Franklin Associates (1998) study is the only estimate made for the

US and an update will be published soon. In Florida, the State requires that all C&D

debris facilities report the amount of material they accept (FDEP, 2001), but these

facilities are not required to report the composition of the waste stream. In addition,

these facilities are permitted to accept other materials not considered in the Cochran et al.

(2006) estimate, such as land-clearing debris, pallets, and debris from non-building-

related sources, such as roads and bridges. Since the Cochran et al. estimate was made

for only building-related material, it is difficult to compare the results to the amount that

the State reports.

Another method of estimating C&D debris composition and generation is by

performing waste facility sorts, visual characterizations, and monitoring. This method has been employed by many, including Reinhart et al. (2003), McCauley-Bell et al.

(1997), and Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc. (2004). It uses some combination of visual characterizations to determine composition by volume, mass sorts to determine composition by mass or to convert volume compositions to mass, and monitoring of incoming loads to waste management facilities to determine waste generation amounts.

This type of study requires the examination of a large number of waste samples for representation, which can take a great deal of time and present difficulties for a waste stream that contains bulky, heavy waste materials, such as the C&D debris stream. Thus, this type of study is good for regional waste investigations, but is difficult to apply nationally.

Materials flow (or materials balance) analyses examine at the amount of materials that come into service in a given time range and predict when those materials will come out of service as waste. Adjustments are also made for exports and imports. The USEPA has been using the materials flow method to characterize the municipal solid waste

(MSW) stream in the US since the late 1960s and early 1970s. They use production data

(by weight), average product lifetime, and some waste composition studies to determine the amount of MSW generated in the US and its composition (USEPA, 2003a). This method has not been used in estimating C&D debris generation and composition, however.

2.3. Methodology

A structure can undergo three main activities: construction, renovation, and demolition. All of these activities generate waste, some more than others. The purpose

of this research is to calculate this waste amount using a materials flow method. In

accomplishing this goal it is important to first understand the flow of the materials.

Figure 2-1 shows a flow chart of where materials enter and leave a structure.

Materials (M)

Construction Materials Renovation Materials Demolition (MC) (MR)

Waste Waste (C ) (D ) W W Figure 2-1. Flow of materials during activities that a building, road, bridge, or other structure can undergo in its lifetime.

After the flow of materials is understood, notations are assigned to each variable and equations are written. The amount of materials consumed for all construction activities (M, Megagrams, Mg) is the largest value found in this flow of materials. This mass for a given year can be determined by examining data gathered from industry associations and federal agencies, such as the US Census Bureau and the US Geological

Survey. These agencies and associations often report US production and consumption data for various construction materials. All of these materials are used either in a construction or renovation project.

Not all materials purchased end up in the structure – some are discarded during new construction or during the installation (construction) phase of a renovation project

(CW, Mg). The amount discarded is some portion (wc, %) of the materials, as shown in

equation 2-3.

C W = M × w c (2-3)

The average portion discarded during construction (wc) can be found from construction

guides (DelPico, 2004; Thomas, 1991). Contractors use these guides to help them

estimate the quantity of materials to purchase. Table 2-1 lists these average waste

percentages for each material.

Table 2-1. Average amount of materials discarded during construction. Material Percent Concrete 3% Asphalt concrete 0% Brick and other clay products 4% Drywall and other calcined gypsum products 10% Steel/iron products 0% Wood products 5% Asphalt shingles 10% Sources: DelPico, 2004; Thomas, 1991

Materials that are a part of the structure after initial construction (MC) can be removed during renovation or may stay in the structure until final demolition (MR).

These materials will end up as demolition waste (DW), either during renovation or during

demolition. This waste amount is equivalent to the amount of material still in the

structure after installation, minus the amount discarded during installation, as shown in

equation 2-4.

DW = M – CW (2-4)

Since all materials generally possess a finite service life, it is possible to approximate

when a material will come out of service and be placed in the waste stream. For example, materials that have a 50-year service life discarded in 2002 were originally

produced in 1952. This is shown in equation 2-5.

DW(2002) = M1952 – CW(1952) (2-5)

Materials have varying service lives, depending on their durability and desirability.

Building life cycle assessments and associated databases have used many assumptions for the life of a building and the materials within it. All sources produced ranges of service

lives for materials. Thus, three estimates were made that use short, typical, and long

service lives for the materials. Table 2-2 presents the service lives found in literature.

Table 2-2. Service lives for building products when used in different construction applications. Service Life Material Job Type Range Typical Building 50 – 100 75 Portland cement concrete Roads/bridges 23 – 40 25 Other structures 20 – 50 30 Asphalt concrete Roads 12 – 33 20 Masonry cement Building 50 – 100 75 Brick Building 50 – 100 75 Steel/iron Building 50 – 100 75 Wood – lumber and plywood Building 50 – 100 75 Wood – wood panel Building 20 – 30 25 Gypsum products Building 25 – 75 50 Clay floor and wall tile Building 15 – 25 20 Asphalt shingles Building 20 – 30 25

2.3.1. Estimates of Construction Material Consumption in the US

The following sections present the methods for collecting data on historical US

construction material consumption (M, Mg). The major construction materials are

concrete, wood, metal, drywall and other gypsum products, brick and other clay products,

asphalt concrete, and asphalt roofing materials. These materials are not restricted to use

in buildings, but are used in all forms of structures, including roads, bridges, utilities, and

other structures. Data were found from various statistical sources, including the US

Census Bureau (USCB), the US Geological Survey (USGS), and the US Department of

Agriculture (USDA), and from industry associations.

2.3.1.1. Concrete

While the total production of concrete cannot be found from one source, it can be

calculated by examining the amount of cement produced for concrete production. The

USGS reports the amount of cement consumed in the US (USGS, 2004). In 2002, the

apparent consumption was approximately 100 x 106 Mg of portland cement. Concrete

contains approximately 10 to 17% cement by volume, with 11% being typical. If this

volume approximation is used and assumed densities are 1500 kg/m3 for cement and

2300 kg/m3 for concrete (PCA, 2006), the amount of concrete that this consumption of cement required could be approximated. Thus, the US concrete consumed an estimated

1.4 x 109 Mg in 2002.

The Portland Cement Association (PCA) performs extensive market research on

cement and concrete consumption. They estimate that public and private residential and

nonresidential buildings (including driveways and sidewalks) consumed approximately

47% of cement; streets and highways consumed 33%; and other structures, 20% (2006).

Thus, if these amounts are used, it is possible to estimate the amount of concrete

consumed by each structure type.

Historical concrete consumption must be known to estimate demolition waste

amounts. The USGS provides historical cement consumption data, but does not estimate

concrete consumption or divide the cement consumption numbers by structure type.

These numbers were calculated in the same ways as in 2002, using portland cement

consumption data from the USGS. Since PCA market data do not exist for historical

cement consumption, concrete consumption for each structure type can be calculated

using the proportion of values put-in-place of each structure type (as reported by the US

Census Bureau every year) to the amount of concrete used and the value put-in-place for

each structure type in 2002. Table 2-3 presents the USGS-reported US cement consumption and the calculated US concrete consumption for the years used to calculate

the 2002 US concrete debris generation amount.

Table 2-3. Reported US cement consumption and estimated concrete consumption. Year Reported Cement Estimated Concrete Consumption (106 Mg) Consumption* Total Buildings Roads/ Other (106 Mg) Bridges 2002 100 1,400 680 480 290 1982 57 800 380 220 280 1979 76 1,100 470 270 310 1977 70 980 430 260 290 1972 75 1,100 470 330 260 1962 56 790 290 350 140 1952 43 590 250 200 140 1927 28 400 180 210 66 1902 4 59 31 53 16 *Source: Kelly and Matos, 2006

2.3.1.2. Wood

US timber production is monitored by the USDA Forest Service, which reports the

amount of timber consumed by construction, manufacturing, shipping, and other

industries. Wood used in construction can be divided into lumber and structural veneers

and panels. During 2002, the US consumed 77 x 106 Mg of wood products (Kelly and

Matos, 2006). The USDA Forestry Service estimates that only 77% (approximately 60 x

106 Mg) of this amount is used in the construction industry (Howard, 2003). Lumber is

generally used as a structural material in buildings and thus will generally have the same

service life as the entire building (50, 75, or 100 years). The amount of lumber consumed

for construction was approximately 30 x 106 Mg for 1902, 1927, and 1952. While the

fact that this number did not vary dramatically over 50 years was unexpected, the USGS

has found that consumption of nonrenewable resources has increased since the turn of the

century while the consumption of renewable resources has decreased (Matos and

Wagner, 1998). Thus, an increase in construction would show an increase in nonrenewable resource use, but not necessarily an increase in renewable resource use.

Plywood and other structural veneers are tracked by the USGS, which estimates that approximately 12.2 x 106 Mg were consumed in 2002 (Kelly and Matos, 2006).

Since plywood is part of the structure of the building, it will have the same service life as

the entire structure (50, 75, or 100 years). The US consumed 0.01 x 106, 0.5 x 106, and 2

x 106 Mg of plywood in 1902, 1927, and 1952, respectively.

USGS also found that the US consumed 19 x 106 Mg of wood panel in 2002 (Kelly

and Matos, 2006). Wood cabinets and wood flooring are replaced every 20 to 30 years,

with typical replacement around 25 years (Chapman and Izzo, 2002; Keolian et al. 2001).

The consumption of wood panel in 1972, 1977, and 1972 was 9 x 106, 11 x 106, and 9 x

106 Mg, respectively.

2.3.1.3. Drywall and plasters

The USGS reported that 29.5 x 106 Mg of prefabricated gypsum products and

plasters (including paper, metal, and other additives) were consumed in the US in 2002.

About 96% of this amount was represented by different types of drywall products,

including regular drywall, Type X drywall, pre-decorated drywall, and greenboard. The

other 4% is represented by plasters, laths, veneers, and sheathing. Drywall and gypsum

interior surfaces have a service life of 25 to 75 years, with a typical life of 50 years

(Keolian et al., 2001; Chapman and Izzo, 2002; Scheur et al., 2003). The US consumed

approximately 3.6 x 106, 6.8 x 106, and 13.4 x 106 Mg of drywall and other calcined

gypsum products consumed in 1927, 1952, and 1977, respectively (Kelly and Matos,

2006).

2.3.1.4. Asphalt shingles

The amount of asphalt shingles produced per year can be estimated using the USGS

statistics for the amount of crushed stone used for roofing granules. The USGS reported

that about 4.43 x 106 Mg of crushed stone was used for roofing granules (USGS, 2004).

Roofing shingles are constructed of an asphalt-impregnated organic or fiberglass

material. Coarse granules are placed on top of the asphalt to increase its weather resistance, fire resistance, and decorative appeal. The amount of course granules added

varies by manufacturer, but some shingle recyclers have quoted a range of 20 to 38% by

weight of the shingle (Sengoz and Topal, 2005; CIWMB, 2001). If this range is used to

approximate how many Mg of asphalt shingles can be made with 4.43 x 106 Mg of

roofing granules, the total amount of asphalt shingles manufactured can be approximated

from 12 to 22 x 106 Mg in 2004.

The Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association (ARMA) also approximates the

production of asphalt shingles manufactured in the US. They estimate that 12.5 x 109 square feet of asphalt shingles are produced every year (ARMA, 2006). Most asphalt shingles weigh anywhere from 225 to 325 pounds per 100 square feet, although shingles are produced that weigh either less or more (Bolt, 1997). Thus, this approximation from

ARMA produces a range of 13 x 106 Mg to 18 x 106 Mg, which is a range close to that found from the USGS approximation.

Most sources agree that asphalt roofing products will have a service life of about 20 years (Bolt, 1997; Keolian et al., 2001; Chapman and Izzo, 2002). The amount of asphalt shingles produced each year was not readily available and was estimated by using the annual amount of asphalt produced at US crude oil refineries (EIA, 2004). Thus, the total

17 asphalt shingles produce per year was determined as a proportion of asphalt production to asphalt shingles in 2002.

2.3.1.5. Steel

The USGS tracks the amount of steel, the most heavily used metal in construction, consumed in the US every year. In 2002, the construction industry consumed approximately 18.6 x 106 Mg of iron and steel (USGS, 2002). This amount includes recycled metal. Metal is mostly used in structural elements of structures and will last for their entire lifetime (50, 75, or 100 years). The US consumed 1 x 106, 4 x 106, and 7 x

106 Mg of steel for construction in 1902, 1927, and 1952, respectively (Wattenberg,

1976).

2.3.1.6. Brick and clay tile

The Brick Industry Association estimates that brick manufacturers produced 8.1 x

109 bricks in 2002 (BIA, 2002), which equates to approximately 15 x 106 Mg. This calculation can be made assuming that 500 bricks equate to about one short ton (0.91

Mg). The BIA also estimates that 81% of bricks produced were used in residential construction, 16% in nonresidential construction, and 3% in non-building uses (such as landscaping) (BIA, 2002). Bricks can last the lifetime of a building (50, 75, and 100 years) (Chapman and Izzo, 2002; Scheur et al., 2003). The US consumed 8.93 x 109,

9.47 x 109, and 5.89 x 109 bricks in 1902, 1927, and 1952, respectively (Wattenberg,

1976). This equates to approximately 16 x 106, 17 x 106, and 11 x 106 Mg of brick.

According to the USGS, 851,000 Mg of clay were used for tile. Clay tile is replaced every 15 to 25 years, with a typical service life of 20 years (Chapman and Izzo,

2002). The US consumed approximately 180,000, 350,000, and 630,000 Mg of clay tile in 1977, 1982, and 1987, respectively (Kelly and Matos, 2006).

2.3.1.7. Asphalt concrete

Asphalt concrete production is not monitored nationally. Estimates of production

can be made by examining the consumption of asphalt concrete ingredients – crushed

stone and construction sand and gravel. The USGS keeps statistics on the amount of

these materials consumed in the US every year. The amount of these aggregates used for

bituminous pavements was approximately 390 x 106 Mg in 2002 (USGS, 2002). Typical asphalt concrete contains 95% aggregates and 5% bitumen, by weight. Thus, the US consumed approximately 410 x 106 Mg of asphalt concrete in 2002.

Several studies investigated the service life of asphalt pavement. They found that the service life can range from 12 to 33 years, with a typical life of 20 years (Zapata and

Gambatese, 2005, Park et al., 2003). The US consumed 290 x 106, 160 x 106, 250 x 106

Mg of aggregates in 1990, 1982, and 1969 for asphalt concrete. Thus, the US consumed

an estimated 300 x 106, 170 x 106, and 260 x106 Mg of asphalt concrete in those years,

respectively.

2.4. Results

The US consumed approximately 2.02 x 109 Mg of building materials in 2002.

Most of this amount (approximately 1.4 x 109 Mg) was portland cement concrete

consumption. Asphalt concrete is the next most consumed material at 400 x 106 Mg.

Wood is the third most consumed material at 90 x 106 Mg. Figure 2-2 shows the

historical US construction material consumption. For all years, concrete was the most

consumed materials. Asphalt concrete became the second most consumed materials in

the mid-1920s.

2,500 concrete asphalt concrete wood gypsum products 2,000 asphalt shingles steel/iron . brick and clay tile TOTAL 1,500

1,000 US Consumption (million Mg) Mg) (million Consumption US

500

0 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 Year

Figure 2-2. Consumption of US construction materials from 1900 to 2000.

The total amount of C&D debris generated was an estimated 0.80 x 109, 1.10 x 109,

or 1.3 x 109 Mg, depending on the assumption of a long, typical, or short service life.

Figure 2-3 shows the amount of waste that each job type contributed to the total amount

of waste. Bars in Figure 2-3 show the range of values, as provided by using the range of

material component service lives. The diamond value identifies the anticipated waste that was calculated using typical service life values. Road and bridge demolition produced the largest amount of waste, while buildings and other structures produced comparable amounts of waste. None of the construction activities produced large amounts of waste that had great impact on the total amount generated. The largest, typical, and smallest total values were the sum of the largest, typical, and smallest values from all sources of debris. The spread in the total values reflects the range of debris from each source of debris.

1,400

1,200

1,000

800

600

400 Waste Generated (million Mg) . Mg) (million Waste Generated

200

- road and road and building building other other Total bridge bridge construction demolition structure structure construction demolition construction demolition Job Type

Figure 2-3. Amount of US C&D debris generated by job type in 2002.

Figure 2-4 presents the material composition of the total C&D debris stream in

2002. The three compositions represent varying service life assumptions. In this figure, concrete represents the largest fraction of the waste, followed by asphalt concrete.

Composition varies as material usage through time fluctuates based on market conditions.

Additionally, construction styles have changed as building codes and new techniques are developed. During the early part of the century, the US used more renewable resources

(such as wood) and fewer nonrenewable materials (such as portland cement concrete).

On the other hand, the long service life assumption includes asphalt concrete consumed in 1969 (33 years before 2002). Consumption of asphalt concrete was well on its way up at this time (see Figure 2-2). In contrast, the typical service life includes asphalt concrete

21 consumed in 1982 (20 years before 2002). During this time, consumption of asphalt concrete had declined (see Figure 2-2).

100%

80% )

steel/iron 60% gypsum products brick and clay tile asphalt shingles wood 40% asphalt concrete portland cement concrete Waste Composition (by weight (by Waste Composition

20%

0% Long Typical Short Service Life Assumption

Figure 2-4. Total US C&D debris composition in 2002 from all job types using different assumptions for service life.

If only building-related C&D debris is examined, it is possible to acquire a better understanding of the impacts from the other materials. Figure 2-5 presents the composition of building-related C&D debris using three structure life assumptions. This figure reflects the increase in use of nonrenewable resources (such as portland cement concrete and steel) in construction from 1900 to 1950, while the use of renewable resources (such as wood) in construction has decreased.

100%

80% )

steel/iron 60% gypsum products asphalt shingles brick and clay tile 40% wood portland cement concrete Waste Composition (by weight (by Waste Composition

20%

0% 100 75 50 Building Life Assumption (Years)

Figure 2-5. Composition of building waste only using three assumptions for building life.

Figure 2-6 presents projections of waste generation from 2002 to 2052. Projections were made using consumption data for those materials that last 50 years or more. For

those materials that last less than 50 years, consumption trends were used to determine

their approximate value up to 50 years. The difference between the three waste estimates

increases through time, reflecting the escalation of material consumption (see Figure 2-

1). The shorter service life assumes waste from farther up on the curve of consumption.

The longer service life assumes waste from farther back on the curve. Figure 2-7

presents the historical consumption and uses consumption trends to estimate future consumption.

3,500 total (long) total (typical) 3,000 total (short) ) 2,500

2,000

1,500

1,000 Total Waste Generation (million Mg (million Waste Generation Total

500

- 2002 2012 2022 2032 2042 2052 Year

Figure 2-6. Projected US C&D debris generation using a materials flow analysis.

3,500

3,000

100-year trend 2,500 .

2,000 Consumption

1,500 US Consumption (million Mg) 1,000

500

0 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 Year

Figure 2-7. Projected and estimated US construction material consumption.

2.5. Discussion

The actual amount of C&D debris generated in the US is unknown. The Franklin

Associates (1998) estimate calculated the amount of debris from building-related sources only. Thus, it is only possible to compare the amount of building-related debris calculated in both estimates. A comparison of the Franklin Associates and materials flow

(MF) estimates is presented in Table 2-4. As Franklin Associates calculated C&D debris generated in 1996, a column was added to adjust the estimate to 2002 using value-put-in- place data for residential and nonresidential buildings. There is a large disparity between the Franklin Associates estimate and the materials flow analysis typical service life estimate, as well as the materials flow analysis short service life estimate. The Franklin

Associates estimate and the long service life estimates are somewhat similar in total, however.

Table 2-4. Comparison of two estimates of building-related C&D debris. Franklin Franklin MFA MFA MFA Associates Waste Associates Estimate Estimate, Estimate, Estimate Activity 1996 Long Typical Short Adjusted for Source Estimate Service Life Service Life Service Life 2002 (106 Mg) (106 Mg) (106 Mg) (106 Mg) (106 Mg) Construction 10 11 30 30 30 Renovation 54 61 * * * Demolition 59 65 110 260 320 Total 126 137 140 290 350 * Included in construction and demolition estimates. Note: Totals may not add due to rounding.

There could be a number of reasons for this difference. Because the Franklin

Associates study uses composition studies to estimate material generation, they could be

underestimating heavier materials, such as concrete, if those compositions do not

accurately reflect the materials that are actually used nationally. Additional composition

studies that are more reflective of the variety of construction styles in the US would help

resolve this problem. On the other hand, the materials flow analysis may overestimate

the amount of material demolished. The accuracy of the estimates of when or how much

material is taken out of service is as good as the service life assumptions that are used.

Additionally, the materials flow analysis assumes that all material is removed and enters

the waste stream for disposal or recycling at the end of its service life. It is possible,

however, that some material is removed rather than abandoned.

In general, concrete is the most consumed construction material (see Figure 2-2).

Consumption of concrete is three times that of asphalt concrete and 16 times that of

wood, the second and third most consumed construction materials. Reasons for this

include the heavier density of concrete and its ubiquity in construction uses, whether

under water or on land. Thus, errors in the assumptions used to calculate concrete waste

have the most dramatic effect on the total amount of waste generated. How much

concrete is truly taken out of service each year is unknown and, thus, it is difficult to

ascertain true service lives, especially for the “other structure” category. Estimates of

waste from structures that have well-studied service lives, such as buildings, roads, and

bridges will be more accurate than other structures that are not as studied.

The Construction Materials Recycling Association (CMRA) estimates that

approximately 180 x 106 Mg of concrete are generated each year from all sources of

debris. Their estimate is based on surveys of demolition contractors and recyclers who

claim that 50 to 57% of concrete is recycled and that they recycle approximately 91 x 106

Mg of concrete (Sandler, 2003). This study estimates that 540 to 830 x 106 Mg of

concrete waste are generated each year, with 50 to 260 x 106 Mg arising from building

sources, 280 to 350 x 106 Mg from roads and bridges, and 140 to 290 x 106 Mg from

other structures. These estimates are also dramatically different. The discrepancy could

arise from the CMRA underestimating the amount of concrete actually generated and not

recycled or from this study’s overestimating of the amount of concrete removed from service, not simply abandoned or used longer than the assumed service life.

A report published by the USDOT’s FHWA in cooperation with the USEPA in

1993 estimated that the US generated 91 x 106 Mg of asphalt concrete waste, with 80% of

this amount recycled. The materials flow analysis found that 170 to 300 x 106 Mg were

generated. In comparing value put-in-place data, the US spent 1.26 times more on streets

and highways in 2002 than in 1993 (in constant 1996 dollars). Thus, adjusting the

USDOT/USEPA figure to 2002, the amount of asphalt concrete waste generated in the

US can be estimated as 110 x 106 Mg. The USDOT/USEPA report, however, garners its

results from a survey of state departments of transportation which likely did not report

asphalt concrete generated from non-highway applications, such as parking lots. It is also

possible the states did not report the amount of waste generated from county- and city-

owned roads. The other reason for the discrepancy could be that the materials flow analysis assumes that all asphalt paving will have the same service life as a highway.

This is most certainly not true as asphalt paving is used in parking lots and other applications, which put less strain on the material and, therefore, allow the material to last longer. Additional information on the proportion of asphalt paving that is used in those applications and their service lives are needed.

In general, data sources also play a significant role in the accuracy of the materials flow analysis results. The sources of much of the data rely on industry surveys.

Therefore, many numbers rely on the accuracy supplied by the respondents to those surveys. The more accurate these numbers are, the better the results will be.

CHAPTER 3 ASSESSMENT OF POTENTIAL MARKET CAPACITY TO ABSORB RECYCLED C&D DEBRIS IN THE US

3.1. C&D Debris Recycling in the US

Solid waste is generally managed in five ways: it is recycled, reused, incinerated,

composted, or disposed of. The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has

created hierarchies for solid waste management, identifying the most-to-least preferable

method (USEPA, 2005). Although reduction and reuse are identified as the most

preferable methods of managing the waste stream, recycling is pursued as a practical

method of managing waste when reuse and reduction are not possible. Many estimate that a large percentage of the construction and demolition (C&D) debris can be recycled, although only a small percentage of the material is actually recycled (Cascadia

Consultants, Inc., 2006; Sandler, 2003; Tellus Institute, 2003; Cochran et al., In Press).

For example, it has been estimated that 23% is recycled in Florida (FDEP, 2004) when as much as 65 to 95% of the waste stream could be recycled (Sandler, 2003; Cochran,

2001). Finding a market for a recycled waste product is the most important step in

securing a recycling program. Lack of markets may be a reason that recycling rates of

C&D debris are low.

There have been only limited efforts to assess available markets for major materials

found in C&D debris. Most studies describe the markets that could be used for these

materials or have directories of businesses that accept recycled materials, but do not

discuss the capacity of these markets to accept material. Assessments made in North

28 29

Carolina and California assumed that the entire potential capacity to absorb recycled

materials is the actual amount that is currently recycled (Lindert, 1993; CIWMB, 1996;

NCDENR, 1998). They do not consider any possible market capacity if barriers to

recycling, such as economics, are overcome. Two studies in Florida, however, estimated

the potential demand that existed for these materials in an effort to determine if low

recycling rates were due to lack of sufficient market for the recycled material (Cochran,

2001; Barnes, 2002). These studies used industry data on the consumption of natural

resources that could be replaced with recycled materials to estimate potential recycled

material demand.

Concrete, wood, drywall, and asphalt roofing shingles represent the largest fractions (20% - 99%) of C&D debris (by weight) and have the greatest potential for being recycled. Although metals and cardboard may also represent a large portion of

C&D debris (2% - 41%), they will not be included due to the extensive existing recycling

system already in place for these materials (Franklin Associates, 1998; SPARK, 1991).

Therefore, concrete, wood, drywall, and asphalt shingles should be targeted for recycling

programs.

The objective of this research was to determine if substantial markets exist in the

US for the four major recyclable materials in the C&D debris stream: concrete, wood,

drywall, and asphalt shingles. Similar to the Florida studies, market consumption of

materials was used to determine total potential demand for recycled materials. Markets

were examined geographically to determine which states had the most and least potential

for C&D debris recycling. Competition from natural resources and from other recycled

products was analyzed. Finally, the total potential market capacity for recycled materials

and the amount of waste generated were compared.

3.2. Methodology

This study assumes that many markets that currently use natural resources or other

waste sources could replace these materials with recycled C&D debris products. The

study estimated this potential demand for recycling C&D debris materials by examining

markets that could use recycled materials but generally use natural resources. The

amount of material these markets consumed was then compared with the amount of

recyclable waste material that was generated and the amount currently recycled.

Competitive materials were also analyzed to determine what impact they may have on the

ability to recycle C&D debris materials. Only four C&D debris materials were

investigated here: concrete, wood, drywall, and asphalt shingles. These materials were

selected due to their high potential for recyclability and current low recycling rates in

many regions of the country. Data were found from literature, government agencies, and

industry associations.

3.2.1. Concrete

Concrete is likely the most recycled material of the four materials. The

Construction Materials Recycling Association (CMRA) estimated that approximately 90

x 106 Mg of concrete is recycled nationally. They used a method that counts the number

of concrete crushers in operation and assumes a production rate for each crusher. The

EPA used this figure to estimate that 180 x 106 Mg of waste concrete was generated

nationally (Sandler, 2003).

Concrete can be recycled as subbase and base in road construction, aggregate for

new concrete, drainage media, and surface material – many instances in which crushed

stone is used (Townsend et al., 1998). The US Geological Survey collects data from

crushed stone producers around the country. They reported that in 2004 US producers generated 1.59 x 109 metric tons of crushed stone. Of all of the uses for crushed stone, including construction, agricultural, chemical and metallurgical, the most likely uses for recycled concrete are those in the construction industry. The USGS reported that more

than 630 x 106 Mg of crushed stone was used in construction. An additional 830 x 106

Mg was not reported or reported as used in an unspecified market as not all suppliers know exactly what their customers are using their products for. It is quite possible that some of this material was used in construction. If so, the total demand for crushed stone

(or recycled concrete) in construction could be as high as 1.5 x 109 Mg. To be

conservative, however, only those uses that frequently employ recycled concrete were

examined – riprap and jetty stone, filter stone, railroad ballast, graded road base or

subbase, and unpaved road surfacing. These markets alone consume 180 x 106 Mg of concrete. If the same percentage of the market represented by these uses (11%) is applied to the unspecified and unreported numbers, it can be assumed that almost an additional

100 x 106 Mg was used. This would mean that the demand for recycled concrete could

range from 180 x 106 Mg to 1,500 x 106 Mg, with a conservative estimate of 280 x 106

Mg.

Table 3-1 shows all the states that produce any type of crushed stone, including limestone, dolomite, marble, granite, traprock, sandstone, quartzite, slate, shell, and volcanic cinder. Of all the states but Delaware produce crushed stone. Texas,

Pennsylvania, Florida, Georgia, and Illinois are the top five producing states.

Table 3-1. States that produced crushed stone in the US during 2004. Crushed Crushed Crushed stone stone stone State State State produced produced produced (103 Mg) (103 Mg) (103 Mg) Alabama 49,100 Louisiana* W Ohio 76,400 Alaska 2,230 Maine 4,370 Oklahoma 40,200 Arizona 11,100 Maryland 29,900 Oregon 22,800 Arkansas 32,900 Massachusetts 13,600 Pennsylvania 112,000 California 55,400 Michigan 35,800 Rhode Island 1,600 Colorado 11,000 Minnesota 10,900 South Carolina 31,300 Connecticut 10,000 Mississippi* 2,760 South Dakota 5,370 Delaware 0 Missouri 69,100 Tennessee 57,900 Florida 105,000 Montana 4,090 Texas 122,000 Georgia 79,500 Nebraska 6,900 Utah 8,020 Hawaii 5,190 Nevada 9,760 Vermont 5,110 Idaho 3,320 New Hampshire 4,750 Virginia 72,500 Illinois 76,500 New Jersey 25,500 Washington 12,300 Indiana 56,800 New Mexico 3,430 West Virginia 14,700 Iowa 36,800 New York 52,700 Wisconsin 38,600 Kansas 19,800 North Carolina 72,300 Wyoming 7,150 Kentucky 55,600 North Dakota W Other 10,100 Source: Tepordei, 2004; W = Withheld to avoid disclosing proprietary data. These numbers are included in the “Other” category; *A significant amount of material was shipped in from other states.

3.2.2. Wood

The amount of wood from C&D debris generated, disposed of, and recycled in the

US is unknown. McKeever (2004) estimated that 35.7 x 106 Mg of C&D debris wood

was generated in 2002, while the EPA has estimated that 25 x 106 Mg of C&D debris

wood waste was generated annually (Sandler, 2003). McKeever (2004) also estimated that 17.3 x 106 Mg of waste wood was recovered from the national C&D debris stream

for recycling or combustion in 2002.

C&D debris wood recycling has many complicated issues and few markets. It is

commonly recycled as mulch, but it is also often incinerated as boiler fuel (Cochran,

2001). Both of these uses could pose problems if the wood waste stream contains CCA-

treated wood and other contaminants. While recyclers attempt to pull treated wood from

their recycling piles, many pieces are undetected and recycled into mulch. If CCA- treated wood is incinerated for boiler fuel, the ash left behind can contain high levels of arsenic (Solo-Gabriele et al., 2002).

The US consumed 2.032 x 1015 Btus of energy from wood waste, about 2% of the total national energy consumption in 2002. Sources of this wood waste include timber manufacturing, pulp and paper mills, and C&D debris. If one US short ton of wood waste produces 9.961 x 106 Btus of energy, approximately 190 x 106 Mg of wood waste

was consumed in 2002. Most wood waste (74%) captured for energy is used by the

industrial sector, but about 7% of energy from wood waste is consumed for electric

power. The nation only uses 70% of its capacity for electricity generation from wood

(EIA, 2003). If full capacity were used, an additional 5 x 106 Mg of wood waste could be

consumed. Table 3-2 amount of energy generated from wood waste in the US by state.

Thirty states use wood waste for energy. Alabama, Maine, California, Georgia, and

Louisiana are the top five states with the most capacity.

Cochran (2001) used a method that is commonly used by the Mulch and Soil

Council to estimate demand for mulch. This method uses the number of owner-occupied

houses, percentage of occupied homes that are regular customers, typical number of bags

that are purchased per customer, and the average weight of a mulch bag. This study

assumed that a home uses seven bags of mulch per year, each weighing 50 pounds

(approximately 23 kg). It also assumed that 25% of the occupied homes are regular

customers. The US Census Bureau reports that 60% (approximately 74.6 million) of the

houses in the US were occupied by the owner in 2005 (US Census Bureau, 2006). Using

these assumptions, the demand for mulch was estimated at 3 x 106 Mg. Table 3-2 shows

the number of housing units and percentage that are owner-occupied in each state.

Competition for markets arises from other wood waste producers, such as timber harvesters and processors. McKeever (2004) performed an inventory of woody residues.

This study found that approximately 177.5 x 106 Mg of residuals were generated from the

timber industry in 2002, with 76% available for recovery.

3.2.3. Drywall

The amount of drywall generated in the US has been estimated by various sources.

The USGS estimated that more than 4 x 106 Mg of gypsum was generated from C&D

sources as well as manufacturing scrap (USGS, 2006). The USEPA estimates that the

amount is closer to 12.7 x 106 Mg per year (Sandler, 2003). There are no estimates on

the amount of drywall recycled.

Drywall is not often recycled because it is difficult to recover once it has been

mixed with other materials. Drywall consists of a layer of gypsum (around 85%, by

weight) sandwiched between two layers of paper (around 15%, by weight). It can be

recycled into most markets that consume gypsum, such as new drywall manufacture,

portland cement manufacture, and agriculture (Townsend et al., 2001). Drywall is

generally processed for recycling by removing the paper and other contaminants,

although agricultural markets may not require the paper to be removed because it

decomposes. Thus, comparisons here will be made for the gypsum from drywall only.

Table 3-2. Data used to calculate wood recycling markets. Net Generation from Wood Waste Homeownership Rates Housing Units State (million kWh) (%) (#) Alabama 4,172,256 72.5 1,963,711 Alaska 0 62.5 260,978 Arizona 0 68.0 2,189,189 Arkansas 1,504,696 69.4 1,173,043 California 3,323,777 56.9 12,214,549 Colorado 0 67.3 1,808,037 Connecticut 0 66.8 1,385,975 Delaware 0 72.3 343,072 Florida 1,828,239 70.1 7,302,947 Georgia 2,974,339 67.5 3,281,737 Hawaii 0 56.5 460,542 Idaho 533,333 72.4 527,824 Illinois 0 67.3 4,885,615 Indiana 0 71.4 2,532,319 Iowa 0 72.3 1,232,511 Kansas 0 69.2 1,131,200 Kentucky 9,552 70.8 1,750,927 Louisiana 2,640,656 67.9 1,847,181 Maine 3,530,143 71.6 651,901 Maryland 11,939 67.7 2,145,283 Massachusetts 129,768 61.7 2,621,989 Michigan 1,700,261 73.8 4,234,279 Minnesota 574,709 74.6 2,065,946 Mississippi 1,432,117 72.3 1,161,953 Missouri 0 70.3 2,442,017 Montana 65,425 69.1 412,633 Nebraska 0 67.4 722,668 Nevada 0 60.9 827,457 New Hampshire 858,769 69.7 547,024 New Jersey 0 65.6 3,310,275 New Mexico 0 70.0 780,579 New York 502,686 53.0 7,679,307 North Carolina 1,642,330 69.4 3,523,944 North Dakota 0 66.6 289,677 Ohio 403,072 69.1 4,783,051 Oklahoma 230,696 68.4 1,514,400 Oregon 701,120 64.3 1,452,709 Pennsylvania 596,736 71.3 5,249,750 Rhode Island 0 60.0 439,837 South Carolina 866,107 72.2 1,753,670 South Dakota 0 68.2 323,208 Tennessee 779,426 69.9 2,439,443 Texas 897,605 63.8 8,157,575 Utah 0 71.5 768,594 Vermont 370,408 70.6 294,382 Virginia 1,148,106 68.1 2,904,192 Washington 1,065,093 64.6 2,451,075 West Virginia 1,198 75.2 844,623 Wisconsin 705,354 68.4 2,321,144 Wyoming 0 70.0 223,854

Markets in the US consumed approximately 36.3 x 106 Mg of gypsum. Of this

amount, markets imported 10.1 x 106 Mg into the US (Founie, 2004). This amount

includes gypsum that was produced for all uses. Gypsum is calcined for wallboard and

other plaster products. In its crude, uncalcined form, it is often used in cement

production or agriculture. About 25.5 x 106 Mg (70%) was calcined for use in

construction, primarily for wallboard production. Of the rest, 8 x 106 Mg was consumed

in the cement industry and 2.7 x 106 Mg was consumed by agriculture (Founie, 2004).

Table 3-3 shows the states that have the highest market potential for recycled

drywall. These states are those that produce cement, generate calcined gypsum for

drywall, or grow crops that can benefit from gypsum application (such as bell peppers,

cabbage, corn, cotton, cucumbers, peanuts, potatoes, soybeans, squash, tomatoes and

watermelons). Cement production and calcined gypsum was found from the USGS

(Tepordei, 2004; van Oss, 2004). The USDA reports crop production for the US (NASS,

2002).

Recycled gypsum from drywall faces competition from mined gypsum and from

synthetic gypsum. In 2004, the US mined approximately 17.2 x 106 Mg of naturally

forming gypsum. Synthetic gypsum is formed during other industrial processes, such as

the electricity production. Coal-fired power plants use a lime slurry to remove SO2 and

SO3 from their flue gas, forming gypsum. This product is known as flue gas

desulfurization (FGD) gypsum. Coal-fired plants produced 11.95 x 106 Mg of synthetic

FGD gypsum and sold 9.04 x 106 Mg to various gypsum markets, but mostly wallboard

manufacturers (93%) (ACAA, 2005). Table 3-3 shows the production of gypsum at

mines by state and the consumption of coal for electricity generation (where FGD

Table 3-3. Data used to estimate recycled gypsum market potential and competition. Calcined Gypsum Cement Crops Benefiting Gypsum Coal Consumed State Produced Produced from Gypsum mined for Electricity (103 Mg) (103 Mg) (km2) (103 Mg) (103 Mg) Alabama 554 4,796 4,726 0 31,827 Alaska 0 0 3,359 0 357 Arizona 212 1,375 1,316 310 18,198 Arkansas 983 1,377 17,517 750 13,896 California 2,510 11,928 8,359 1,390 838 Colorado 212 1,353 5,207 311 17,464 Connecticut 0 0 236 0 1,934 Delaware 0 0 1,484 0 1,864 Florida 1,510 5,232 2,174 0 25,078 Georgia 481 944 10,406 0 32,744 Hawaii 0 0 0 0 729 Idaho 0 743 2,954 0 0 Illinois 677 3,009 87,930 0 49,059 Indiana 677 3,077 46,234 288 53,940 Iowa 1,930 1,419 93,401 1,920 19,843 Kansas 677 2,687 27,434 750 20,084 Kentucky 0 1,077 0,380 0 35,690 Louisiana 983 0 7,426 750 14,492 Maine 0 1,633 444 0 152 Maryland 413 2,519 4,195 0 10,502 Massachusetts 477 0 185 0 3,953 Michigan 916 2,844 18,552 452 32,035 Minnesota 0 0 59,851 0 18,207 Mississippi 0 1,077 13,065 0 9,026 Missouri 0 5,263 34,844 0 40,260 Montana 0 743 493 0 10,271 Nebraska 0 1,419 54,307 0 11,476 Nevada 1,410 743 63 1,390 7,713 New Hampshire 477 0 125 0 1,506 New Jersey 477 0 874 0 4,018 New Mexico 212 1,375 1,276 310 15,115 New York 2,130 1,633 7,249 288 8,802 North Carolina 413 0 13,227 0 27,145 North Dakota 0 0 18,705 0 21,695 Ohio 223 1,020 32,994 288 49,890 Oklahoma 983 1,377 3,798 3,250 18,410 Oregon 492 960 601 0 1,884 Pennsylvania 585 6,228 8,897 0 46,900 Rhode Island 0 0 23 0 - South Carolina 0 3,114 4,409 0 14,113 South Dakota 0 1,419 35,491 311 2,112 Tennessee 0 1,077 10,023 0 22,527 Texas 1,470 11,183 35,393 2,450 92,318 Utah 212 743 393 1,390 15,065 Vermont 0 0 754 0 0 Virginia 413 944 5,183 288 13,501 Washington 244 960 1,861 0 6,241 West Virginia 0 944 320 0 32,619 Wisconsin 0 2,844 26,193 0 22,477 Wyoming 244 1,353 445 311 23,975

gypsum is produced) by state. These two materials are competitors for post-consumer

recycled gypsum. Gypsum is mined in 20 states, with the top five gypsum-producing

states being Oklahoma, Texas, Iowa, California, and Nevada. Coal is consumed for

electric power in 47 states. The top five consuming states are Texas, Indiana, Ohio,

Illinois, and Pennsylvania.

3.2.4. Asphalt Shingles

The CMRA, University of Florida, and the NAHB Research Center estimate that 6 to 10 x 106 Mg of asphalt shingles are disposed of in the US every year (Sandler, 2003;

NAHB Research Center,1998). While many studies have been performed on the viability

of recycling asphalt shingles, there is no consensus of exactly how much is actually recycled.

Asphalt roofing shingles can be recycled into new hot mixed asphalt (Grzybowski,

1993; Newcomb et al., 1993). Roofing shingle scrap from manufacturers is sometimes

recycled in this manner. Some hot mix asphalt manufacturers are hesitant to use shingles

from C&D debris-generating projects due to possible contamination.

The potential capacity for recycling asphalt shingles into roads can be calculated by estimating the amount of asphalt concrete consumed in the US per year. The amount of asphalt concrete produced per year can be estimated using several methods. First, US consumption of asphalt from crude oil refineries was considered. The problem with this is that asphalt is also used to make asphalt shingles. Next, the consumption of crushed stone, sand, and gravel used in making asphalt concrete was considered. The US consumed 74.7 x 106 Mg of sand and gravel in 2004 for asphaltic concrete aggregates and

other bituminous mixtures (USGS, 2004). The US also consumed 118 x 106 Mg of

crushed stone in 2004 for bituminous aggregates (USGS, 2004). If 6% of asphalt

concrete is represented by the bitumen and the rest by aggregates, it can be assumed that

200 x 106 Mg of asphalt concrete was consumed (Lavin, 2003; Grzybowski, 1993;

Newcomb et al., 1993). If 28% of the bitumen can be replaced by shingles, this method

yields approximately 3.4 x 106 Mg of shingles that can be recycled in this manner

(Grzybowski, 1993; Newcomb et al., 1993).

Production of asphalt concrete by state is not available. The USEPA used an estimate of 3,600 hot mix asphalt plants in 1996 in the US for its AP-42 Emission

Factors, but their locations are not known (USEPA, 2004). Due to this lack of data, the

2002 Economic Census was consulted to determine asphalt concrete production by state

(US Census Bureau, 2002). The US Census Bureau collects data from manufacturers,

such as the total value of shipments by state, shown in Table 3-4. This source may not be reliable, however, as it only shows 18 states that manufactured asphalt concrete in 2002.

The top ten producing states were California, New York, Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania,

Michigan, Illinois, New Jersey, Florida, and Georgia. An internet search, however, shows that some states reported as not producing asphalt concrete contain hot mix asphalt

plants.

Recycled asphalt shingles face competition for end markets from shingle

manufacturers’ scrap. Manufacturer scrap is a clean material, generally containing little

contamination from nails and other materials. Additionally, there is still a fear of

asbestos in old shingles and, since shingles are no longer manufactured with asbestos,

scrap is guaranteed to be asbestos-free. The National Association of Homebuilders

(NAHB) Research Center estimates that 60 manufacturing plants across the US generate

0.62 to 0.82 x 106 Mg of scrap (1998). Again, the US Census Bureau’s 2002 Economic

Census was consulted to determine where the production of asphalt shingles is occurring.

Table 3-4 shows the production of asphalt shingles by state (by value of shipments in thousands of dollars) (US Census Bureau, 2002). This source reports that asphalt

shingles were only manufactured in ten states. The top five producing states are Texas,

California, Ohio, Alabama, and Georgia. An internet search, however, found that there

are other manufacturing plants not accounted for by the US Census Bureau.

Table 3-4. Total value of asphalt pavement and asphalt shingle shipments in the US by state. Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt Asphalt State Pavement Shingles State Pavement Shingles ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) ($1,000) Alabama 142,150 367,917 Montana - - Alaska - - Nebraska - - Arizona - - Nevada - - Arkansas - - New Hampshire - - California 1,030,846 602,040 New Jersey 238,980 - Colorado 142,439 - New Mexico - - Connecticut 131,088 - New York 586,704 - Delaware - - North Carolina - - Florida 214,722 - North Dakota - - Georgia 152,056 345,066 Ohio 514,534 516,624 Hawaii - - Oklahoma - - Idaho - - Oregon - - Illinois 276,746 297,722 Pennsylvania 480,633 333,555 Indiana - - Rhode Island - - Iowa - - South Carolina 76,482 - Kansas - - South Dakota - - Kentucky - - Tennessee - - Louisiana - - Texas 538,095 701,806 Maine 47,866 - Utah - - Maryland 146,913 297,708 Vermont - - Massachusetts - - Virginia - - Michigan 351,421 - Washington 69,593 100,502 Minnesota - 215,125 West Virginia - - Mississippi - - Wisconsin 39,570 - Missouri - - Wyoming - - Source: US Census Bureau, 2002

3.3. Results and Discussion

Figure 3-1 compiles all of the results of the market capacity analysis. This figure

shows the amount of each material generated, the amount that is currently recycled, the

potential demand for recycled products, and amount of competing material produced.

Concrete has the largest market and is also the waste material most generated. Wood has the second largest market, but also faces substantial competition from other recycled wood sources. Drywall and asphalt shingles face the largest market shortage.

Although there have been many discussions on the recyclability of concrete, some

markets are still hesitant to use this material (such as state departments of transportation).

Hesitancy to use the material results from fear of contamination from post-consumer

RCA, such as nails, wood, asbestos, or lead paint. Successful use of the material by

private sectors has eased this fear and some states , such as Texas and Florida, do use or

are in the process of trying post-consumer RCA in road constructions.

300 Generated Amount Recycled Amount 250

) Potential Recycled Amount 200 Other Competing Products

150

100 Amount (million Mg (million Amount 50

0 Concrete Wood Drywall Asphalt Shingles C&D Debris Material

Figure 3-1. Comparison of the amount of C&D debris materials generated, recycled, and potential market capacity.

The most promising locations for recycling concrete are in the top five crushed

stone producing states – Texas, Pennsylvania, Florida, Georgia, and Illinois. Crushed

stone is a cheap material and is unlikely to be moved far distances due to cost of

transportation. Thus, it is likely that these states also have the highest demand for the

material, which can be replaced by crushed stone. Since these markets are being satisfied

by crushed stone in the state, competition from the natural material in some parts of the

state may make recycling difficult. States such as Mississippi and Louisiana that received a substantial amount of crushed stone from outside the state would also likely be

able to have successful recycling programs. This is especially true post-Katrina, where

substantial amounts of concrete are discarded and a large amount of rebuilding is

occurring. Almost all states produce and demand crushed stone, however, as roads are in

constant need of development and redevelopment. Thus, a concrete recycling program

could be successful in most states.

Wood has a large potential for recovery through mulch and incineration. This is

likely to increase as the US moves away from foreign sources of energy. In fact, four

new wood-fired power plants have recently come online. Some of these plants rely on

the harvesting of tree stands for energy sources (USDOE, 2006). With the large

generation of wood waste from C&D debris, however, such plants should look to the

potential of using waste sources. A large potential problem in either market is

contamination from CCA and lead-based paint. Some sources have shown that CCA-

treated wood may represent up to 30% of the waste stream and may increase (Solo-

Gabriele and Townsend, 1999). Incinerating CCA-treated wood causes the heavy metals

in the wood to become concentrated.

Alabama, Maine, California, Georgia and Louisiana have the greatest potential for

incinerating wood waste. There are wood waste incinerators in only 30 states. Thus, this

method of managing wood waste is limited to these locations. Market capacity is sure to

increase, however, as the country looks to alternative fuels for energy. Recycling wood waste into mulch can occur in almost any state, as there are homes in every state. This is a limited market, however, and alternate markets should be explored. In addition, possible contamination from CCA-treated wood remains a concern.

While there is sufficient capacity to recycle all of the drywall generated, recycled gypsum faces substantial competition from FGD gypsum. Additionally, production of

FGD gypsum is expected to increase due to more stringent regulations. These new regulations, however, may result in an increase in the heavy metal content of FGD gypsum that may lead to the undesirability of its use in drywall manufacture.

Drywall has a better chance of being recycled in states (such as California) that

have a great demand for gypsum in all three markets with little competition from FGD

gypsum. Since much of the coal is mined in the eastern portion of the US, some western

states use other energy sources. States such as Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana, with heavy

demand for gypsum due to high crop areas would also have a great potential for

recycling. States, such as Pennsylvania, may have difficulty with drywall recycling

programs due to the likely high production of FGD gypsum and relatively small market

demand for gypsum. It must be noted, however, that this study assumes that each market

that consumes gypsum can consume 100% recycled gypsum instead. Some, however,

have found that markets (such as cement manufacturing) will not accept 100% recycled

gypsum and must use a blend of mined and recycled gypsum due to material handling

equipment (Townsend et al., 2001). This will reduce the market size for recycled gypsum.

The results from this study show that there is not sufficient capacity for recycling asphalt shingles. Additionally, manufacturer scrap does pose a substantial competition for an already low market. New market sources should be investigated for this material.

Locations where asphalt shingle recycling might be successful include California,

New York, and Texas. Not all states produce asphalt pavement and, therefore, asphalt

shingle recycling programs may be limited nationally. In addition, many of the states that

produce asphalt pavement also produce asphalt shingles, causing post-consumer shingles

to face substantial competition from manufacturer scrap.

CHAPTER 4 THE USE OF LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT (LCA) TO ESTABLISH THE BEST MANAGEMENT METHOD FOR C&D DEBRIS

4.1. C&D Debris Management

Construction and demolition (C&D) debris is generated from the construction, renovation, or demolition of a structure. Disposal continues to be the primary method of management for the waste stream, although the USEPA has defined a hierarchy where recycling and incineration are preferable (2005). This study aims to determine if recycling has the fewest environmental impacts for four waste materials or if other methods create fewer environmental impacts. Life cycle assessments were used to make this comparison.

A life cycle assessment (LCA) is “the examination, identification, and evaluation of the relevant environmental implications of a material, process, product, or system across its life span from creation to waste or recreation in another useful form” (Graedel, 1998).

LCAs have evaluated the different methods of municipal solid waste (MSW) management and there are sources that provide life cycle inventories (Solano et al., 2002a and 2002b; Weitz, 1999; White et al., 1995). Computer programs have been developed to help evaluate MSW management options (Kaplan et al., 2004; Weitz et al., 1999; PRé

Consultants, 2002).

Many LCAs have been performed regarding the environmental impacts from buildings and roads (Gonzalez and Navarro, 2006; Li, 2006; Lollini et al., 2006;

Erlandsson and Levin, 2005; Keolian et al., 2005; Zapata and Gambatese, 2005;

45 46

Emmanuel, 2004; Katz, 2004; Mithraratne and Vale, 2004; Erlandsson and Borg, 2003;

Junnila and Horvath, 2003; Park et al., 2003; Scheuer et al., 2003; Thormark, 2002;

Frangopol et al., 2001; Stripple, 2001; Nishioka et al., 2000; Schenck, 2000; Harris,

1998; Adalberth, 1997; Jonsson et al., 1997; Cole and Kernan, 1996; Hakkinen and

Makela, 1996; Horvath and Hendrickson, 1996; Stammer and Stodolsky, 1995) and computer programs have been developed to help building design decision-making

(Athena Institute, 2006; Zhang et al., 2006; Horvath et al., 2003; NIST, 2003; PRé

Consultants, 2002; Ries and Mahdavi, 2001). Most LCAs regarding buildings revolve around the buildings themselves and discuss waste management at great length. Some estimate the energy that each building consumes through materials manufacturing, use of the building, and landfilling (sometimes recycling). Most, however, end their life cycle when the truck dumps the debris at a landfill.

A few studies have investigated some C&D debris materials. Jambeck et al. (In

Press) used the USEPA MSW DST model to compare landfill disposal to incineration of chromated copper arsenate (CCA)-treated wood. Borjesson and Gustavsson (2000) investigated the life cycle of wood versus concrete in building construction. They estimated gas emissions from landfill disposal but did not investigate impacts from leachate. The USEPA released a document comparing greenhouse gas emissions from clay brick reuse and concrete recycling (USEPA, 2003b). Rivela et al. (2006) compared recycling temporary wood structures into particle board versus incinerating it.

To evaluate the environmental impacts of various methods of C&D debris management, a life cycle analysis evaluating the impacts from the time the waste was generated until the point that the material recycled or dissipates into the environment was

used. Research was performed to evaluate the environmental impacts from disposing,

recycling, and incinerating (where applicable) four major C&D debris materials:

concrete, wood, drywall, and asphalt shingles. Emissions to the air, soil, and water are

considered here. Impacts that were analyzed were global warming potential, human

toxicity potential, acidification, and abiotic depletion potential.

4.2. Methodology

4.2.1. Goal and Scope

The goal of this assessment is to determine the environmental trade-offs between

management methods, especially if additional transportation is needed. For example, if

leachate from debris disposal is sought to be limited through recycling, are the trade-offs

with recycling emissions worth the program change?

The functional unit for all four of the waste materials is 1 Mg (metric ton) of waste

material. This is appropriate as most waste materials are measured by weight incoming

to a disposal or recycling facility. Additionally, other researchers performing building

LCAs may be able to easily use these data if a weight measurement is used.

The major unit processes that are being examined are waste collection, C&D debris landfill disposal (with and without leachate collection and treatment), incineration (with and without energy recovery), materials recovery and processing, materials transportation, natural resource extraction (when recycling does not occur), and electrical energy (when energy recovery from waste does not occur). Boundaries for each waste material are described in Figure 4-1.

The scope of these LCAs does not include energy usage from waste management offices or other buildings associated with any stage. Additionally, none of the impacts from the construction of the infrastructure, such as the construction of landfills, waste-to-

48 energy plants, or manufacture of machinery or trucks, is included. Only the impacts from the acts of transporting, processing, and disposing are included.

Unlined Lined Landfill Landfill Waste drywall generation Lined Landfill Concrete waste Unlined Landfill

Recycling / processing (job Recycling/ Recycling Recycling/ site separated) processing Facility (job processing (separated at site separated (separated at the facility) the facility) Use in new drywall, cement manufacture, or Road agriculture Construction

Gypsum mining/ Aggregate mining/ crushing crushing

(a) (b)

Unlined Landfill Unlined Lined Landfill Landfill

Wood Asphalt Lined Waste Incineration without shingle waste Landfill energy recovery

Recycling/ Recycling/ Recycling/ Recycling/ Processing Processing Processing (job Processing Incineration with (job site (separated site separated) (separated at energy recovery separated) at the the facility) facility) Hot Mix Asphalt Plant Mulch Crude Oil Electricity Extraction generation Other wood waste Crude Oil products Refining

Figure 4-1. Boundaries of the life cycle assessment for (a) drywall, (b) concrete, (c) wood, and (d) asphalt shingles.

C&D debris ends up in many types of landfills around the U.S. Each state has its own laws regarding landfill construction, siting, and monitoring. According to a recent

study, 27 states allow C&D debris to be disposed of in unlined landfills, 14 require a

natural liner (three of which require leachate collection), and nine require either a

composite or double liner (Clark et al., 2006). Since the majority of the states do not require liners for C&D debris landfills, one assumption made in this assessment is that leachate generated from the disposal of C&D debris is allowed to be released into the soil below the landfill. This material has the potential to impact the groundwater and the land in general, especially if the land were to be used as something different in the future.

Another disposal scenario is that the debris is sent to a lined landfill where the leachate is collected and sent to a wastewater treatment plant instead.

In all recycling scenarios, impacts from use are not considered. For example, It is assumed that after the asphalt shingles are mixed into hot mix asphalt, the asphalt mix will have similar impacts to the environment that would occur without the addition of recycled material. Thus, impacts from transporting the asphalt and using it to construct a road are not considered.

When C&D debris is recycled, it is generally sent to a location that has the ability to process the material before its reuse in a market. This recycling facility separates the material, processes it, and sells it to a consumer. In some locations, however, the material is separated first at the job site and sent to the recycling facility. In these

situations, manual or mechanical separation at the recycling facility is not necessary.

Some C&D debris is incinerated, either with or without energy recovery. When

energy is recovered, it avoids some electricity generation from other sources.

Incineration produces air emissions and an ash that must be managed.

Impacts from particulate matter (dust) are not considered. There is a lack of data from disposal and recycling facilities on the amount of dust. Additionally, data published on the amount of dust produced from natural resource extraction (such as USEPA AP-42 factors) are not always reliable because they determined from a limited number of tests performed only on some (not all) machines used during these processes (USEPA, 2004).

These dust emissions factors vary tremendously depending on moisture content, wind speed, and other factors. Thus, an assumption for dust emissions from various C&D debris related processes across the country would not be reliable.

4.2.2. Data Inventory

Data were collected for all scenarios from literature and from equipment manufacturers. These manufacturers were contacted to determine which machines were most popular, typical configurations at recycling facilities, and typical material processing rates. Studies conducted on landfill leachate and gas production from various wastes were consulted to determine potential landfill impacts from each waste. Finally, the Franklin Associates database in Sima Pro 5.1 was consulted for unit processes common to most LCAs, such as US electrical generation and transportation by truck.

4.2.2.1. Disposal scenarios

Since only four waste materials from the C&D debris stream are being examined here, environmental impacts from those materials in landfills are examined. Emissions to the air come from the equipment used at the landfill and landfill gas. Water emissions result from leachate from the landfill.

It is assumed that one 300-kW compactor compacts 200 Mg/day of C&D debris, resulting in 39 MJ/Mg of diesel energy required to compact waste. Additionally, landfill gas from C&D debris landfills primarily consists of methane (CH4), carbon dioxide

(CO2), and hydrogen sulfide (H2S). For wood, Borjesson and Gustavson (1999) performed an LCA comparing greenhouse gas generation from wood and concrete in building construction. They assumed that only 10 to 40% of the wood would decay in landfills, using a 20% figure as the anticipated amount of decay. This is a reasonable figure given the high lignin content of wood. Using this degradable fraction, 70 kg of

CO2 and 30 kg of CH4 is produced per Mg of wood. If the methane portion is flared off

in a lined landfill, 150 kg of CO2 will be produced.

Drywall also produces landfill gas in the form of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) under

aneaerobic conditions common in landfills. Equation 4-1 describes this decomposition process (Postgate, 1984; Hao et al., 1996). Drywall consists of approximately 85%

gypsum and 15% paper. Therefore, if 5% (0.0425Mg) of the gypsum can be converted,

then 9.4 kg of H2S will be formed per Mg of drywall. The H2S can then be converted to

18 kg of sulfur dioxide (SO2) in the atmosphere.

sulfate−reducing bacteria − SO4 +2CH 2O ⎯⎯→⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯ H 2S + 2HCO3 (4-1)

Unlined Landfills. The amount of leachate produced per metric ton is dependent

on the amount of rainfall that is produced in a given region. The average amount of rainfall in the US is 76 cm/year. It is assumed that 20% of the rainfall will turn into leachate. Townsend et al. (1999) studied simulated leachates from a mixed C&D debris stream and four C&D debris materials: cardboard, concrete, drywall, and wood. Results from this study were used to approximate leachate concentrations in landfills. Table 4-1 shows the amount of pollutant in the leachate that is produced over 500 years with these assumptions.

Townsend et al. (1999) used only new, untreated wood in their study of leachate

produced from C&D debris materials. Wood in the C&D debris stream, however, often

contains a large proportion of CCA-treated wood. Studies have shown that CCA-treated

wood can represent 9 to 30% of the wood waste stream (Blassino et al., 2002; Solo-

Gabriele et al., 2004). It is likely that the amount of CCA-treated wood in the waste

stream will continue to represent one-third of the waste stream for 10 to 20 years as treated wood from the last decade (when 36 to 48% of southern yellow pine, a major source of construction wood was treated) is taken out of service (Solo-Gabriele et al.,

2004).

Table 4-1. Amount of pollutants of that will leach from each material in an unlined landfill. Pollutant Concrete Wood Drywall (kg/Mg) (kg/Mg) (kg/Mg) Arsenic - 1.2 - Calcium 10 10 130 Carbonate 20 1 30 Chromium - 1.3 - Copper - 0.02 - Sulfate 1 2 260 Total dissolved solids 30 110 540

The amount of CCA in treated wood can vary depending on the product, from 4 to

40 kg/m3 (AWPA, 1999). There is a lack of data on the proportion of this waste stream

that each product represents. The American Wood Preservers’ Association (AWPA) and

the American Wood Preservers’ Institute (AWPI) have reported that average wood

preservation retention values ranged from around 4.6 to 5.8 kg/m3 (Solo-Gabriele et al.,

2003).

Leachate studies have been performed on C&D debris and MSW using simulated- landfill lysimeters and varying amounts of CCA-treated wood. If the amount of CCA-

treated wood is adjusted to 100%, these studies have shown leachate concentrations of

9.1 to 42.2 mg/L, 7.4 to 25.4 mg/L and 0.1 to 8.0 mg/L for arsenic, chromium, and copper, respectively (Jambeck, 2004; Jang and Townsend, 2003). These studies have shown, however, that other waste products have an impact on the amount of metals leached from treated wood products (as is typical) than if it is disposed of by itself (such as in a monofill). Thus, in this study, it is necessary to use results that might be most likely to be encountered in a C&D debris landfill. Jambeck (2004) did perform a lysimeter study with waste amounts similar to what is found in a C&D debris landfill.

She assumed that 30% of the wood waste mass (10% of the total waste mass) would be represented by CCA-treated wood (average retention value of 4.8 kg/m3).

This study uses the same percentage (30%) of treated wood in all wood waste management scenarios. While wood recovery facilities attempt to remove CCA-treated wood, studies have shown that treated wood remains in recovered wood waste streams (0

– 30%) (Tolaymat et al., 2000; Tolaymat et al., 2001; Solo-Gabriele et al., 2001;

Townsend et al., 2003). Thus, even though it is likely that less CCA-treated wood would be encountered in a recycling stream than a disposal stream, it is important that the same waste is compared evenly for each management method for the purposes of this study.

Using the results of the Jambeck (2004) study, it is possible to assume that if 1.26 mg As/L, 0.75 mg Cr/L, and 0.01 mg Cu/L leach from a waste stream containing 10.2%

CCA-treated wood, 3.68 mg/L As, 2.21 mg/L Cr, and 0.03 mg/L Cu will leach from a waste stream containing 30% CCA treated wood. Therefore, if 650,000 L of leachate is

produced for 1 Mg of wood containing 30% CCA-treated wood, it will leach 2.39 kg As,

1.43 kg Cr, and 0.02 kg Cu. The arsenic and chromium amounts are greater than that

54 contained in the wood (1.2 kg As and 1.3 kg Cr). Thus, 100% of the amount of As and

Cr will leach in 500 years, while only 3% Cu is leached. These results are added to the other leachate contaminants in Table 4-1.

Lined Landfills. The biggest differences in lined versus unlined landfills are the amount of leachate produced and the chemistry inside the landfill. In a lined landfill, precipitation is prevented from entering after the landfill is covered. In an unlined landfill, precipitation may enter the waste and produce leachate long after the final load of waste is placed. In the MSW DST, an assumption is used that 20% of the precipitation becomes leachate during the first 1.5 years, 6.6% in the subsequent 3.5 years, 6.5% the following 5 years, and 0.04% after 10 years. This assumes that the most precipitation becomes leachate when the waste is placed into the landfill cell, less precipitation when part of the cell is finished and covered and part is still unfinished, and the least when the cell is closed. This same assumption is used here.

If C&D debris is disposed of in a lined landfill, it is anticipated that it will be co- disposed of with MSW, which is required under federal law to be disposed of in lined landfills. Due to the complex chemistry of MSW, leachate concentrations for some wastes are likely different than if C&D debris is disposed of by itself. Data are lacking as to the actual concentrations of leachate pollutants from individual C&D debris materials when co-disposed of. Thus, similar assumptions will be made as to the amount of leaching per liter of leachate for most pollutants as was made for unlined landfills.

The exception is that of CCA-treated wood. Jambeck (2004) also did a leachate analysis for CCA-treated wood when co-disposed of with MSW. Adjusting the results from that study for 30% CCA-treated wood by weight, it is possible to determine the amount of As,

Cr, and Cu that will leach per Mg of wood waste. Table 4-2 lists all of the assumed

leached pollutants in a lined landfill over 500 years.

Table 4-2. Amount of pollutants of that will leach from each material in a lined landfill. Pollutant Concrete Wood Drywall (kg/Mg) (kg/Mg) (kg/Mg) Arsenic - 0.06 - Calcium 0.1 0.1 1.4 Carbonate 0.2 - 0.3 Chromium - 0.02 - Copper - 0.001 - Sulfate - - 2.7 Total dissolved solids 0.3 1.1 5.7

4.2.2.2. Recycling scenarios

The scope of this life cycle assessment begins at the point of waste generation and

ends when the material is recycled or has dissipated into the environment. To recycle

C&D debris materials, they must be separated by material. This can either be performed

at the job site or recycling site. In a scenario where waste is separated at the job site,

materials are processed directly. Processing can occur either at a recycling facility or at

the market that will use the recycled material. If the materials are not separated at the job

site, they can be manually or mechanically separated for recycling at a recycling facility.

In a scenario where C&D debris is disposed of, it does not require separation and can be taken directly to the disposal facility.

There are two recycling scenarios: one where the waste materials are separated at the job site by placing them into a separate bin or pile and one where they are separated at the recycling facility by machine or by hand. Both scenarios are used in different areas of the U.S. If waste is separated at the job site, it is assumed that no additional transportation is needed for additional collection (Townsend et al., 2001).

Drywall. Drywall can be recycled into many markets, but one of the most

promising is new drywall manufacture. It is generally processed to remove the paper

facing and backing (about 15% of the drywall content, by weight) and other contaminants

that may be mixed in the waste stream. The material must also be processed to reduce

the size of the material. Once the drywall is sufficiently processed, the gypsum can be

used by the markets for their applications. In drywall manufacture, the gypsum becomes the core of new drywall.

When discussing environmental impacts from recycling, processing waste drywall to remove the paper backing and other waste stream contaminants from the gypsum is of most concern. Additionally, the gypsum must be size reduced to meet the market specifications. There are different ways to accomplish this, but the method explored in

Florida for processing uses a trommel screen to separate the gypsum from the paper

backing. This method was able to achieve a 70% recovery rate, by weight (Townsend et

al., 2001). A loader is necessary to move the material around as well as initial size

reduction by running the loader over the pile several times. Table 4-3 provides the

energy requirements for all equipment used in the recycling and disposal scenarios. Once

the material is processed, it can then be recycled into new drywall, cement, or as an

agricultural amendment. Each market currently uses mined gypsum, so the

environmental impacts from the use of the material in these markets will not be analyzed.

In this scenario, the residue (30%) is assumed to be disposed of.

A recycling scenario assumes that gypsum mining and processing is avoided through recycled gypsum use. Although there are many markets for gypsum, one of the most viable for recycled gypsum from drywall is new drywall manufacture. Thus,

environmental impacts of gypsum mining and processing must be examined in this

scenario. There is a lack of data from the US on environmental impacts from gypsum

mining. While LCAs have been performed on cement (for which gypsum is an

ingredient), they often only assess the environmental impacts on site and do not include

impacts from purchased materials, such as gypsum (Marceau et al., 2006; Gabel et al.,

2004). The American Institute of Architects mentions that recycling drywall into new drywall requires 30% less energy and is mined and processed similar to crushed stone with explosives and draglines commonly used in surface mines. Thus, similar energy is needed. This is confirmed by Sima Pro 5.1, which assumes that 53 MJ/Mg of energy is needed to mine gypsum (PRé Consultants, 2002).

Table 4-3. Equipment used in recycling processes and their energy requirements. Energy Requirements Equipment Name Waste Material (MJ/hour) Range Assumed Loadera Drywall, wood, concrete, shingles 350 – 860 460 Excavatora Wood, concrete, shingles 150 – 390 280 Trommel screenb Drywall 300 – 600 440 Finger screen Wood, concrete, shingles, drywall 300 – 600 300 Horizontal grinderc Wood, shingles 900 – 2,300 1,000 Tub grinderc Wood, shingles 500 – 4,800 2,500 HSI crusherd Concrete 500 – 1,400 870 Compactora All materials 700 – 1,500 1,080 Source: a Caterpillar; 2005; b Powerscreen, 2005, Morbark, 2005, Diamond Z; 2005, c Morbark, 2005, Diamond Z, 2005, Bandit, 2004; d Eagle Crusher, 2005

Concrete. Concrete can be recycled into most markets that are currently satisfied

by crushed stone. The most common markets for recycled concrete are those in

construction, specifically road base (86%), asphalt concrete (8%), and general fill (6%).

The USGS reports that concrete recycling facilities fall into three processing categories:

small (110 x 106 Mg/year), medium (253 x 106 Mg/year), and large (312 x 106 Mg/year)

(Wilburn and Goonan, 1998). Typical concrete crushing facilities in the past consisted of

jaw and cone crushers for primary and secondary crushing. Eagle Crusher (Galion,

Ohio), one of the major manufacturers of concrete recycling equipment, reports that

horizontal shaft impactors (HSI) have replaced the jaw/cone crushing system as the most

popular systems purchased today (Chris Harris, Eagle Crusher, personal communication).

In addition to the HSI crusher, a recycling facility will generally have an excavator that

can crush very large pieces of concrete and place the concrete into the HSI crusher. A

loader is also needed to move material around and put the material into consumer trucks.

There are several sources for information on the amount of energy used by concrete

recycling facilities. Wilburn and Goonan (1998) reported that a Denver, Colorado

recycling facility used 34 MJ/Mg of concrete. Data from Sima Pro 5.1 show that an

average concrete recycling facility in the Netherlands uses 8.35 MJ/Mg (PRé

Consultants, 2002). Neither of these sources discuss what is using this energy (machines, buildings, etc.). According to brochures from Eagle Crusher, the most popular crusher

(the 1200-25 model) requires 325 hp (242 kW) of power and can process approximately

250 tons (227 Mg) per hour (Eagle Crusher, 2006). This equates to approximately 4

MJ/Mg. An excavator and loader moving the same amount per hour equates to 1 MJ/Mg and 2 MJ/Mg, respectively (Caterpillar, 2006). Therefore, all of the equipment at a typical concrete recycling facility requires approximately 7 MJ/Mg. This is a conservative estimate, however, as loaders probably do not move as much material per hour as a crusher can process.

If concrete is recycled, benefits are accrued through the reduction in need of virgin aggregates that the recycled aggregate is able to replace. The major impacts to the environment from mining and crushing rock are energy use and dust emissions. Both

Wilson (1993) and Wilburn and Goonan (1998) agree that crushed stone requires 54

MJ/Mg of energy. A database in Sima Pro 5.1 uses a 62 MJ/Mg of limestone factor (Pre

Consultants, 2002).

Wood. Wood is used in construction as structural material and paneling. It is discarded during the construction process as cut-offs or unnecessary extra. It is also removed during renovation and demolition. The reuse of wood from old structures in new buildings does occur, but is considered a very minor portion of C&D debris management. Recycling of wood waste does occur, but it is generally recycled into mulch.

Once the wood arrives at the recycling facility, unless already separated it is separated from the other wastes. It is then put through a grinder – usually a tub or horizontal grinder. This scenario assumes a horizontal grinder as it is more compact and safer for urban areas, where recycling facilities may exist. A horizontal grinder used at a recycling facility may process around 94 Mg/hour and consumes approximately 17

MJ/Mg (Morbark, 2006; Diamond Z, 2006; Bandit, 2006). The recycling facility will need a loader to move material and an excavator to load the grinder. If a typical recycling facility receives approximately 200 Mg/day of C&D debris, a loader and an excavator will require 11.6 and 0.9 MJ/Mg, respectively

Although recycling facilities make every attempt to remove CCA-treated wood from the stream that is recycled, it is still found in mulch samples. It is assumed here that the same amount of treated wood in the disposal stream enters the recycling stream.

Emissions to soil from the mulch, assuming that 30% of the wood is CCA treated with a

4.8 kg/m3 retention value, are the total amount of metals contained in the Mg of wood –

1.2 kg As, 1.3 kg Cr, and 0.8 kg Cu. While this assumption may be high since many recyclers do attempt to remove treated wood from the recycled stream, this amount has been found in the recycled stream (Tolaymat et al., 2001). Additionally, it is important to keep the same assumptions for all management methods of wood waste.

Since wood waste is recycled into mulch, energy savings from recycling will not come from lack of lumber or structural wood manufacturing. The only savings that might occur are those from the lack of natural resources needed in producing mulch.

There are a variety of sources for mulch: it is produced as a byproduct of the forest industry, from yard wastes, from trees cleared to make room for new development or utilities, and from trees felled for the sole purpose of making mulch. While data on the national composition of mulch is lacking, a survey of mulch distributors in Florida found that 60% of mulch was cypress; 20% pine bark; 17% recycled wood waste and mixed hardwoods; and 1% pine straw, melaleuca, and cypress. Most cypress, pine bark, and mixed hardwood mulch results as a byproduct of the forestry industry, but some cypress trees are felled for mulch only (Duryea, 2001). Conversations with the Mulch and Soil

Council (MSC) found that, other than mulch from recycled C&D debris wood, most mulch produced in the US is a byproduct of the timber industry, rather than from felled trees (Lagosse, MSC, personal communication, 2006). This assessment will look only at the scenario where mulch is created as a byproduct of the forest industry. Therefore, no additional energy is needed to harvest the trees. Energy is, however, still needed to grind the wood. A similar set-up as a recycling facility (without separation) is assumed with a horizontal grinder. Thus, the same amount of energy is used.

Asphalt Shingles. Asphalt shingles contain approximately 35% asphalt, 45% sand,

and 20% mineral filler (Newcomb et al., 1993). They are typically disposed of in

landfills, but can be recycled into asphalt concrete. Fiberglass-backed and felt-backed

roofing shingle wastes can be used in related bituminous applications, such as granular

base stabilization, patching materials, or in hot-mix asphalt concrete (Newcomb et al.,

1993). This scenario will investigate shingles use in dense-graded hot mix asphalt

mixtures. Asphalt shingles can be added to hot mix asphalt in percentages up to 10% by

weight of the aggregate, but a conservative estimate might be 5% by weight of aggregate

(Newcomb et al., 1993; Grzybowski, 1993). At this percentage, the amount of asphalt

binder needed for the hot mix is reduced by approximately 28% (Newcomb et al., 1993).

Shingles are generally ground to a smaller size to ensure better melting and easier

adding to hot mix asphalt. A horizontal grinder, such as those used to grind wood for

mulch, has been shown to be effective in this endeavor (RMG, 2001). Horizontal

grinders process around 40 Mg/hour of asphalt shingles, requiring approximately 23

MJ/Mg of diesel energy. An excavator is needed to put the material in the grinder and a

loader is needed to move the material and load outgoing trucks. If a typical recycling

facility receives 200 Mg/year of C&D debris, a loader would require approximately 12

MJ/Mg of diesel energy. An excavator moving 40 Mg/hour of shingles into the grinder

requires approximately 6 MJ/Mg.

If asphalt shingles replace asphalt from crude oil sources in asphalt cement, the amount of asphalt needed is reduced in asphalt cement. Although “native” asphalt exists naturally, almost all asphalt today is petroleum derived. In this process, crude oil is extracted from deposits around the world and shipped to a refinery in the US. At the

refinery, the crude oil is passed through an atmospheric distiller and a vacuum distiller to

produce a basic asphalt cement (Lavin, 2003). The amount of energy needed to extract

oil, transport it to a refinery, and refine it to make bitumen (asphalt) is about 3,000

MJ/Mg (Zapata and Gambatese, 2005). The asphalt can then be transported (generally,

by rail or ship) to hot mix asphalt plants where it is kept heated until it is mixed with

aggregate. The final mixture must also be kept warm before being shipped to a road

contractor for construction.

Separation at the Recycling Facility. Additional equipment is needed at

recycling facilities that separate the waste materials mechanically. A screen is generally

used to remove fines from the larger pieces of debris. Generally, a trommel screen or a finger screen is used in this application. Trommel screens are more likely to break up

drywall so that it is removed in the fines. A finger screen is necessary to remove drywall

in large pieces. A picking station is then needed to separate the big pieces of debris. The

picking station is generally powered off of the screen. An extra excavator is needed to

load the screen and pull large pieces of debris out of the waste stream. A typical C&D

debris facility can be assumed to process around 40 Mg per hour. Therefore, an

excavator and a screen will require about 7 MJ/Mg each.

4.2.2.3. Incineration scenario

Wood is incinerated along with other wastes, such as land-clearing debris and

municipal solid waste (MSW). Many of the incinerators are used in the production of

energy, but this is not always the case. Two scenarios are considered for incineration:

one with energy capture and one without. Either way, the wood is required to be ground

so that it may be more easily fed to the incinerator. Grinding is assumed to be conducted

in the same way that mulch is made – with a horizontal grinder or tub grinder. The total

amount of energy captured by burning 1 Mg of wood is approximately 12,700 MJ.

The ash from incinerators is generally disposed of. Solo-Gabriele et al. (2002)

examined the amount of heavy metals that leached from CCA-treated wood ash produced

from wood with CCA retention values of 4, 9.6, and 40 kg/m3. They also tested ash

produced from incinerating mixtures of treated and untreated wood. Adjusting the 4-

kg/m3 retention value leaching results from this study for 4.8 kg/m3 retention value and

30% treated wood (70% untreated wood), it is possible to estimate that the ash would

have leachate concentrations of 21.1 mg As/L, 10.3 mg Cr/L, and 0.02 mg Cu/L.

Jambeck et al. (In Press) also compared the environmental impacts of landfilling versus

incinerating treated wood waste and assumed the waste stream contained 2% treated

wood for disposal and 5% treated wood for incineration. Thus, the leachate values for

incineration ash in that study were much lower (1.76 mg As/L and 4.79 mg Cr/L). As

stated previously, the purpose of this study is to compare the management methods for

the same amount of waste. Therefore, the same assumption for all management methods

of wood waste is used (30% CCA-treated). Ash requires 0.0245 m2/Mg of landfill space

and, if leachate is produced as assumed in the MSW DST, the amount of metals released in a lined landfill from the ash were 414 mg As, 202 mg Cr, and 0.4 mg Cu per Mg of ash. This is equivalent to 8 mg As, 4 mg Cr, and 0.01 mg Cu per Mg of wood waste.

While heavy metals in CCA-treated wood can be volatilized into the air, fuel composition that is expected at waste incinerators affect the percentage that is volatilized

(Iida et al., 2004). Thus, similar to the Jambeck et al. (In Press), it assumed that all heavy

metals concentrate in the ash rather than volatilize in the flue gas. This may be changed

if data regarding heavy metal content from actual wood waste incinerators are obtained.

4.2.3. Impact Analysis

Impacts considered in this LCA were global warming potential, human toxicity potential, acidification potential, and abiotic depletion potential. Sima Pro 5.1 was used to perform the impact analysis for comparison using the Centre of Environmental Science

(CML) 2 baseline 2000 impact method, with normalization for the Netherlands in 1997.

Figure 4-2 compares the impacts for each waste material. It must be noted that none of these comparisons includes transportation impacts.

These charts show that wood incineration with energy capture for electricity has the biggest negative impact (offsetting the most emissions) of all methods of management for all materials. It must be noted that while this method of management releases the lowest amount of metals that cause human toxicity into the environment through ash leaching, incineration concentrates the chemicals in the ash to an extent that the ash becomes classified as a hazardous waste and must be disposed of as such. This can occur in wood waste streams containing as little as 2% CCA-treated wood (Solo-Gabriele et al., 2002).

If energy is not captured for electricity from wood incineration, the preferable method of management is disposal in a lined landfill. This method will keep metals from treated wood from leaching after the landfill cell has closed. Thus, human toxicity is reduced. Additionally, all methane generated from disposal will be collected and flared.

Therefore, global warming potential is reduced. If all treated wood is excluded from the waste stream, recycling is the preferred method of management. Energy consumption and subsequent emissions from transportation must be considered, however.

1,200 1,600 1,000 800 1,400 600 1,200 400 200 1,000 0 800 -200 eq) -400 600 -600 400 -800 -1,000 200 -1,200 0 -1,400 Global Warming Potential (kg CO2 (kg CO2 Potential Warming Global -1,600 eq) 1,4-DB (kg Toxicity Human -200 wood concrete drywall shingles wood concrete drywall shingles Waste Material Waste Material (a) (b) 1 25 -1 20 -3 15 10 -5 5 -7 0 eq) -9 -5 -11 -10 -13 -15 -15 -20 Acidification Potential (kg SO2 eq)

Abiotic DepletionPotential (kg Sb -17 -25 wood concrete drywall shingles wood concrete drywall shingles Waste Material Waste Material (c) (d) Recycled, separated at the job site Recycled, separated at a MRF Disposed in an unlined landfill Disposed in a lined landfill Incinerated Incinerated with energy recovery

Figure 4-2. Comparison of (a) global warming potential, (b) human toxicity potential, (c) abiotic depletion potential, and the (d) acidification potential of various methods of management for four C&D debris materials.

The energy consumption for each waste management process is listed in Table 4-4.

These energy requirements do not consider transporting of the material to the waste management facility. In recycling scenarios, these energy requirements do not consider transporting the recycled material or natural resource to the end user.

Table 4-4. Summary of the energy requirements from each waste management scenario. Asphalt Concrete Wood Drywall Scenario Shingles (MJ/Mg) (MJ/Mg) (MJ/Mg) (MJ/Mg) Disposal 39 39 39 39 Recycling, job site separated -47 0 -30 -800 Recycling, separated at facility -33 14 -16 -790 Incineration with energy capture NA -12,700 NA NA Incineration NA 24 NA NA NA = Not Applicable

Figure 4-3 shows the energy consumption of various modes of transportation. A

truck consumes the most energy, while an ocean freighter consumes the least. It is easy

to see how using a truck to transport material can increase energy consumption, even over short distances. Thus, impacts to the environment are dramatically dependent on the

amount of transportation that is needed.

8,000 Truck (single unit) Diesel locomotive 7,000 Barge Ocean Freighter 6,000 Tractor Trailer

5,000

4,000

3,000

Energy Consumption (MJ/Mg) Consumption Energy 2,000

1,000

- 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 Distance (km)

Source: PRé Consultants, 2002

Figure 4-3. Energy consumption of various transportation methods per Mg of material.

The best method of management for drywall is recycling. Figure 4-2 shows that

the biggest impact from drywall management is acidification from landfilling.

Acidification results from the conversion of H2S gas to SO2 in the atmosphere.

Recycling avoids acidification, but transportation must be taken into account.

Recycling asphalt shingles offsets impacts from using natural resources on the environment and is the preferred method of management. As Figure 4-2 shows,

recycling asphalt shingles has the most positive benefits due to the avoidance of creating

asphalt from crude oil. It must be emphasized that transportation effects must be

considered for a particular location for all management methods.

4.2.4. Sensitivity Analysis

The sensitivity analysis was conducted by using a range of values collected in the data inventory. While typical and most likely values were used in the impact assessment described above, this analysis investigates how the possible range of values found could cause the impacts to vary. Energy had the greatest variation in all scenarios, while leachate and gas production variances produced many results for drywall and wood scenarios.

Energy capture from wood waste can vary depending on the moisture content of the wood. In fact, energy from wood incineration can vary from 8 to 16 GJ (Tchobanoglous et al, 1993). This can cause the global warming potential value to range from -600 to

-2,000 kg CO2 equivalents (eq), the human toxicity potential to range from -60 to -140 kg

1,4-DB eq, the abiotic depletion potential to range from -10 to -20 kg Sb eq, and the

acidification potential to range from -15 to -30 kg SO2 eq. Given this variance,

incineration still has a great negative impact and is still the preferable method of

management, even if there is no CCA-treated wood in the waste stream. Concrete

68 management is most affected by the amount of energy used in managing the debris at waste facilities (and natural resource extraction). The range of energy requirements for each management method is presented in Table 4-5. These ranges should also be considered when factoring in energy consumption from transportation.

Table 4-5. Range of energy amounts needed by methods of C&D debris management. Asphalt Concrete Wood Drywall Scenario Shingles (MJ/Mg) (MJ/Mg) (MJ/Mg) (MJ/Mg) Disposal 24 – 53 24 – 53 24 – 53 24 – 53 Recycling, job site separated -40 – -50 25 – 60 -25 – -40 -800 – -810 Recycling, separated at facility -30 – -45 -15 – -55 -15 – -35 -790 – -805 Incineration with energy capture NA -8,000 – NA NA -16,000 Incineration NA 25 – 60 NA NA

Regardless of the amount of H2S gas generated, recycling will still be the best management method for drywall. The only deviation from this recommendation is if H2S gas is not generated at all. Then, energy consumption from various methods of management must be compared using the ranges of energy from Table 4-5.

The biggest impact from asphalt shingle management comes from avoiding bitumen production. Energy consumption for bitumen production does not vary widely unless sources of crude oil change. Thus, assuming sources of crude oil are static, energy consumption from transportation will have the largest influence on impacts from recycling asphalt shingles.

4.3. Cost Comparison

Table 4-6 presents A cost comparison of the various methods of waste management. Where applicable, a range is presented first, with an average for the US presented second. The costs presented are those paid by the hauler or contractor to the

69 recycling, incinerating, or disposal facility and are also known as tipping fees. For recycling, some facilities accept clean debris for free but charge if the material is mixed and must be separated before being processed for recycling.

Table 4-6. Range of national tipping fees for methods of C&D debris management. Waste Material ($/Mg) Method of Waste Asphalt Management Concrete Wood Drywall Shingles Disposal – Lined Landfill 30 – 100 30 – 100 30 – 100 30 – 100 Disposal – Unlined Landfill 10 – 50 10 – 50 10 – 50 10 – 50 Incineration NA 10 – 100 NA NA Recycling – separated at the 0 – 80 0 – 80 0 – 80 0 – 80 job site Recycling – mixed debris 10 – 100 10 – 100 10 – 100 10 – 100 NA = Not Applicable; Source = William Turley, CMRA, personal communication

CHAPTER 5 EFFECTIVENESS OF POLICIES THAT ENCOURAGE C&D DEBRIS RECYCLING

5.1. Introduction

Recycling is often proposed as the best management method for all wastes. In many locations, however, recycling is not the chosen method of management by the generators of the waste. The reasons for the lack of recycling are varied, but include economics, convenience, and current mindset. Some governments introduced legislation meant to overcome those barriers, but the effectiveness of these policies is unknown.

This study investigated the policies for encouraging construction and demolition

(C&D) debris recycling. C&D debris generally includes concrete, wood, drywall, asphalt shingles, asphalt concrete, metal, and other structural materials. As C&D debris becomes more of a concern to the nation, governments will investigate the possibilities of using policy to encourage recycling of the waste stream.

The objectives of this research were to define possible policies that can be used to encourage C&D debris recycling, find locations in the US where these policies had been enacted, and determine their success. Policies were evaluated based on the potential for increasing the recycling rate and potential costs. A survey was used to obtain this data from state, city, and county governments.

5.2. C&D Debris Recycling Barriers

It is not easy to convert the current system of C&D debris management into one that incorporates a large amount of recycling. Many barriers exist in the system. These

70 71

barriers can be overcome, however, as evidenced by other regions in the U.S. and in the world.

C&D debris is generally managed by disposal. In most states in the US, C&D debris is allowed to be disposed of in unlined landfills (Clark et al., 2006). Many states that do require liners, however, only require natural clay liners and do not require landfill leachate to be collected. Thus, disposal in most areas is relatively cheap compared to disposal of other wastes that have more regulations.

Physical barriers to C&D debris recycling start with the way that it is often collected. C&D debris in the US is most often collected in large 20- to 40-cubic-yard containers. Debris is mixed in these containers, reducing the ability of the material to be efficiently separated at an alternate location. Contractors do not have many options for separating the material on site, however. Since the containers do not have divisions in which to put different types of material, the only way to separate the material would be to order multiple containers – which can be a costly option (Townsend et al., 2001).

Economic barriers to C&D debris recycling include the low tipping fees at C&D debris landfills. These tipping fees make it difficult to create a system in which recycling provides an economically competitive option to disposal. Additionally, these tipping fees do not reflect the costs to the environment that the C&D debris poses. Possible contamination of the groundwater and other impacts will pose unknown costs. In addition, natural resources that compete with recycled materials for markets are not expensive. Thus, it is difficult in many areas for people to make money from recycling.

Political barriers can occur when policies that are currently in place inhibit recycling programs. Waste collection franchises can be a good example of this if

recycling is not stipulated in a franchise contract. Since the waste hauler is being paid to

collect the waste, they often do not have any incentive to recycle it. Many waste haulers own the landfills that they take their waste to and recycling the debris would mean a loss of revenue. Franchises can also prevent other waste haulers that would recycle from

collecting the waste. Another political barrier occurs when government regulators and

industry representatives that fear the impact of C&D debris recycling policies. Counties

have some understanding of the possible political objections that may result from

proposing new policies and can overcome such opposition with the right plan, which

includes involving industry and government representatives throughout a county plan and

slowly introducing new policies so as to not shock the current system.

Psychological barriers to C&D debris recycling persist as it is difficult to change

the current mindset toward disposal. People are comfortable with the current system and

are resistant to change, especially when they perceive no reason to change. They often

do not understand how their actions can impact the environment. Barr and Gilg (In

Press) stress the need to understand the individual behavior patterns in crafting local

waste policy. It is important to understand what obstacles exist in a region and which

policies may be used to overcome them.

Previous innovative recycling efforts in Florida have demonstrated that markets

exist for many of these materials and have evaluated different processing techniques, but

the results clearly indicate that other factors act as impediments to wide-scale recycling.

Gypsum drywall, for example, has been demonstrated to be recyclable from a market and

processing standpoint, yet no long-lasting drywall recycling activities are currently

underway. Additional barriers, most notably economic barriers, have continued to make

C&D debris recycling difficult in much of the state. Although these barriers do exist, it is important to acknowledge that recycling of these materials has been successfully implemented in some areas of the country. In some cases, recycling becomes feasible because of regional economic differences, but in other cases specific actions by government officials and policy-makers have C&D debris recycling more attractive.

State and local governments face a large challenge in trying to encourage recycling.

Environmental economists have long thought that standards-based policies are economically inefficient and, have, with some exceptions, actually increased industry resistance to future environmental regulation (Bailey, 2002). Thus, market-based policies are preferred. These mechanisms are supposed to integrate the environmental costs into the economy. Market-based policies do have their problems, however. Merely the speculation of increased prices drove market prices for recycled materials up in the price spike of 1995. The prices then rapidly fell to normal levels the next year, causing many to lose large investments in the recycling trade. What is the appropriate role of policy when markets are so volatile (Ackerman and Gallagher, 2002)?

5.3. Policy Options

Many types of policies can encourage recycling any wastes. A literature search was performed to categorize the potential policies that could be used to encourage C&D debris recycling. Table 5-1 defines these policies.

There are three types of policies: (1) direct regulation, (2) market incentives, and

(3) education (Barron and Ng, 1996). Direct regulations require or encourage waste diversion by the generators. Disposal bans, percentage and material recycling requirements, green building requirements, recycling goals, and salvage requirements are all examples of direct regulation. Market incentives make waste diversion more

74 appealing by making it a more economical option. Disposal taxes, subsidized recycling, business development, and advance disposal fees/deposits/rebates are examples of market incentives. Education policies spread information to the public to make them aware of recycling opportunities.

5.4. Policy Analysis

5.4.1. Methodology

The methodology used here is similar to that used by Barron and Ng (1996) and

Townsend et al. (2001). Barron and Ng listed many policies and ranked them according to cost, effectiveness, monitoring/enforcement, ease of implementation, cost, flexibility, economic impacts, ecological impacts, environmental justice, and economic efficiency.

Townsend et al. listed policies and their positive and negative characteristics.

The C&D debris policy analysis simplified the Barron and Ng (1996) list by evaluating total cost, recycling rate, and regional characteristics. Data about each policy were gathered by surveying cities, counties, and states that have implemented a C&D debris policy that may encourage recycling. These governments were found by a literature and internet search. The survey was conducted by telephone and persons completed the survey were directly involved with the administration, implementation, and/or enforcement of the policy.

The city and county survey collected data including costs to administer the program, enforce the program, and for purchasing needed recycling equipment.

Additionally, data on revenues made from advanced disposal fees or deposits were collected. Counties and cities were also asked about the amount of C&D debris recycled and disposed of before and after the program was implemented.

Table 5-1. Definitions of policies types that may encourage C&D debris recycling. Name Description Disposal ban A law or ordinance that specifically bans the disposal of certain waste materials from being disposed of in a landfill or restricted to certain landfills that have increased protection of the environment, such as RCRA Subtitle D or C landfills. Disposal tax Artificially inflating the cost of disposal to make recycling or reuse a more economical option to the public. Subsidized recycling Artificially decreasing the cost of recycling in order to make recycling or reuse a more economical option to the public. Percentage recycling A law or ordinance that requires that a percentage of the requirement waste stream is recycled. Material recycling A law or ordinance that requires certain waste materials requirement to be recycled. Deposit/Advanced disposal A law or ordinance that requires the public to pay for fee (ADF)/ Rebate disposal before waste generation (generally at the time that the building permit is applied for). This fee is returned if proof is given that the material is recycled. Government waste recycling A law or ordinance that says that all government agency requirement construction activity that produces waste (including C&D debris) must recycle or divert from the landfill some portion of that waste. Government recycling A law or ordinance that requires government agencies to purchasing requirement purchase materials that have some recycled content.

Business development Finances that are provided from the government to businesses to help develop recycling. Education Educational efforts performed by the government to increase recycling awareness specifically for C&D debris. Recycling Goal Legislation that provides a recycling percentage goal.

Green Building A regulation or legislation that encourages green building in the region. Salvage requirement Demolition contractors are required to post notice of an impending demolition to allow anyone to salvage materials from the building.

While legislation has been enacted in some states, their implementation has been

too recent to obtain results. Many states, however, have recycling goals that have the

potential to encourage C&D debris recycling. States known to encourage C&D debris

recycling and states that issue the most residential construction building permits were investigated to determine the amount of C&D debris recycled in the state, the recycling goal, the actual recycling percentage, and the effect that this goal has on the amount of

C&D debris that is recycled.

5.4.2. Local Policies

Six counties and 12 cities were contacted that had some sort of legislation that

encourages C&D debris recycling. Of the 18 contacted, 14 responded. Those that did

not respond were still evaluated from diversion data provided on the California Integrated

Waste Management Board (CIWMB) website (2006). These cities and counties were

found by contacting states known to be progressive in C&D debris recycling or reported

by the US Census Bureau as issuing large amounts of residential building construction

permits (2005a). Additionally, periodicals that publish updates on new C&D debris

legislation were consulted, such as Construction & Demolition Recycling Magazine.

Table 5-2 presents the governments that were surveyed and some of their characteristics,

such as population, number of residential building permits issued in 2004, and the

average tipping fee for C&D debris. Not all counties had C&D debris facilities and, thus,

average tipping fees of the counties that surrounded them were used. Tipping fees that

were reported in dollars per cubic yard were converted to dollars per ton. Tipping fees

ranged from $30 to $44/ton in the areas surveyed.

Table 5-2 shows that the surveyed cities and counties have a population range of

7,000 to 1.5 million. The number of residential construction building permits issued

77 ranges from 0 to 6,500 per year. While it may seem superfluous to have a C&D debris policy in a location that does not issue many permits for residential construction, many of these areas are already built up and renovations are the primary C&D activity that occurs.

Renovation data are not typically collected by a central source and, therefore, cannot be easily accessed. Tipping fees in these areas range from approximately $30/ton to

$44/ton, which means that these areas do not have the most expensive tipping fees in the

US for C&D debris. Some areas of the Northeast US have tipping fees of up to $100/ton

(William Turley, Construction Materials Recycling Association, personal communication). Most of these C&D debris ordinances are in California. While many states have recycling goals, California has a mandated diversion amount. This has prompted many cities and counties in California to target C&D debris to increase their total solid waste diversion rate.

Cities and counties were surveyed by telephone. The survey and its results are presented in Appendix B. All costs listed are incurred by the government, except for

“direct costs to the public,” which are created by the government and imposed on haulers, contractors, or other persons. Average tonnages are averages throughout the program.

California does not track C&D debris specifically and estimates C&D debris generation using waste composition data and total waste generation.

Results from the survey were varied and somewhat incomplete. Many locations in

California do not track the amount of C&D debris recycled and estimates must be used.

California estimates their diversion (including recycling) by using statewide composition studies and disposal data. Many cities and counties did not know exactly the amount of money spent on their policies, but estimated based on the amount of time that is spent

administering the policy. Each city and county surveyed is discussed below by policy

type implemented.

Table 5-2. Characteristics of the counties, cities, and states surveyed. 2004 Average 2004 Residential C&D City County State Population Building Debris (thousands) Permits Tip Fee (#) ($/ton) Berkeley Alameda California 102 195 32.75 Castro Valley Alameda California 57 0 32.75 Pleasanton Alameda California 66 210 32.75 Oakland Alameda California 398 1,225 32.75 Brawley Imperial California 22 0 34.11* Santa Monica Los Angeles California 88 437 33.17 Laguna Hills Orange California 32 1 29.95 La Habra Orange California 60 28 34.11 Atherton San Mateo California 7 31 44.00* Burlingame San Mateo California 27 29 44.00* Palo Alto Santa Clara California 57 163 40.90 San Jose Santa Clara California 905 2,775 40.90 Cotati Sonoma California 7 0 45.20 Alameda California 1,449 2,467 32.75 Contra Costa California 1,018 6,464 40.00** San Mateo California 700 724 43.68* Tulare California 411 591 35.00 Orange North Carolina 118 1,018 41.00 *No C&D debris-specific tipping fees reported from disposal facilities within the county. These tipping fees are averages of the C&D debris-specific tipping fees reported by surrounding counties. **Calculated using the reported tipping fee of $20/cubic yard and a conversion factor of 0.5 tons/cubic yard.

Disposal Restriction. Only one county, Orange County in North Carolina, had

implemented a disposal restriction. They restricted wood, pallets, cardboard, metal, and

land clearing from being disposed of in their landfill. The county owns and operates its

own C&D debris landfill and recycling the materials required purchasing equipment.

Additionally, people were needed to oversee the program. To encourage recycling, they

also reduced the tipping fee for these materials to $0/ton, thus, losing tipping revenues.

All of these items resulted in a cost for the county. They did accrue some revenue for

79 hauler licenses that were required for all haulers in the area; however, this revenue did not compensate for the incurred costs. While the state has a recycling goal of 40%, the county’s own recycling goal is 60%. This policy allowed the county to achieve a 22%

C&D debris recycling rate and a 63% total recycling rate.

Green Building Requirements. This is a requirement that city or county buildings obtain a green building certification. Green building certification is attained in the US through the US Green Building Council. Certifying a building as “green” means that the buildings have excelled in five areas: sustainable site development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection, and indoor environmental quality. While use of recycled

C&D debris materials and recycling of generated waste is promoted in this certification process, it is possible to become certified without performing these tasks. These are not often implemented to increase recycling and, therefore, recycling success is not widely tracked for these policies.

Deposits/Advanced Disposal Fees/Rebates. Five cities and counties, ranging in population from 7,000 to 900,000, required deposits or advanced disposal fees or provided rebates for recycling. They generally required a fee when a building permit is issued and offered the reimbursement of that fee if it is proven that a certain percentage of the debris is recycled. This often results in revenue for the city or county because the contractor does not return to obtain the reimbursement. The governments surveyed stated that they rarely turned down a reimbursement when the paperwork was turned in. It was not in the contractor’s interest to put the time in for the reimbursement, especially if the cost is passed onto the consumer. Some governments stated that the number of renovations, especially roofing replacements, in their region is high. There was a lack of

significant markets for roofing shingles; therefore, the renovation contractors were not

able to recycle enough to receive a sizable return. Demolition contractors, however,

often use the program and receive significant returns.

Percent Recycling Requirements. These programs require that the contractors

submit waste plans for their developments and show that they will recycle a percentage of

their waste stream. Cities and counties that have implemented this type of policy range in

population from 20,000 to 1.5 million. Many of the cities and counties required a fee

during the permit process to cover the administrative costs of this program. While the

policy allows the government to enforce the program, enforcement is rare. Instead, many

cities and counties rely on the contractors to follow through with their plan. Some

locations require their recycling facilities to be certified and, thus, required to recycle as

much C&D debris as possible. The waste management plans, therefore, are a backup

method of ensuring recycling.

Government Recycling Requirement. This policy requires that before the construction, renovation, or demolition of a government building the contractor must develop a plan to demonstrate that a percentage of the waste will be recycled. While private construction, renovation, or demolition waste is not required to be recycled, this type of legislation may encourage C&D debris recycling programs to be developed to satisfy the government need.

Once the data were gathered, they were compiled by policy type. Average recycling successes and costs were found. Table 5-3 displays the results of this analysis.

This table shows that the deposits have the fewest costs per ton recycled. In fact, revenue can be accrued. It also had the highest increase in C&D debris recycling rates. This

policy can be seen as the best for costs and recycling rates. Some locations, however,

complained that costs were often passed on to the consumer.

Table 5-3. Results of the local government policy analysis. Policy Type Disposal Green Deposit/ % Govt. Total/ Restriction Building ADF/ Recycling Recycling Average Rebate Req. Req. #of locations 1 2 5 8 1 17 implemented Ave. cost/ $3.90 $ - $(0.51) $0.38 $ - $0.75 person/year Ave. cost/ton $51.83 $ - $(8.75) $ 0.16 $ - $9.00 recycled Ave. total 23% 9% 10% 7% 9% 12% recycling rate increase Ave. total lbs 150 300 25,000 3,000 250 5,700 recycled/person/ year Ave. cost/ $400 $ - $(7,300) $66 $ - $(1,400) residential construction building permit issued Ave. tons 8 30 4,200 240 266 120 recycled/ residential construction building permit issued

All numbers presented in Table 5-3 were determined as an average of the survey

results. Thus, applications to other regions must take into consideration the

characteristics of the regions surveyed. Additional information from new policies

implemented in other areas will increase the accuracy of these estimates.

5.4.3. State Policies

In 2005, Florida issued the most residential construction building permits of all

states in the US. Texas, California, Georgia, and North Carolina round out the top five residential building permit states. These states are the most likely to face problems associated with growth. Although all states in the US have been growing in population over the past 15 years, not all states encourage C&D debris recycling or track the amount recycled in their state.

Recycling policies within states have generally consisted of recycling goals, recycling requirements, recycling grants, and disposal restrictions (bans). New legislation has been enacted in Massachusetts to ban unprocessed C&D debris from disposal to specifically encourage C&D debris recycling. California has mandated a recycling goal so that cities and counties must find ways of increasing the amount of their total waste that is diverted, included C&D debris. Ohio recently enacted stricter regulations on their C&D debris landfills that may make recycling more appealing.

Many states commonly use recycling goals to encourage recycling of any solid waste, but primarily MSW. In some cases, C&D debris is included. The states were reviewed to determine which had recycling goals and how successful those goals have been in encouraging C&D debris recycling. Table 5-4 shows all of the states evaluated, their recycling goal, the actual amount recycled and the amount of C&D debris recycled.

The highest recycling rates for C&D debris exist in New York and Massachusetts.

These regions typically have high tipping fees and recycling becomes a more viable option. In fact, the disposal ban in Massachusetts is estimated to only increase the C&D debris recycling rate from 80% to 89%, increasing the total recycled tonnage by

1,000,000 tons (Tellus Institute, 2003). Much waste from New York and Massachusetts

is exported from the states to Ohio, which is why Ohio is becoming more concerned

about the effects C&D debris landfills have on the environment and public health (OEPA,

2004). California has a mandated diversion amount, but the contribution of C&D debris

to this diversion is unknown.

Table 5-4. State recycling goals and C&D debris recycling success. Total Actual C&D debris C&D debris C&D debris State Recycling Recycling Recycling recycled Recycled Goal % % (tons/year) (tons/capita) California 50% 60% * * * Florida 30% 24% 34% 5,400,000 0.3 Massachusetts 70% 62% 80% 14,000,000 2.2 New York 40% 47% 60% 9,600,000 0.5 North 40% 19% 0.2% 20,300 0.0 Carolina Ohio 25% 23% * * * * No data were available for these categories. California calculates the amount of waste diverted by looking at disposal figures and estimating the amount of waste that could have been generated using population and economic trends. They do not track recycling amounts. Ohio does not track the amount of C&D debris recycled in the state.

Florida has given some grants for recycling C&D debris, but most recycling that occurs is a result of market mechanisms. While there is still additional room for

recycling in this growing state, the current amount recycled is high compared to other

states. As the fact that the recycling goal is close to being attained shows, many cities

and counties in Florida take the recycling goal seriously. Since some C&D debris recycling contributes to this goal, some cities and counties attempt to recycle to encourage C&D debris recycling. Additionally, the State of Florida encourages recycling through grants and research.

North Carolina’s recycling rates are low, both in total and in their C&D debris recycling rates. Their annual report shows that, since the policy is only a recycling goal, many cities and counties do not take it seriously. While significant growth occurs in

North Carolina, the amount of C&D debris that is recycled is very low.

5.5. Discussion/Guidance

Local policies can be implemented quickly, but only with the approval of the

government. This can be difficult if public sentiment is not for recycling policies in

general. However, a policy that incurs little cost to the government, little cost to the

public, and large increases in recycling might be popular. Deposits (or advanced disposal

fees or rebates) have positive effects on recycling rates while keeping costs down.

Deposits generally appeal more to demolition contractors than to other contractors due to

the large return they may get. Other contractors may just pass the costs onto the

consumer. Percent recycling requirements and disposal bans, however, can ensure that

recycling does occur at minimal cost to the government.

For any recycling policy, recycling facilities are needed. If there are no private recycling facilities the government may need to set up a recycling operation so that the contractors in the area may be able to legally manage their debris. This can be costly, as seen in Orange County, North Carolina. Revenues from marketing the material, however, may offset these costs, but markets should be explored before policy implementation. Government recycling requirements may encourage private C&D debris recycling capabilities in the region.

For states, recycling goals do not seem to have an effect on the amount of C&D

debris that is recycled. Instead, state mandates for recycling, state encouragement of

recycling through grants, tipping fees, disposal scarcity, and markets have more impact.

The California counties and cities enacted policies to satisfy state diversion mandates,

while the North Carolina county needed a method to ease the problems foreseen due to

lack of disposal.

Other communities looking to implement such recycling ordinances need to determine if similar characteristics exist in their area to be successful. While the population of an area is seemingly irrelevant to the type of policy, costs for programs such as percent recycling requirements and deposits can vary depending on the amount of construction, renovation, or demolition activity that occurs. Table 5-5 presents questions that cities and counties need to answer to help determine which type of policy will work for them.

Table 5-5. Guidance questions for implementing C&D debris recycling policies. Item Question Recommendation 1. Are there C&D debris Yes – any No – any policy will work, recycling facilities close by? policy will but purchasing recycling work equipment is necessary. Government recycling requirement may develop recycling programs 2. What is the primary activity in construction - Renovation - Demolition – your area? % recycling % recycling Deposits/ requirements, requirements, ADF/ Rebate disposal bans disposal bans 3. Do you have one or two staff Yes - % No – Green members that will be able to recycling building, monitor the policy as part of requirements, government their daily activities? disposal bans, recycling Deposits/ADF requirement 4. Do you want to make sure that Yes – No – all other the program does not cost Deposits/ADF policies anything to the government

CHAPTER 6 CONCRETE RECYCLING IN FLORIDA: A CASE STUDY

6.1. Waste Concrete in Florida

Florida continues to grow rapidly – from 2000 to 2005 the population in Florida grew 11% while the total US population grew only 5% (US Census Bureau, 2000,

2005b). Construction activity is usually associated with growth. Florida issued more residential construction building permits in 2005 than any other state even though it is not the most populated state (US Census Bureau, 2005a). Concerns over the debris have increased in recent years due to the volume disposed of, impacts to groundwater from landfills, and odors produced from decomposing drywall. Recycling is often seen as a solution to these problems.

Concrete is a heavily used construction material in Florida, representing over 56% of the C&D debris stream (Cochran, 2001). Many believe that concrete recycling could be increased from its current status if several obstacles to concrete recycling could be overcome. Unknowns remain about waste concrete in Florida, including the amount that is generated, environmental impacts from managing concrete, and whether recycling could be expanded under the current conditions.

Research was performed to satisfy four objectives. To determine the amount of waste concrete generated, a materials flow analysis was performed. A market capacity analysis was performed to determine if a lack of markets prevents concrete recycling.

Life cycle assessments were performed to compare the environmental impacts from

86 87 disposing and recycling concrete. Finally, a policy analysis was performed to determine how local and statement governments can encourage recycling.

6.2. Estimate of Waste Concrete Generation Using a Materials Flow Analysis

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) requires that all facilities that accept mixed C&D debris report the amount that they accept, dispose, and recycle. The amount that was disposed of in Florida, however, is not separated into material type. Additionally, other facilities only accept clean concrete debris, not mixed

C&D debris, and are not required to report the amount that they recycle to the FDEP. It is necessary to estimate the amount of concrete disposed of and the amount that these facilities recycled.

Cochran et al. (In Press) made an estimation of building-related C&D debris composition. This estimation found that approximately 2.1 x 106 Mg of concrete was generated in Florida during 2000, which represented around 56% of the building-related

C&D debris stream. Cochran et al.’s method used building permit data to determine annual area (m2) of construction, demolition, and renovation activity. They then multiplied the area by a typical waste generation factor (kg/m2) found from job site waste studies. This estimate, however, only investigated building-related debris and did not estimate debris from other structures, such as roads and bridges.

A materials flow analysis can be used to estimate waste generation by studying the amount of materials that are consumed and estimating when those materials might enter the waste stream. This approach has been used in estimating national C&D debris generation, but there have been no attempts at using this method regionally. A materials flow analysis was used to determine the amount of waste concrete generated in Florida, including concrete discarded from the construction, renovation, and demolition of

buildings, roads, bridges, and other structures. Calculations of waste generation were

divided into two equations: construction waste generation (including the construction or

installation portion of renovation waste) and demolition waste generation (including the

demolition or removal portion of renovation waste).

Concrete waste from construction was estimated by first estimating the amount of

concrete consumed in Florida (MC) and applying a waste factor (wc), as shown equation

6-1. Consumption of concrete can be found from the US Geological Survey (USGS) and

the waste factor can be found from construction guides. As all contractors must estimate

the amount of materials that they need, they generally use a waste factor to estimate how

much additional material they will need above the amount that will end up in the

building.

CCW = MC × w c (6-1)

The amount of concrete consumed is not available, but can be approximated using

cement consumption in Florida. The amount of cement consumed can be found from the

US Geological Survey (USGS, 2004). The amount of concrete used nationally in

building (47%), roads and bridges (33%), and other structures (20%) was found from the

Portland Cement Association (PCA, 2006). While the PCA does produce this

information for Florida, limited resources prevented the research team from acquiring it.

Thus, national figures were used. Figure 6-1 shows the consumption of concrete in

Florida. Florida consumed approximately 7.8 x106 Mg of cement in 2002, which makes approximately 110 x 106 Mg of concrete. According to construction guides, 3% of

concrete is generally discarded during construction activities (DelPico, 2004; Thomas,

1991). Therefore, Florida discarded approximately 3 x 106 Mg of waste concrete from construction activities in 2002.

120

100 )

40 Concrete Consumed (million Mg 20

0 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Year

Figure 6-1. Historical consumption of concrete in Florida based on reported cement consumption.

Demolition waste was calculated by subtracting the concrete waste from the consumption data and estimating when that material would be taken out of service, as shown in equation 6-2. Service lives have been estimated in literature for life cycle and durability assessments. Concrete has different service lives, depending on the structure, as shown in Table 6-1. This table also shows the associated concrete consumption in years from which materials are expected to be removed from service in 2002. An example calculation of demolition waste for concrete with a 50-year service life is shown in equation 6-3.

DWC = MC – CWC (6-2)

DWC(2002) = MC(1952) – CWC(1952) (6-3)

Table 6-1. Concrete service life used in different structures. Total Concrete Service Life Consumption in Florida Structure Type (Years) Amount Year (106 Mg) Buildings Short – 50 1952 16 Typical – 75 1927 34 Long – 100 1902 8 Roads/ Bridges Short – 23 1979 68 Typical – 30 1972 63 Long – 40 1962 26 Other Structures Short – 20 1982 52 Typical – 30 1972 63 Long – 50 1952 16

The total amount of waste concrete generated in Florida during 2002 was between

40 and 61 x 106 Mg, with an estimate of 60 x 106 Mg using a typical service life

assumption. Figure 6-2 shows the range of possible waste generation results from each job activity. The amounts estimated are quite large. In fact, the FDEP estimates that only approximately 6.4 x 106 Mg of C&D debris was collected by Florida permitted

C&D debris landfills and recycling facilities (FDEP, 2002). This amount, however, does

not include debris that went to municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills or non-permitted

recycling facilities.

In Florida, facilities that accept and recycled only clean debris that is not mixed

with other construction materials are not required to obtain a C&D debris recycling

facility permit. Therefore, they are not required to report the tonnage they recycle to the

state. Since no data exists on the amount that these facilities recycle, they were surveyed

to acquire this information. Fifty-three concrete recyclers were surveyed around the state

in person and by phone. Figure 6-3 presents results from this survey. In addition, Figure

6-3 also presents the amount recycled by other types of facilities, including permitted

C&D debris facilities. Also shown are crushed stone producers, as some have begun to

recycle concrete to keep their market share. The total amount of concrete recycled in

Florida during 2004 was approximately 4.2 x 106 Mg.

60 )

20 Concrete Waste Generated (million Mg (million Waste Generated Concrete 10

0 Building Building Road & Road & Other Other Total Construction Demolition Bridge Bridge Construction Demolition Concrete Construction Demolition Waste Job Activity

Figure 6-2. Concrete waste generated in 2002 from various job types as estimated using a materials flow analysis.

All of the C&D debris landfills in Florida are required to report the entire amount

of waste they disposed of, but are not required to break this number down by category.

Thus, there is no official number for the amount of concrete disposed of. Instead,

estimations performed at C&D debris landfills around the state can be used. A survey of

13 Florida C&D debris landfill operators found that concrete represented about 30% of the waste stream by volume (Cochran, 2001). Visual characterization studies at nine landfills have found that concrete represents an average of 14% of the waste stream by

volume (RW Beck, 2001a; RW Beck 2001b; Reinhart et al. 2002). Using an average of

these studies it is possible to infer that concrete represents about 22% of the C&D debris

stream by volume. Since Florida disposed of approximately 6.4 x 106 Mg of mixed C&D

debris in 2002, this means that approximately 3.1 x 106 Mg of concrete was disposed of

in C&D debris landfills.

4.5

3.5

2.5

2 (million Mg) (million 1.5 Amount Recycled

0.5

0 C&D Debris Clean Concrete Crushed Stone Total Facilities Facilities Producers Concrete Recycler Type

Figure 6-3. Amount of concrete recycled in Florida during 2004 by permitted and nonpermitted facilities.

Summing the amount disposed of in C&D debris landfills and the total amount recycled, Florida generated about 8 x 106 Mg of concrete. This is far less than the

materials flow analysis estimates. Thus, the assumptions used in the materials flow

analysis need to be reviewed and improved.

6.3. Market Capacity Analysis

Recycled concrete can replace natural aggregate in many markets that uses crushed

stone, such as fill, aggregate base and subbase for roads, and rip rap (Robinson et al.,

2004). Florida is one of the largest aggregate producers in the country. The USGS reported that Florida produced 97.5 x 106 Mg of crushed stone at 91 operations and 78 quarries in 2003. Figure 6-4 shows the various uses of crushed stone (limestone and dolomite) in Florida during 2003 (Tepordei, 2003). This natural supply of aggregate in the state provides competition for recycled aggregate.

The USGS reports the amount of crushed stone produced not only by state but by district. They break Florida up into four districts, as shown in Figure 6-5. As Figure 6-6 shows, concrete recycling faces the largest competition in District 4 and the least competition in District 1. District 2, however, has a large population with a smaller, in comparison, production share of crushed stone. Thus, District 2 has the largest potential for concrete recycling. A recent survey of concrete recyclers found that much concrete recycling does occur in this district. Figure 6-6 shows the percentage share of concrete recycling by USGS district.

6.4. Using LCA to Determine Best Management Practice in Five Major Cities in Florida

Concrete is generally disposed of in unlined landfills, recycled, or used as lake fill.

The practice of lake fill is common in South Florida, where it is common for some recyclers to fill in old borrow pits, now filled with rain water, with clean concrete that they cannot otherwise recycle. There has been no comparison of the environmental impacts from the three methods of management in Florida.

Life cycle assessments were used to compare the environmental impacts from various management methods for waste concrete in five major Florida cities:

Jacksonville, Miami, Orlando, Pensacola, and Tampa. The environmental impacts that

were considered were global warming potential and impacts to freshwater from concrete leachate.

Concrete aggregate 11.0% Bituminous aggregate 10.3%

Other uses 53.8% Roadstone and coverings 16.4%

Riprap and railroad ballast 0.4% Agricultural Other uses construction 0.3% uses Figure 6-4. Uses of crushed stone produced in Florida during 2003.

Figure 6-5. USGS-designated districts in Florida.

100 Crushed Stone Production 90 Concrete Recycling 80 Population 70 60 50 40

Percentage Share Percentage 30 20 10 0 1234 USGS District

Figure 6-6. Percentage share of crushed stone production and population by district.

6.4.1. Goal and Scope

The functional unit was 1 Mg of concrete waste. The management methods compared were disposal in an unlined landfill, recycling (with crushed stone avoidance), and use as lake fill. Transportation impacts between unit processes were considered. The life cycle in each scenario begins at the point of waste generation and ends at the point that the concrete dissipates into the environment. Impacts from use in recycling are assumed to be the same as limestone use and are, therefore, not considered. For example, if concrete is recycled into road base, impacts are considered from transporting the concrete from the recycling facility to road construction site but impacts from the placing of the recycled concrete are not considered. Impacts from infrastructure use or construction were not considered (landfill construction, road construction, etc.). Impacts from manufacturing equipment used to process materials were not considered. Figure 6-

7 shows the life cycle boundaries for waste concrete in Florida.

Concrete waste Unlined Landfill

Recycling/ Recycling/ Processing Processing (job site (separated at separated) the facility)

Road Construction Lake fill Aggregate mining/ crushing

Figure 6-7. Material flow in the life of waste concrete, including substitution for crushed stone when recycled.

6.4.2. Data Inventory

Data were gathered from literature, equipment manufacturers, and the Franklin

Associates database in Sima Pro 5.1. Data on leachate produced in landfills were

gathered on studies performed on C&D debris landfill leachates. Assumptions for typical

equipment used at landfills and recycling facilities were made based on conversations with equipment manufacturers.

6.4.2.1. Disposal scenario

Disposal is assumed to occur in an unlined landfill, which is typical in Florida. The major impacts from concrete disposal in an unlined landfill come from the leachate produced, energy used at the landfill, and energy used for transportation to the landfill.

Leachate is generated from the contact of rainfall with waste materials. Florida receives approximately 135 cm/year of rain and 20% of this rain will become approximately 135,000 L of leachate over 500 years. The major impacts to leachate from concrete are in the form of carbonate and total dissolved solids. Under these conditions,

52 kg of total dissolved solids and 29 kg of carbonate are produced per megagram of concrete.

Energy is consumed by a compactor at a landfill. Table 6-2 lists energy requirements of equipment at disposal and recycling facilities and the amount of material each machine processes. These data are used to calculate the amount of energy needed per unit mass of waste. No energy consumption from infrastructure construction is included in any scenario.

Table 6-2. Energy requirements of equipment found at concrete and mixed C&D debris recycling and disposal facilities in Florida. Energy Requirements Material Equipment (MJ/hour) Processing Rate Range Assumed (Mg/hour) Compactora 700 – 1,500 1,080 34 HSI Crusherb 500 – 1,400 870 230 Loadera 350 – 860 460 230, 34 Excavatora 150 – 390 280 230 Finger Screenc 300 – 600 300 34 Source: a Caterpillar, 2005; b Eagle Crusher, 2005; c Erin Systems; 2003

Transportation is needed from the job site to the landfill. It is assumed that the job site is at the city center for each city. A list of C&D debris landfills was provided by the

FDEP. Table 6-3 lists the shortest distances from each city center to a C&D debris landfill. Transportation was provided by a single unit truck.

Table 6-3. Assumed distances between the C&D debris landfills and the cities’ centers. Shortest Distance from City City Center to a C&D Debris Landfill (km) Jacksonville 29 Miami 15 Orlando 23 Pensacola 8 Tampa 30

6.4.2.2. Recycling scenario

Concrete can be recycled into many different markets that consume crushed stone, with the primary market of road base (Wilburn and Goonan, 1998). This scenario

98 assumes that the concrete will be recycled into road base and that it can arrive at the recycling facility either mixed or separated at the job site. If it is mixed, it must be separated at the recycling facility using a finger screen, picking station, and an extra excavator to load the screen. Table 6-2 shows the energy consumption from these machines.

After the concrete is separated (either at the job site or at the recycling facility), it must be crushed into the appropriate size needed by road contractors. This can be performed using a horizontal shaft impact (HSI) crusher. A front loader is used to move the material at the recycling facility from the crusher to the truck. An excavator is assumed to be needed to load the crusher and a loader is needed to move the recycled product from the crusher to trucks and stockpiles. Table 6-2 shows the energy consumption from these machines.

In addition to energy consumed at the recycling facility, recycling assumes that energy will be avoided from mining limestone. A typical crushed stone mine will consume approximately 54 MJ/Mg of crushed stone (Wilburn and Goonan, 1998;

Wilson, 1993). This will result in “negative” impacts.

Transportation is required from the construction or demolition site to the recycling facility and from the recycling facility to the end user – the road construction site. The recycling facility is assumed to be in the same city as the both the site where the waste is generated and the road construction job site. Shortest distances from the city centers to the recycling facilities are listed in Table 6-4. A recycling scenario assumes an avoidance of mining natural limestone in Florida. Table 6-4 provides distances from

99 mines in Florida to the city centers. All transportation is assumed to be provided by a single unit diesel truck consuming 3.6 MJ/Mg-km (PRé Consultants, 2002).

Table 6-4. Assumed distances between recycling facilities, limestone mines, and the city centers. Shortest Distance from City Shortest Distance from the City City Center to a Recycling Facility Center to a Limestone Mine (km) (km) Jacksonville 1 31 Miami 44 6 Orlando 8 11 Pensacola 9 409 Tampa 10 9

6.4.2.3. Lake fill scenario

Lake fill is the process of filling in an old surface mine or borrow pit (which has subsequently filled with water) with clean debris, such as concrete, to make more land.

This waste management method takes place at C&D debris recycling facilities and is most often seen in south Florida. This area is where most Florida C&D debris recycling facilities are located due to high tipping fees and where proximity to limestone mines has made concrete recycling economically infeasible.

Impacts from lake fill include increased water pH due to carbonate in the concrete and energy consumption from transportation to the recycling facility and from equipment used to separate C&D debris materials at the recycling facility. It is assumed that the entire amount of carbonate in the concrete is released to the fresh water.

The same assumptions used for transportation from city centers to the recycling facility are used here, but no transportation is needed from the recycling facility or for limestone mine avoidance. Energy requirements at the recycling facility are the same as used for concrete recycling with facility site separation.

100

In addition to energy consumption, placing concrete in a water body will release

carbonate into the water, causing the pH level to rise. Eventually, the lake will be filled

with concrete. This analysis does not take land use impacts into account due to the

unknown length of time that a recycling facility may last and, therefore, the amount of

concrete recycled per area of land used is unknown. Even this assessment did take land

use into account, lake fill might be seen as a beneficial land use as it reclaims rather than

destroys land. Before the lake is filled, however, the carbonate releases to the water can

increase the pH. This depends on surface area and clean concrete disposed of in this

manner enters in all sizes – from ground fines to large chunks. One megagram of

concrete, however, contains 186 kg of carbonate, which can be assumed to be released

into the water.

6.4.3. Impact Analysis

The major impacts that concrete has in management come from the energy used to

manage the debris and the leaching of carbonate and other dissolved solids. Thus, the

impact considered was global warming potential, while carbonate leaching was

considered separately. Sima Pro 5.1 was used to conduct the impact analysis using the

Centre for Environmental Studies (CML) 2 baseline 2000 method, with normalization for the Netherlands (PRé Consultants, 2002). Figure 6-8 shows the global warming potential results due to energy usage.

In addition to energy usage, concrete releases carbonate into the water when disposed of in an unlined landfill or as lake fill. Lake filling concrete releases the most carbonate in this fashion (186 kg versus 29 kg). Lake fill, however, will eventually fill the entire lake and no longer pose a threat to the water.

101

0 )

-20

-40

-60

-80

Global Warming Potential (kg CO2 eq (kg Potential Warming Global Landfill Recycling, Separation at Recycling Facility -100 Recycling, Job Site Separation Lake fill -120 Jacksonville Miami Orlando Pensacola Tampa City

Figure 6-8. Global warming potential of various methods of concrete waste management in five Florida cities.

Table 6-5 lists the total energy requirements of all management options in five

major cities in Florida. The break-even point to make recycling (with job site separation)

a better option than disposal from an energy standpoint is 24 km. In other words, the

distance that the material must be transported to and from the recycling facility

(subtracting the avoided transportation from the limestone mine to the road construction job site) must not be greater than 24 km further than the distance concrete must be moved to a disposal facility in order for recycling to be preferential over debris disposal

(equation 6-5).

⎛ Distance from ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ ⎛ Distance from ⎞ ⎛ Distance from ⎞ ⎛ Distance from ⎞ ⎜the point of ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜the recycling ⎟ ⎜the limestone ⎟ ⎜the point of ⎟ (6-5) ⎜ waste generation ⎟ + - ≤ 24 km + ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ facility to the ⎟ ⎜ mine to the ⎟ ⎜ waste generation ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜to the recycling ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ point of use ⎠ ⎝ point of use ⎠ ⎝to the landfill ⎠ ⎝ facility ⎠ 14244 4344 1424444444444 434444444444 Disposal Scenario Recycling Scenario, Job Site Separatio n

102

The break-even point to make recycling (with facility site separation) preferable is 20 km.

The break-even point to make lake fill preferable over disposal is 5 km. The break-even point to make recycling with job site separation and facility separation over lake fill is 19 and 15 km, respectively.

Table 6-5. Energy requirements of various concrete waste management options in five Florida cities. Energy Consumed (MJ/Mg) Scenario Jacksonville Miami Orlando Pensacola Tampa Disposal 140 93 120 68 147 Recycling, job site separated -150 250 -29 -1,500 -7 Recycling, facility separated -140 260 -15 -1,400 7 Lake fill 25 180 50 53 57

Table 6-5 shows that recycling is preferable to disposal and lake fill in all cities except Miami. This is due to the location of recycling facilities and proximity to limestone mines in this area. In fact, the reason that lake fill has become a popular method of management is due to proximity of limestone mines, which competes with the same markets as recycled concrete aggregate. If the job sites are closer to the recycling facility than the city center, however, recycling becomes a better option.

6.5. Policy Analysis

Many types of recycling policies can be enacted locally to encourage C&D debris recycling in Florida. Types of policies and their definitions are listed in Table 6-6.

Florida relies primarily on market mechanisms to encourage C&D debris recycling. If a county or city wanted to encourage C&D debris recycling, however, several questions would have to be answered, as Table 6-7 shows.

103

Table 6-6. Definitions of C&D debris recycling policies. Name Description Disposal ban A law or ordinance that specifically bans the disposal of certain waste materials from being disposed of in a landfill or restricted to certain landfills that have increased protection of the environment, such as RCRA Subtitle D or C landfills. Disposal tax Artificially inflating the cost of disposal to make recycling or reuse a more economical option to the public. Subsidized recycling Artificially decreasing the cost of recycling to make recycling or reuse a more economical option to the public. Percentage recycling A law or ordinance that requires that a percentage of the waste requirement stream is recycled. Material recycling A law or ordinance that requires certain waste materials to be requirement recycled. Deposit/Advanced A law or ordinance that requires the public to pay for disposal disposal fee (ADF)/ before waste generation (generally at the time that the building Rebate permit is applied for). This fee is returned if proof is given that the material is recycled. Government waste A law or ordinance that says that all government agency recycling requirement construction activity that produces waste (including C&D debris) must recycle or divert from the landfill some portion of that waste. Government recycling A law or ordinance that requires government agencies to purchasing purchase materials that have some recycled content. requirement Business development Finances that are provided from the government to businesses to help develop recycling. Education Educational efforts performed by the government to increase recycling awareness specifically for C&D debris. Recycling Goal Legislation that provides a recycling percentage goal.

Green Building A regulation or legislation that encourages green building in the region. Salvage requirement A requirement that demolition contractors to post notice of an impending demolition to allow anyone to salvage materials from the building.

C&D debris recycling facilities, especially concrete recyclers, exist throughout the state. Facilities that accept mixed debris and separate it, however, exist mostly in South

104

Florida. Thus, ability to separate the material would have to be developed or job site separation would have to be encouraged. Developing the capability to separate debris at a recycling facility could be costly.

Table 6-7. Guidance questions for implementing C&D debris recycling policies. Item Question Recommendation 1. Are there C&D debris Yes – any No – any policy will work, recycling facilities close by? policy will but purchasing recycling work equipment is necessary. Government recycling requirement may develop recycling programs 2. What is the primary activity in construction - Renovation - Demolition – your area? % recycling % recycling Deposits/ requirements, requirements, ADF/ Rebate disposal bans disposal bans 3. Do you have one or two staff Yes - % No – Green members that will be able to recycling building, monitor the policy as part of requirements, government their daily activities? disposal bans, recycling Deposits/ADF requirement 4. Do you want to make sure that Yes – No – all other the program does not cost Deposits/ADF policies anything to the government?

Most areas in Florida see more construction activity than renovation or demolition activity. Thus, percent recycling requirements or disposal bans could work best. If a city or county did not have sufficient staff to carry out the disposal ban or percent recycling requirement, however, a green building or government recycling requirement will encourage some C&D debris recycling.

Using results of a survey of local cities and counties that have C&D debris recycling policies, an approximate cost and a total amount recycled can be estimated.

Results of the survey are presented in Table 6-8.

105

Table 6-8. Results of a survey of local cities and counties that have enacted C&D debris recycling policies. Policy Type Disposal Green Deposit/ % Govt. Total/ Ban Building ADF/ Recycling Recycling Average Rebate Req. Req. #of locations 1 2 5 8 1 17 implemented Ave. cost/ $3.90 $ - $(0.51) $0.38 $ - $0.75 person/year Ave. cost/ton $51.83 $ - $(8.75) $ 0.16 $ - $9.00 recycled Ave. total 23% 9% 10% 7% 9% 12% recycling rate increase Ave. total lbs 150 300 25,000 3,000 250 5,700 recycled/person/ year Ave. cost/ $400 $ - $(7,300) $66 $ - $(1,400) residential construction building permit issued Ave. tons 8 30 4,200 240 266 120 recycled/ residential construction building permit issued

If the population of Florida (over 17.8 x 106 people) is applied to the costs and

recycled amounts per person, costs and successes can be estimated for Florida. Table 6-9

presents these costs and successes. These figures should be looked upon with great

skepticism as the data used to make the estimations come from areas that have different

characteristics, such as the level of construction, renovation, or demolition activity.

Another estimation can be performed using building permit data, but this is seen as

unreliable since many of the cities and counties surveyed did not issue many construction

106 permits – mostly renovation and demolition permits. The disposal restriction is the costliest, but this estimation is based on data from a county that had enacted this policy had to provide the recycling equipment and were recycling without revenue. The

Deposit/ADF/rebate policy provided the most benefits and least costs, but this policy is best in locations where there is a great deal of demolition or renovation activity – not in locations where construction is heavy, such as Florida. The percent recycling requirements seem to have the most success with little cost and should be used in Florida.

Table 6-9. Estimated costs and successes if C&D debris recycling policies are applied in Florida. Deposit/ % Govt. Disposal Green Policy Type ADF/ Recycling Recycling Restriction Building Rebate Req. Req. Cost/year 69 0 -9 7 0 (millions of dollars) Amount recycled/year 1 2 202 24 2 (million Mg)

6.6. Discussion

Concrete recycling can and does occur successfully. The case study here has found that a significant amount of concrete waste is generated. In the materials flow analysis, this amount is very large. However, surveys of concrete recyclers and disposal facilities show that the materials flow analysis may provide an estimate that is too high.

The market capacity analysis shows that there is sufficient capacity to recycle all of the concrete, but locations of where the recyclers exist are important. While extensive markets seem to exist near Miami, plentiful crushed stone producers exist in that area. In contrast, a large market exists near Orlando and Jacksonville; however, few crushed stone producers exist in these areas.

107

The life cycle assessment shows that recycling concrete has a negative impact

(positive benefit) on the environment for most areas except for Miami. Recycling in some areas of Miami can consume more energy than disposal; all this is not the case if the job sites are located closer to the recycling facility. Transportation is largely the cause of the environmental impacts, although pollution to the leachate in the form of dissolved solids and carbonate must be considered in all areas.

The policy analysis performed here was very general. A more in-depth policy analysis is necessary for individual cities or counties, but the policies that will likely encourage the most recycling while keeping costs low are percent recycling requirements and disposal bans. These policies are favored for areas with much construction activity.

CHAPTER 7 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1. Summary

C&D debris is a waste stream that will continue to need ongoing research and investigation. The results of the studies provided in this dissertation have shown that it is a sizeable waste stream with large potential for recycling, but impacts to the environment must be considered. Policies can be implemented to encourage recycling, but these policies are not always necessary. Finally, case studies focus on a specific area to help local solid waste managers decide how to best manage their waste.

This study presented a methodology for using a materials flow analysis to calculate

the amount of C&D debris generated in the US. This materials flow analysis used material consumption and service life to estimate the amount of debris generated per year. This approach considered all construction materials consumed each year. The total amount of C&D debris generated was estimated as 0.90 x 109, 1.05 x 109, or 1.10 x 109 megagrams (Mg), depending on the assumption of a long, typical, or short structure service life. The range of C&D debris composition was 61 to 75% portland cement concrete, 16 to 29% asphalt concrete, 4 to 5% wood, 1 to 2% brick and clay tile, 1 to 2 % asphalt shingles, 1% gypsum products, and <1% steel and iron.

The materials flow analysis method of calculating the amount of debris generated is an effective method as long as the best assumptions are used. Assumptions used for the service life of construction materials, especially that of concrete, will have the largest

108 109

impact on the total amount of debris generated. Thus, more studies are needed as to the

average actual service life of most materials.

Multiple C&D debris estimation methods are needed to more accurately describe

the debris stream. Different methods can produce a range of estimated C&D debris

generation amounts. This will help solid waste managers understand the potential

magnitude of the problem so that they can make more informed decisions on how to

manage it. The materials flow analysis can also be used regionally as long as

consumption of the construction materials is known in that region. This method can

provide an insight into the amount of waste generated as well as the composition of that waste.

C&D debris is not heavily recycled in many areas of the US. This study aimed to determine if lack of market capacity is a reason for this. Four major materials from the

C&D debris stream were studied: concrete, wood, drywall, and asphalt shingles. Typical markets were investigated to determine their current demand for materials that are or could be replaced by recycled materials.

Concrete is the only material that does not face substantial competition from other recycled materials. Its main competitor is crushed stone, which is plentiful. Many regions of the US, however, do not produce crushed stone but do have a need for aggregates that could be replaced by recycled concrete. Thus, there is sufficient capacity to recycle all of the concrete generated.

The other materials – wood, drywall, and asphalt shingles – all face substantial competition from other recycled materials. Thus, market development is needed for these materials. This is likely to happen for wood, as the US moves toward renewable energy

110

sources and away from foreign sources of energy. While substantial markets currently

exist for recycled gypsum from drywall and FGD gypsum, the amount of FGD gypsum is

expected to increase two to three times its current production. This will likely decrease

the desirability of recycling drywall. Sufficient market capacity does not currently exist for asphalt shingles and competition from manufacturer scrap decreases its desirability.

This material is most in need of market development.

A life cycle analysis was conducted for four C&D debris materials on various methods of management to compare their environmental impacts. Impacts considered were global warming potential, human toxicity potential, abiotic depletion potential, and acidification potential. Data from C&D debris leaching studies, hydrogen sulfide generation studies, equipment manufacturer specifications, and actual C&D debris management facility reports were used in the analysis.

Recycling was found to be the optimal option for concrete, drywall, and asphalt shingles. Transportation should be examined in all cases, especially that of concrete.

Concrete management through recycling or disposal had few other impacts beyond energy consumption. Excess transportation in a concrete recycling scenario, therefore, could cause recycling to be more harmful to the environment than a disposal scenario.

Incineration was found to be optimal for wood waste, even though it was assumed that the wood waste stream would consist of 30% CCA-treated wood. Incinerating high concentrations of CCA-treated wood does causes the metals of concern to be concentrated in the ash to the extent that the ash must be treated as a hazardous waste.

The avoidance of electricity generation from other typical sources and the decrease in the

111

amount of metals leached per Mg of wood, however, causes incineration to be a

preferable option.

The validity of this study depends on the assumptions. As the sensitivity analysis

shows, this variation can be large but does not change the results extensively. For

example, even if CCA-treated wood is not present in the wood waste stream, incineration

is still preferable to recycling due to the decreased impact of avoiding electrical

generation from typical sources. If other sources for assumptions were found, however, a

new sensitivity analysis may show greater variation.

This study evaluated the environmental impacts from management methods for

C&D debris. While recycling is typically encouraged as the best method of management,

this study aimed to find if this was truly the best management method for all materials

given impacts that recycling can have. The results of this study can be used by

government at all levels (federal, state, and local) to better aim their solid waste policies.

An analysis was performed on policies that have been enacted to encourage C&D

debris recycling. A survey of cities, counties, and states was performed to collect data on

costs incurred by the policies and recycling successes. Policies that require contractors to

recycle a percentage of their waste seem to encourage the most recycling while incurring the fewest costs. While there is little enforcement in most cases, recycling does occur.

Advance disposal fees (or deposits or rebates) accrue a great deal of revenue, but in

construction and renovations these costs to the contractor or hauler seem to be passed on

to the customer and do not really encourage recycling. While these policies do encourage recycling, a great deal of public support is needed in state and local governments.

112

A case study was performed on C&D debris concrete in Florida to estimate the

amount generated, the potential for recycling in the state, to determine if recycling is the

best method of management, and to determine if policies could be used in the state to encourage concrete recycling. To estimate the amount of concrete in Florida generated, a materials flow analysis was performed. Concrete is generated in large quantities in

Florida. The materials flow analysis, however, appears to overestimate the amount

generated by five to seven times the actual amount generated. Assumptions should be

adjusted and refined to make better estimates. A market analysis for waste concrete

showed that extensive potential market demand for the recycled material exists in

Florida, especially in the northwestern and northeastern portions of the state. There is a

lack of markets in South Florida, however. Life cycle assessments prove that recycling

can have the fewest impacts on the environment, but the greatest impact avoidance occurs in the northwestern and northeastern portions of the state. In general, job site separated recycling is best when a recycling scenario (including crushed stone mining avoidance) requires that material be transported no more than 24 km more than a disposal scenario.

7.7. Conclusions

• C&D debris is a large waste stream of concern. Even if some estimates are too

high, examination of the materials consumed show that there is a great potential

for future waste generation.

• The materials flow analysis estimates larger amounts of C&D debris generation

than previous estimates. In the US, this method estimated as much as 2.6 times

the amount from a previous method. In Florida, this method estimated five to

seven times previous estimates of concrete waste generation.

113

• Markets for concrete and wood are plentiful, but markets for drywall and asphalt

shingles should be developed.

• Environmentally, it is best to recycle drywall, shingles and, in most cases,

concrete.

• Incinerating wood with energy capture is preferable to all other methods of

management, whether it does or does not contain CCA-treated wood.

• Policies can be enacted to encourage C&D debris recycling, but local

characteristics and economics must be taken into consideration.

• There is sufficient market to recycle all concrete generated in Florida.

• Environmentally, recycling concrete is the preferred method of management in

most areas of Florida, except near Miami. Due to the proximity of limestone

mines and distance of recycling facilities, lake fill or landfill may be preferable

in some areas.

7.8. Academic Contribution

This research relies heavily on studies and data-collection performed by others.

Thus, this study did not collect the data initially or perform the studies that provided much of the data used, but aggregated the data and analyzed it in a manner that has not been done before. It contributes to a greater knowledge of the C&D debris stream, specifically, and how it should be managed in the future.

7.9. Future Research

The materials flow analysis would greatly benefit from additional research on service lives and the percentage of materials that are abandoned rather than discarded.

This is especially true for concrete in other structures, which could represent anything

114

from stadiums to concrete light poles and pipes. Since the amount of concrete consumed is so high, these assumptions have a great impact on the results of the analysis.

The market capacity analysis greatly depended on central sources that collected data on the amount of materials consumed in each state. Since few sources exist that compile this information, additional sources are needed to provide better and more complete information. This is especially true for asphalt pavement and asphalt shingle production, for which the US Census Bureau’s Economic Census was consulted.

The results of the LCA study rely entirely on the accuracy of assumptions.

Additional research is needed to determine the true impact of co-disposing all C&D debris and incinerator ash with MSW. Additionally, more information on other air pollutants, such as particulates, from waste management facilities and natural resource product facilities would enhance the results of this study. True waste generation values of CCA-treated wood and its degree of weathering throughout the US are important in determining its effect in various methods of waste management. Finally, additional information on the escape into the flue gas of arsenic, chromium, and copper from CCA- treated wood in actual wood incinerators is needed.

Recent policies enacted in cities, counties, and states need to be followed into the future. Many of the policies discussed in this dissertation were only recently enacted and the future success of the policies is unknown. Lessons learned from following the progress of these policies will help other cities and counties.

APPENDIX A LIFE CYCLE EMISSIONS FOR C&D DEBRIS

Table A-1. Asphalt shingles life cycle emissions. Recycling, Recycling, Compart- Unlined Facility Lined No Substance Unit Total Job Site ment Landfill Site Landfill Separated Separated 1 baryte Raw kg -2.63 x -1.31 -1.31 x 2 bauxite Raw g -28.8 x -14.4 -14.4 x 3 bentonite Raw g -209 x -104 -104 x 4 chromium (in ore) Raw g -2.92 x -1.46 -1.46 x 5 clay Raw g -448 x -224 -224 x 6 coal ETH Raw kg -10.4 x -5.21 -5.21 x 7 coal FAL Raw g 54.3 15.5 10.2 13 15.5 8 cobalt (in ore) Raw µg -29.6 x -14.8 -14.8 x 9 copper (in ore) Raw g -11.6 x -5.8 -5.8 x 10 crude oil ETH Raw kg -599 x -300 -300 x 11 crude oil FAL Raw g 3190 913 598 765 913 12 gravel Raw kg -4.19 x -2.09 -2.09 x 13 iron (in ore) Raw kg -2.92 x -1.46 -1.46 x 14 lead (in ore) Raw mg -1750 x -874 -874 x 15 lignite ETH Raw kg -9.63 x -4.82 -4.82 x 16 limestone Raw mg 3150 902 591 755 902 17 manganese (in ore) Raw mg -795 x -398 -398 x 18 marl Raw kg -2.4 x -1.2 -1.2 x 19 methane (kg) ETH Raw g -75 x -37.5 -37.5 x 20 molybdene (in ore) Raw µg -41.8 x -20.9 -20.9 x 21 natural gas ETH Raw l -1370 x -686 -686 x 22 natural gas FAL Raw g 221 63.4 41.5 53.1 63.4 23 nickel (in ore) Raw mg -1860 x -930 -930 x 24 palladium (in ore) Raw µg -45.7 x -22.8 -22.8 x 25 petroleum gas ETH Raw m3 -41.1 x -20.6 -20.6 x 26 platinum (in ore) Raw µg -51.6 x -25.8 -25.8 x 27 potential energy Raw MJ -42.8 x -21.4 -21.4 x water ETH 28 reservoir content Raw m3y -0.935 x -0.468 -0.468 x ETH 29 rhenium (in ore) Raw µg -48.7 x -24.4 -24.4 x 30 rhodium (in ore) Raw µg -48.6 x -24.3 -24.3 x 31 rock salt Raw g -69.4 x -34.7 -34.7 x 32 sand Raw g -958 x -479 -479 x 33 silver (in ore) Raw mg -1890 x -946 -946 x 34 tin (in ore) Raw mg -1050 x -526 -526 x 35 turbine water ETH Raw m3 -226 x -113 -113 x

115 116

Table A-1. Asphalt shingles emissions (continued). Recycling, Recycling, Compart- Unlined Facility Lined No Substance Unit Total Job Site ment Landfill Site Landfill Separated Separated 36 uranium (in ore) Raw mg -655 x -328 -328 x ETH 37 uranium FAL Raw µg 221 63.4 41.5 53.1 63.4 38 water Raw tn.lg -4.3 x -2.15 -2.15 x 39 wood (dry matter) Raw g -130 x -65.2 -65.2 x ETH 40 wood/wood wastes Raw mg 2280 653 428 547 653 FAL 41 zinc (in ore) Raw mg -163 x -81.5 -81.5 x 42 acetaldehyde Air mg -36.7 x -18.3 -18.3 x 43 acetic acid Air mg -153 x -76.7 -76.7 x 44 acetone Air mg -36.7 x -18.3 -18.3 x 45 acrolein Air µg -16.1 0.562 -8.65 -8.55 0.562 46 Al Air mg -543 x -271 -271 x 47 aldehydes Air mg 196 56.2 36.6 46.8 56.2 48 alkanes Air g -11.8 x -5.92 -5.92 x 49 alkenes Air mg -51.7 x -25.8 -25.8 x 50 ammonia Air mg -119 4.78 -64.8 -63.9 4.78 51 As Air mg -14.1 0.00945 -7.04 -7.04 0.00945 52 B Air mg -370 x -185 -185 x 53 Ba Air mg -8.19 x -4.09 -4.09 x 54 Be Air µg -85.6 0.658 -43.5 -43.4 0.658 55 benzaldehyde Air µg -6.16 x -3.08 -3.08 x 56 benzene Air g -4.66 1.79E-06 -2.33 -2.33 1.79E-06 57 benzo(a)pyrene Air µg -325 x -163 -163 x 58 Br Air mg -38 x -19 -19 x 59 butane Air g -45.6 x -22.8 -22.8 x 60 butene Air mg -1100 x -552 -552 x 61 Ca Air mg -771 x -386 -386 x 62 Cd Air mg -22.1 0.0144 -11.1 -11.1 0.0144 63 CFC-11 Air µg -208 x -104 -104 x 64 CFC-114 Air mg -5.48 x -2.74 -2.74 x 65 CFC-116 Air µg -314 x -157 -157 x 66 CFC-12 Air µg -44.6 x -22.3 -22.3 x 67 CFC-13 Air µg -28.1 x -14 -14 x 68 CFC-14 Air mg -2.82 x -1.41 -1.41 x 69 Cl2 Air µg 627 179 118 150 179 70 CO Air g -311 13 -170 -167 13 71 CO2 Air kg -243 x -122 -122 x 72 CO2 (fossil) Air kg 10.7 3.07 2.01 2.57 3.07 73 CO2 (non-fossil) Air mg 2550 730 478 611 730 74 cobalt Air mg -26.6 0.0132 -13.3 -13.3 0.0132 75 Cr Air mg -18.1 0.0108 -9.08 -9.08 0.0108 76 Cu Air mg -49.4 x -24.7 -24.7 x 77 CxHy aromatic Air mg -28.3 x -14.2 -14.2 x 78 cyanides Air µg -885 x -442 -442 x

117

Table A-1. Asphalt shingles life cycle emissions (continued). Recycling, Recycling, Compart- Unlined Facility Lined No Substance Unit Total Job Site ment Landfill Site Landfill Separated Separated 79 dichloroethane Air µg -935 x -468 -468 x 80 dichloromethane Air µg -25.8 2.51 -15.6 -15.2 2.51 81 dioxin (TEQ) Air ng -11.2 0.00299 -5.63 -5.63 0.00299 82 dust (coarse) Air g -45.2 x -22.6 -22.6 x process 83 dust (PM10) mobile Air g -11.1 x -5.57 -5.57 x 84 dust (PM10) Air g -104 x -51.8 -51.8 x stationary 85 ethane Air g -11.3 x -5.67 -5.67 x 86 ethanol Air mg -73.5 x -36.7 -36.7 x 87 ethene Air g -2.84 x -1.42 -1.42 x 88 ethylbenzene Air mg -1120 x -561 -561 x 89 ethyne Air mg -2.12 x -1.06 -1.06 x 90 Fe Air mg -674 x -337 -337 x 91 formaldehyde Air mg 2760 837 464 617 837 92 H2S Air mg -178 x -88.8 -88.8 x 93 HALON-1301 Air mg -233 x -116 -116 x 94 HCFC-21 Air mg -5.44 x -2.72 -2.72 x 95 HCFC-22 Air µg -49.3 x -24.6 -24.6 x 96 HCl Air g -6.69 0.00299 -3.35 -3.35 0.00299 97 He Air g -41.4 x -20.7 -20.7 x 98 heptane Air g -10.8 x -5.4 -5.4 x 99 hexachlorobenzene Air ng -39 x -19.5 -19.5 x 100 hexane Air g -22.7 x -11.4 -11.4 x 101 HF Air mg -855 0.395 -428 -428 0.395 102 HFC-134a Air pg - x -0.0003 -0.0003 x 0.00061 103 Hg Air mg -3.75 0.00311 -1.88 -1.88 0.00311 104 I Air mg -17.2 x -8.59 -8.59 x 105 K Air mg -565 x -283 -283 x 106 kerosene Air µg 41.8 12 7.83 10 12 107 La Air µg -239 x -119 -119 x 108 metals Air µg 1040 299 196 250 299 109 methane Air oz -84.8 0.0171 -42.4 -42.4 0.0171 110 methanol Air mg -105 x -52.4 -52.4 x 111 Mg Air mg -188 x -94 -94 x 112 Mn Air mg -138 0.0132 -69.2 -69.2 0.0132 113 Mo Air mg -14 x -7.01 -7.01 x 114 MTBE Air µg -320 x -160 -160 x 115 n- Air ng 414 118 77.6 99.2 118 nitrodimethylamine 116 N2 Air mg -395 x -197 -197 x 117 N2O Air g -6.33 0.000335 -3.16 -3.16 0.000335 118 Na Air mg -719 x -359 -359 x 119 naphthalene Air ng 2920 837 548 701 837 120 Ni Air mg -611 0.203 -306 -305 0.203

118

Table A-1. Asphalt shingles life cycle emissions (continued). Recycling, Recycling, Compart- Unlined Facility Lined No Substance Unit Total Job Site ment Landfill Site Landfill Separated Separated 121 non methane VOC Air oz -157 0.37 -79.1 -79 0.37 122 NOx Air g 199 57.1 37.4 47.8 57.1 123 NOx (as NO2) Air g -1130 x -564 -564 x 124 organic substances Air mg 125 35.9 23.5 30.1 35.9 125 P-tot Air mg -25.9 x -13 -13 x 126 PAH's Air mg -2.92 x -1.46 -1.46 x 127 particulates (PM10) Air g 14 4.01 2.62 3.36 4.01 128 particulates Air mg 693 199 130 166 199 (unspecified) 129 Pb Air mg -67.8 0.0167 -33.9 -33.9 0.0167 130 pentachlorobenzene Air ng -104 x -52.1 -52.1 x 131 pentachlorophenol Air ng -16.9 x -8.43 -8.43 x 132 pentane Air g -57.2 x -28.6 -28.6 x 133 phenol Air µg -84.3 14.4 -57.8 -55.2 14.4 134 propane Air g -45.1 x -22.6 -22.6 x 135 propene Air g -2.17 x -1.09 -1.09 x 136 propionic acid Air µg -946 x -473 -473 x 137 Pt Air µg -18.6 x -9.3 -9.3 x 138 Sb Air µg -449 4.55 -230 -229 4.55 139 Sc Air µg -80.3 x -40.1 -40.1 x 140 Se Air mg -21.6 0.00861 -10.8 -10.8 0.00861 141 Si Air mg -1840 x -919 -919 x 142 Sn Air µg -172 x -86 -86 x 143 SOx Air g 23.8 6.82 4.47 5.71 6.82 144 SOx (as SO2) Air g -1450 x -725 -725 x 145 Sr Air mg -8.13 x -4.07 -4.07 x 146 tetrachloroethene Air ng 1920 550 360 461 550 147 tetrachloromethane Air µg -219 2.27 -112 -111 2.27 148 Th Air µg -151 x -75.7 -75.7 x 149 Ti Air mg -22.6 x -11.3 -11.3 x 150 Tl Air µg -57.5 x -28.7 -28.7 x 151 toluene Air g -6.7 x -3.35 -3.35 x 152 trichloroethene Air ng 1840 526 345 441 526 153 trichloromethane Air µg -24.8 x -12.4 -12.4 x 154 U Air µg -168 x -83.8 -83.8 x 155 V Air g -2.13 x -1.07 -1.07 x 156 vinyl chloride Air µg -153 x -76.4 -76.4 x 157 xylene Air g -4.52 x -2.26 -2.26 x 158 Zn Air mg -153 x -76.4 -76.4 x 159 Zr Air µg -43.6 x -21.8 -21.8 x 160 1,1,1- Water ng -1420 x -711 -711 x trichloroethane 161 acenaphthylene Water mg -3.04 x -1.52 -1.52 x 162 Acid as H+ Water µg 3.51 1 0.658 0.842 1 163 acids (unspecified) Water mg -11.8 x -5.88 -5.88 x 164 Ag Water mg -18.3 x -9.13 -9.13 x

119

Table A-1. Asphalt shingles life cycle emissions (continued). Recycling, Recycling, Compart- Unlined Facility Lined No Substance Unit Total Job Site ment Landfill Site Landfill Separated Separated 165 Al Water g -18.9 x -9.46 -9.46 x 166 alkanes Water g -3.91 x -1.95 -1.95 x 167 alkenes Water mg -361 x -181 -181 x 168 AOX Water mg -111 x -55.6 -55.6 x 169 As Water mg -60.9 x -30.4 -30.4 x 170 B Water mg -1030 3.35 -517 -517 3.35 171 Ba Water g -77.7 x -38.9 -38.9 x 172 baryte Water g -521 x -260 -260 x 173 Be Water µg -22.9 x -11.5 -11.5 x 174 benzene Water g -3.92 x -1.96 -1.96 x 175 BOD Water g -2.52 0.0155 -1.28 -1.27 0.0155 176 calcium ions Water g -1170 1.08E-05 -587 -587 1.08E-05 177 Cd Water mg -36.4 0.155 -18.4 -18.3 0.155 178 chlorinated solvents Water µg -324 x -162 -162 x (unspec.) 179 chlorobenzenes Water ng -5.77 x -2.88 -2.88 x 180 chromate Water µg 40.9 11.7 7.68 9.82 11.7 181 Cl- Water oz -579 0.0054 -290 -290 0.0054 182 Co Water mg -33.5 x -16.7 -16.7 x 183 COD Water g -41.7 0.104 -21 -20.9 0.104 184 Cr Water µg 543 155 102 130 155 185 Cr (III) Water mg -441 x -221 -221 x 186 Cr (VI) Water µg -25.5 x -12.7 -12.7 x 187 Cs Water mg -30.1 x -15 -15 x 188 Cu Water mg -143 x -71.7 -71.7 x 189 CxHy Water mg -8.23 x -4.12 -4.12 x 190 CxHy aromatic Water g -18 x -8.99 -8.99 x 191 cyanide Water mg -136 0.000227 -67.8 -67.8 0.000227 192 di(2- Water ng -53.4 x -26.7 -26.7 x ethylhexyl)phthalate 193 dibutyl p-phthalate Water ng -307 x -154 -154 x 194 dichloroethane Water µg -482 x -241 -241 x 195 dichloromethane Water mg -240 x -120 -120 x 196 dimethyl p- Water ng -1930 x -966 -966 x phthalate 197 dissolved solids Water g 14.5 4.16 2.73 3.49 4.16 198 dissolved Water g -7.03 x -3.51 -3.51 x substances 199 DOC Water mg -20.2 x -10.1 -10.1 x 200 ethyl benzene Water mg -724 x -362 -362 x 201 fats/oils Water g -548 x -274 -274 x 202 fatty acids as C Water g -152 x -76.2 -76.2 x 203 Fe Water g -32.7 0.00227 -16.4 -16.4 0.00227 204 fluoride ions Water g -3.82 0.000049 -1.91 -1.91 0.000049 205 formaldehyde Water µg -4.65 x -2.33 -2.33 x 206 glutaraldehyde Water mg -64.4 x -32.2 -32.2 x

120

Table A-1. Asphalt shingles life cycle emissions (continued). Recycling, Recycling, Compart- Unlined Facility Lined No Substance Unit Total Job Site ment Landfill Site Landfill Separated Separated 207 H2S Water mg -3.99 x -1.99 -1.99 x 208 H2SO4 Water µg 2880 825 541 691 825 209 hexachloroethane Water ng -10.7 x -5.35 -5.35 x 210 Hg Water µg -502 0.0117 -251 -251 0.0117 211 HOCL Water mg -107 x -53.3 -53.3 x 212 I Water g -3.01 x -1.5 -1.5 x 213 K Water g -155 x -77.3 -77.3 x 214 metallic ions Water mg 75.2 21.5 14.1 18 21.5 215 Mg Water g -64.7 x -32.4 -32.4 x 216 Mn Water g -2.15 0.0011 -1.08 -1.08 0.0011 217 Mo Water mg -81.8 x -40.9 -40.9 x 218 MTBE Water µg -26.2 x -13.1 -13.1 x 219 N-tot Water g -32.3 x -16.1 -16.1 x 220 N organically Water g -3.09 x -1.54 -1.54 x bound 221 Na Water oz -348 6.75E-07 -174 -174 6.75E-07 222 NH3 Water mg 5.85 1.67 1.1 1.4 1.67 223 NH3 (as N) Water g -24.4 x -12.2 -12.2 x 224 Ni Water mg -174 x -87.1 -87.1 x 225 nitrate Water g -21.1 4.66E-06 -10.5 -10.5 4.66E-06 226 nitrite Water mg -27.8 x -13.9 -13.9 x 227 OCl- Water mg -107 x -53.3 -53.3 x 228 oil Water mg 338 96.9 63.5 81.2 96.9 229 other organics Water mg 35.5 10.2 6.66 8.52 10.2 230 P-compounds Water mg -14.6 x -7.31 -7.31 x 231 PAH's Water mg -391 x -196 -196 x 232 Pb Water mg -186 0.00179 -93 -93 0.00179 233 phenol Water µg 242 69.4 45.4 58.1 69.4 234 phenols Water g -3.95 x -1.98 -1.98 x 235 phosphate Water mg -1380 0.419 -689 -689 0.419 236 Ru Water mg -301 x -150 -150 x 237 salts Water g -34.5 x -17.2 -17.2 x 238 Sb Water µg -348 x -174 -174 x 239 Se Water mg -110 x -55.2 -55.2 x 240 Si Water mg -268 x -134 -134 x 241 Sn Water µg -127 x -63.6 -63.6 x 242 SO3 Water mg -15.1 x -7.56 -7.56 x 243 Sr Water g -183 x -91.3 -91.3 x 244 sulphate Water g -709 0.123 -354 -354 0.123 245 sulphide Water mg -987 x -494 -494 x 246 suspended solids Water mg 330 94.5 61.9 79.1 94.5 247 tetrachloroethene Water ng -1270 x -636 -636 x 248 tetrachloromethane Water ng -1940 x -972 -972 x 249 Ti Water mg -1000 x -501 -501 x 250 TOC Water g -409 x -204 -204 x 251 toluene Water g -3.25 x -1.63 -1.63 x

121

Table A-1. Asphalt shingles life cycle emissions (continued). Recycling, Recycling, Compart- Unlined Facility Lined No Substance Unit Total Job Site ment Landfill Site Landfill Separated Separated 252 tributyltin Water mg -26.2 x -13.1 -13.1 x 253 trichloroethene Water µg -80.1 x -40 -40 x 254 trichloromethane Water µg -295 x -147 -147 x 255 triethylene glycol Water mg -20.2 x -10.1 -10.1 x 256 undissolved Water g -1610 x -806 -806 x substances 257 V Water mg -113 x -56.6 -56.6 x 258 vinyl chloride Water ng -361 x -180 -180 x 259 VOC as C Water g -10.5 x -5.26 -5.26 x 260 W Water µg -588 x -294 -294 x 261 xylene Water g -2.83 x -1.42 -1.42 x 262 Zn Water mg -930 0.0777 -465 -465 0.0777 263 solid waste Solid g 55.6 15.9 10.4 13.3 15.9 264 Al (ind.) Soil g -34.5 x -17.2 -17.2 x 265 As (ind.) Soil mg -13.8 x -6.89 -6.89 x 266 C (ind.) Soil g -107 x -53.5 -53.5 x 267 Ca (ind.) Soil g -138 x -68.9 -68.9 x 268 Cd (ind.) Soil µg -594 x -297 -297 x 269 Co (ind.) Soil µg -823 x -412 -412 x 270 Cr (ind.) Soil mg -172 x -86.2 -86.2 x 271 Cu (ind.) Soil mg -4.1 x -2.05 -2.05 x 272 Fe (ind.) Soil g -68.9 x -34.4 -34.4 x 273 Hg (ind.) Soil µg -113 x -56.3 -56.3 x 274 Mn (ind.) Soil mg -1380 x -689 -689 x 275 N Soil mg -31.8 x -15.9 -15.9 x 276 Ni (ind.) Soil mg -6.16 x -3.08 -3.08 x 277 oil (ind.) Soil g -26 x -13 -13 x 278 oil biodegradable Soil mg -2.05 x -1.02 -1.02 x 279 Pb (ind.) Soil mg -18.7 x -9.35 -9.35 x 280 phosphor (ind.) Soil mg -1760 x -882 -882 x 281 S (ind.) Soil g -20.7 x -10.4 -10.4 x 282 Zn (ind.) Soil mg -559 x -279 -279 x 283 Ag110m to air Non mat. µBq -271 x -136 -136 x 284 Ag110m to water Non mat. mBq -1850 x -924 -924 x 285 alpha radiation Non mat. µBq -219 x -109 -109 x (unspecified) to water 286 Am241 to air Non mat. mBq -5.05 x -2.52 -2.52 x 287 Am241 to water Non mat. mBq -666 x -333 -333 x 288 Ar41 to air Non mat. Bq -588 x -294 -294 x 289 Ba140 to air Non mat. µBq -1060 x -529 -529 x 290 Ba140 to water Non mat. mBq -3.33 x -1.66 -1.66 x 291 beta radiation Non mat. µBq -34 x -17 -17 x (unspecified) to air 292 C14 to air Non mat. Bq -406 x -203 -203 x 293 C14 to water Non mat. Bq -33.6 x -16.8 -16.8 x

122

Table A-1. Asphalt shingles life cycle emissions (continued). Recycling, Recycling, Compart- Unlined Facility Lined No Substance Unit Total Job Site ment Landfill Site Landfill Separated Separated 294 Cd109 to water Non mat. µBq -19.3 x -9.63 -9.63 x 295 Ce141 to air Non mat. µBq -25.1 x -12.6 -12.6 x 296 Ce141 to water Non mat. µBq -497 x -249 -249 x 297 Ce144 to air Non mat. mBq -53.6 x -26.8 -26.8 x 298 Ce144 to water Non mat. Bq -15.2 x -7.62 -7.62 x 299 Cm (alpha) to air Non mat. mBq -8.01 x -4 -4 x 300 Cm (alpha) to water Non mat. mBq -879 x -440 -440 x 301 Cm242 to air Non mat. nBq -26.6 x -13.3 -13.3 x 302 Cm244 to air Non mat. nBq -242 x -121 -121 x 303 Co57 to air Non mat. nBq -465 x -232 -232 x 304 Co57 to water Non mat. mBq -3.42 x -1.71 -1.71 x 305 Co58 to air Non mat. mBq -7.67 x -3.84 -3.84 x 306 Co58 to water Non mat. Bq -2.88 x -1.44 -1.44 x 307 Co60 to air Non mat. mBq -11.4 x -5.71 -5.71 x 308 Co60 to water Non mat. Bq -147 x -73.5 -73.5 x 309 Cr51 to air Non mat. µBq -952 x -476 -476 x 310 Cr51 to water Non mat. mBq -73.4 x -36.7 -36.7 x 311 Cs134 to air Non mat. mBq -192 x -95.8 -95.8 x 312 Cs134 to water Non mat. Bq -34 x -17 -17 x 313 Cs136 to water Non mat. µBq -17.9 x -8.93 -8.93 x 314 Cs137 to air Non mat. mBq -370 x -185 -185 x 315 Cs137 to water Non mat. Bq -313 x -157 -157 x 316 Fe59 to air Non mat. µBq -10.5 x -5.26 -5.26 x 317 Fe59 to water Non mat. µBq -58.8 x -29.4 -29.4 x 318 Fission and Non mat. mBq -1990 x -994 -994 x activation products (RA) to water 319 H3 to air Non mat. kBq -4.19 x -2.09 -2.09 x 320 H3 to water Non mat. kBq -999 x -499 -499 x 321 I129 to air Non mat. mBq -1440 x -720 -720 x 322 I129 to water Non mat. Bq -96.3 x -48.2 -48.2 x 323 I131 to air Non mat. mBq -160 x -80.1 -80.1 x 324 I131 to water Non mat. mBq -63.8 x -31.9 -31.9 x 325 I133 to air Non mat. mBq -89.6 x -44.8 -44.8 x 326 I133 to water Non mat. mBq -15.2 x -7.62 -7.62 x 327 I135 to air Non mat. mBq -134 x -67.2 -67.2 x 328 K40 to air Non mat. mBq -767 x -384 -384 x 329 K40 to water Non mat. Bq -2.41 x -1.21 -1.21 x 330 Kr85 to air Non mat. kBq -24800 x -12400 -12400 x 331 Kr85m to air Non mat. Bq -29.4 x -14.7 -14.7 x 332 Kr87 to air Non mat. Bq -13.2 x -6.58 -6.58 x 333 Kr88 to air Non mat. Bq -1170 x -585 -585 x 334 Kr89 to air Non mat. Bq -9.24 x -4.62 -4.62 x 335 La140 to air Non mat. µBq -672 x -336 -336 x 336 La140 to water Non mat. µBq -689 x -344 -344 x

123

Table A-1. Asphalt shingles life cycle emissions (continued). Recycling, Recycling, Compart- Unlined Facility Lined No Substance Unit Total Job Site ment Landfill Site Landfill Separated Separated 337 land use (sea floor) Non mat. m2a -41.8 x -20.9 -20.9 x II-III 338 land use (sea floor) Non mat. m2a -4.31 x -2.16 -2.16 x II-IV 339 land use II-III Non mat. m2a -3 x -1.5 -1.5 x 340 land use II-IV Non mat. m2a -0.941 x -0.47 -0.47 x 341 land use III-IV Non mat. m2a -0.756 x -0.378 -0.378 x 342 land use IV-IV Non mat. cm2a -106 x -53.2 -53.2 x 343 Mn54 to air Non mat. µBq -275 x -137 -137 x 344 Mn54 to water Non mat. Bq -22.5 x -11.3 -11.3 x 345 Mo99 to water Non mat. µBq -232 x -116 -116 x 346 Na24 to water Non mat. mBq -102 x -51.2 -51.2 x 347 Nb95 to air Non mat. µBq -48.7 x -24.3 -24.3 x 348 Nb95 to water Non mat. µBq -1890 x -944 -944 x 349 Np237 to air Non mat. nBq -264 x -132 -132 x 350 Np237 to water Non mat. mBq -42.4 x -21.2 -21.2 x 351 Pa234m to air Non mat. mBq -160 x -80.1 -80.1 x 352 Pa234m to water Non mat. Bq -2.97 x -1.48 -1.48 x 353 Pb210 to air Non mat. Bq -4.48 x -2.24 -2.24 x 354 Pb210 to water Non mat. mBq -1930 x -963 -963 x 355 Pm147 to air Non mat. mBq -136 x -68 -68 x 356 Po210 to air Non mat. Bq -6.71 x -3.36 -3.36 x 357 Po210 to water Non mat. mBq -1930 x -963 -963 x 358 Pu alpha to air Non mat. mBq -16 x -8.01 -8.01 x 359 Pu alpha to water Non mat. Bq -2.64 x -1.32 -1.32 x 360 Pu238 to air Non mat. nBq -599 x -300 -300 x 361 Pu241 Beta to air Non mat. mBq -440 x -220 -220 x 362 Pu241 beta to water Non mat. Bq -65.5 x -32.8 -32.8 x 363 Ra224 to water Non mat. Bq -1500 x -752 -752 x 364 Ra226 to air Non mat. Bq -5.72 x -2.86 -2.86 x 365 Ra226 to water Non mat. kBq -15.2 x -7.61 -7.61 x 366 Ra228 to air Non mat. mBq -377 x -189 -189 x 367 Ra228 to water Non mat. kBq -3.01 x -1.5 -1.5 x 368 radio active noble Non mat. Bq -35.2 x -17.6 -17.6 x gases to air 369 radioactive Non mat. Bq 2970 849 556 711 849 substance to air 370 radionuclides Non mat. µBq -1440 x -720 -720 x (mixed) to water 371 Rn220 to air Non mat. Bq -35.3 x -17.7 -17.7 x 372 Rn222 (long term) Non mat. kBq -35700 x -17800 -17800 x to air 373 Rn222 to air Non mat. kBq -392 x -196 -196 x 374 Ru103 to air Non mat. µBq -2.75 x -1.37 -1.37 x 375 Ru103 to water Non mat. µBq -1110 x -557 -557 x 376 Ru106 to air Non mat. mBq -1600 x -801 -801 x 377 Ru106 to water Non mat. Bq -160 x -80.1 -80.1 x

124

Table A-1. Asphalt shingles life cycle emissions (continued). Recycling, Recycling, Compart- Unlined Facility Lined No Substance Unit Total Job Site ment Landfill Site Landfill Separated Separated 378 Sb122 to water Non mat. mBq -3.33 x -1.66 -1.66 x 379 Sb124 to air Non mat. µBq -74.5 x -37.2 -37.2 x 380 Sb124 to water Non mat. mBq -476 x -238 -238 x 381 Sb125 to air Non mat. µBq -9.46 x -4.73 -4.73 x 382 Sb125 to water Non mat. mBq -27.2 x -13.6 -13.6 x 383 Sr89 to air Non mat. µBq -481 x -241 -241 x 384 Sr89 to water Non mat. mBq -7.5 x -3.75 -3.75 x 385 Sr90 to air Non mat. mBq -264 x -132 -132 x 386 Sr90 to water Non mat. Bq -32 x -16 -16 x 387 Tc99 to air Non mat. µBq -11.2 x -5.6 -5.6 x 388 Tc99 to water Non mat. Bq -16.8 x -8.4 -8.4 x 389 Tc99m to water Non mat. µBq -1570 x -784 -784 x 390 Te123m to air Non mat. µBq -1210 x -605 -605 x 391 Te123m to water Non mat. µBq -141 x -70.3 -70.3 x 392 Te132 to water Non mat. µBq -57.7 x -28.8 -28.8 x 393 Th228 to air Non mat. mBq -319 x -160 -160 x 394 Th228 to water Non mat. kBq -6.02 x -3.01 -3.01 x 395 Th230 to air Non mat. mBq -1780 x -890 -890 x 396 Th230 to water Non mat. Bq -464 x -232 -232 x 397 Th232 to air Non mat. mBq -203 x -101 -101 x 398 Th232 to water Non mat. mBq -450 x -225 -225 x 399 Th234 to air Non mat. mBq -160 x -80.1 -80.1 x 400 Th234 to water Non mat. Bq -3 x -1.5 -1.5 x 401 U alpha to air Non mat. Bq -5.77 x -2.88 -2.88 x 402 U alpha to water Non mat. Bq -194 x -96.9 -96.9 x 403 U234 to air Non mat. mBq -1920 x -960 -960 x 404 U234 to water Non mat. Bq -3.96 x -1.98 -1.98 x 405 U235 to air Non mat. mBq -93 x -46.5 -46.5 x 406 U235 to water Non mat. Bq -5.94 x -2.97 -2.97 x 407 U238 to air Non mat. Bq -2.48 x -1.24 -1.24 x 408 U238 to water Non mat. Bq -10 x -5.01 -5.01 x 409 waste heat to air Non mat. GJ -3.89 x -1.94 -1.94 x 410 waste heat to soil Non mat. MJ -2.08 x -1.04 -1.04 x 411 waste heat to water Non mat. MJ -266 x -133 -133 x 412 Xe131m to air Non mat. Bq -60.5 x -30.2 -30.2 x 413 Xe133 to air Non mat. kBq -17.9 x -8.93 -8.93 x 414 Xe133m to air Non mat. Bq -8.96 x -4.48 -4.48 x 415 Xe135 to air Non mat. kBq -3.04 x -1.52 -1.52 x 416 Xe135m to air Non mat. Bq -301 x -150 -150 x 417 Xe137 to air Non mat. Bq -7.45 x -3.72 -3.72 x 418 Xe138 to air Non mat. Bq -81.2 x -40.6 -40.6 x 419 Y90 to water Non mat. µBq -384 x -192 -192 x 420 Zn65 to air Non mat. µBq -1180 x -591 -591 x 421 Zn65 to water Non mat. mBq -216 x -108 -108 x 422 Zr95 to air Non mat. µBq -17.6 x -8.82 -8.82 x 423 Zr95 to water Non mat. mBq -1360 x -681 -681 x

125

Table A-2. Concrete life cycle emissions. Recycling, Recycling, Compart- Unlined Facility Lined No Substance Unit Total Job Site ment landfill Site Landfill Separated Separated 1 baryte Raw g -10.4 x -5.21 -5.21 x 2 bauxite Raw g -2.78 x -1.39 -1.39 x 3 bentonite Raw g -2.08 x -1.04 -1.04 x 4 chromium (in ore) Raw mg -114 x -56.9 -56.9 x 5 clay Raw g -4.92 x -2.46 -2.46 x 6 coal ETH Raw g -1630 x -813 -813 x 7 coal FAL Raw g 44.3 15.5 5.2 8.04 15.5 8 cobalt (in ore) Raw µg -5.04 x -2.52 -2.52 x 9 copper (in ore) Raw mg -1330 x -665 -665 x 10 crude oil ETH Raw kg -2.12 x -1.06 -1.06 x 11 crude oil FAL Raw g 2600 913 305 472 913 12 gravel Raw g -232 x -116 -116 x 13 iron (in ore) Raw g -35.8 x -17.9 -17.9 x 14 lead (in ore) Raw mg -172 x -86.1 -86.1 x 15 lignite ETH Raw g -1240 x -619 -619 x 16 limestone Raw mg 2570 902 301 466 902 17 manganese (in ore) Raw mg -25.8 x -12.9 -12.9 x 18 marl Raw ton -2 x -1 -1 x 19 methane (kg) ETH Raw g -10.5 x -5.23 -5.23 x 20 molybdene (in ore) Raw µg -8.56 x -4.28 -4.28 x 21 natural gas ETH Raw l -728 x -364 -364 x 22 natural gas FAL Raw g 181 63.4 21.2 32.8 63.4 23 nickel (in ore) Raw mg -76 x -38 -38 x 24 palladium (in ore) Raw ng -212 x -106 -106 x 25 petroleum gas ETH Raw l -146 x -72.8 -72.8 x 26 platinum (in ore) Raw ng -244 x -122 -122 x 27 potential energy Raw MJ -6.52 x -3.26 -3.26 x water ETH 28 reservoir content Raw m3y - x -0.0721 -0.0721 x ETH 0.144 29 rhenium (in ore) Raw ng -220 x -110 -110 x 30 rhodium (in ore) Raw ng -226 x -113 -113 x 31 rock salt Raw g -3.02 x -1.51 -1.51 x 32 sand Raw g -23.2 x -11.6 -11.6 x 33 silver (in ore) Raw mg -6.7 x -3.35 -3.35 x 34 tin (in ore) Raw mg -3.72 x -1.86 -1.86 x 35 turbine water ETH Raw m3 -33.4 x -16.7 -16.7 x 36 uranium (in ore) Raw mg -88.2 x -44.1 -44.1 x ETH 37 uranium FAL Raw µg 181 63.4 21.2 32.8 63.4 38 water Raw kg -946 x -473 -473 x 39 wood (dry matter) Raw g -19.3 x -9.64 -9.64 x ETH 40 wood/wood wastes Raw mg 1860 653 218 338 653 FAL 41 zinc (in ore) Raw mg -3.1 x -1.55 -1.55 x 42 acetaldehyde Air mg -3.26 x -1.63 -1.63 x

126

Table A-2. Concrete life cycle emissions (continued). Recycling, Recycling, Compart- Unlined Facility Lined No Substance Unit Total Job Site ment landfill Site Landfill Separated Separated 43 acetic acid Air mg -16.2 x -8.12 -8.12 x 44 acetone Air mg -3.24 x -1.62 -1.62 x 45 acrolein Air ng 1470 562 124 226 562 46 Al Air mg -175 x -87.5 -87.5 x 47 aldehydes Air mg 160 56.2 18.8 29 56.2 48 alkanes Air mg -103 x -51.6 -51.6 x 49 alkenes Air mg -11.6 x -5.82 -5.82 x 50 ammonia Air mg -455 4.78 -233 -232 4.78 51 As Air µg -629 9.45 -325 -323 9.45 52 B Air mg -58.6 x -29.3 -29.3 x 53 Ba Air mg -2.37 x -1.18 -1.18 x 54 Be Air µg -31.4 0.658 -16.4 -16.3 0.658 55 benzaldehyde Air ng -44.2 x -22.1 -22.1 x 56 benzene Air mg -36.9 0.00179 -18.5 -18.5 0.00179 57 benzo(a)pyrene Air µg -7.26 x -3.63 -3.63 x 58 Br Air mg -7.1 x -3.55 -3.55 x 59 butane Air mg -236 x -118 -118 x 60 butene Air mg -5.8 x -2.9 -2.9 x 61 Ca Air mg -88.5 x -44.2 -44.2 x 62 Cd Air µg -424 14.4 -227 -225 14.4 63 CFC-11 Air µg -27.8 x -13.9 -13.9 x 64 CFC-114 Air µg -738 x -369 -369 x 65 CFC-116 Air µg -30.2 x -15.1 -15.1 x 66 CFC-12 Air µg -5.96 x -2.98 -2.98 x 67 CFC-13 Air µg -3.74 x -1.87 -1.87 x 68 CFC-14 Air µg -272 x -136 -136 x 69 Cl2 Air µg 512 179 60 92.7 179 70 CO Air g 26.3 13 -0.984 1.38 13 71 CO2 Air kg -12.3 x -6.15 -6.15 x 72 CO2 (fossil) Air kg 8.74 3.07 1.02 1.58 3.07 73 CO2 (non-fossil) Air mg 2080 730 244 377 730 74 cobalt Air µg -854 13.2 -441 -439 13.2 75 Cr Air µg -829 10.8 -426 -424 10.8 76 Cu Air mg -47.2 x -23.6 -23.6 x 77 CxHy aromatic Air mg -4.08 x -2.04 -2.04 x 78 cyanides Air µg -16.4 x -8.18 -8.18 x 79 dichloroethane Air µg -230 x -115 -115 x 80 dichloromethane Air µg 3.3 2.51 -1.09 -0.632 2.51 81 dioxin (TEQ) Air pg -621 2.99 -314 -313 2.99 82 dust Air kg 0 x 0 0 x 83 dust (coarse) Air g -322 x -161 -161 x process 84 dust (PM10) Air kg 0 x 0 0 x 85 dust (PM10) mobile Air mg -122 x -60.9 -60.9 x 86 dust (PM10) Air mg -1730 x -866 -866 x stationary

127

Table A-2. Concrete life cycle emissions (continued). Recycling, Recycling, Compart- Unlined Facility Lined No Substance Unit Total Job Site ment landfill Site Landfill Separated Separated 87 ethane Air mg -204 x -102 -102 x 88 ethanol Air mg -6.5 x -3.25 -3.25 x 89 ethene Air mg -85.4 x -42.7 -42.7 x 90 ethylbenzene Air mg -9.8 x -4.9 -4.9 x 91 ethyne Air mg -5.7 x -2.85 -2.85 x 92 Fe Air mg -91.2 x -45.6 -45.6 x 93 formaldehyde Air mg 2310 837 241 394 837 94 H2S Air mg -14.1 x -7.03 -7.03 x 95 HALON-1301 Air µg -828 x -414 -414 x 96 HCFC-21 Air µg -362 x -181 -181 x 97 HCFC-22 Air µg -6.64 x -3.32 -3.32 x 98 HCl Air mg -1300 2.99 -653 -652 2.99 99 He Air mg -147 x -73.4 -73.4 x 100 heptane Air mg -45.2 x -22.6 -22.6 x 101 hexachlorobenzene Air ng -6.1 x -3.05 -3.05 x 102 hexane Air mg -94.4 x -47.2 -47.2 x 103 HF Air mg -117 0.395 -58.8 -58.7 0.395 104 Hg Air µg -301 3.11 -154 -153 3.11 105 I Air mg -2.76 x -1.38 -1.38 x 106 K Air mg -27.8 x -13.9 -13.9 x 107 kerosene Air µg 34.1 12 4 6.18 12 108 La Air µg -63.1 x -31.5 -31.5 x 109 metals Air µg 853 299 99.9 155 299 110 methane Air g -19.5 0.484 -10.3 -10.2 0.484 111 methanol Air mg -8.46 x -4.23 -4.23 x 112 Mg Air mg -61.7 x -30.8 -30.8 x 113 Mn Air mg -2.11 0.0132 -1.07 -1.07 0.0132 114 Mo Air µg -395 x -198 -198 x 115 MTBE Air µg -7.5 x -3.75 -3.75 x 116 n- Air ng 338 118 39.6 61.2 118 nitrodimethylamine 117 N2 Air mg -202 x -101 -101 x 118 N2O Air mg -272 0.335 -136 -136 0.335 119 Na Air mg -26.8 x -13.4 -13.4 x 120 naphthalene Air ng 2390 837 280 433 837 121 Ni Air mg -11.1 0.203 -5.76 -5.72 0.203 122 non methane VOC Air g 12.8 10.5 -5.03 -3.11 10.5 123 NOx Air g 163 57.1 19.1 29.5 57.1 124 NOx (as NO2) Air g -25.9 x -12.9 -12.9 x 125 organic substances Air mg 102 35.9 12 18.5 35.9 126 P-tot Air µg -1990 x -995 -995 x 127 PAH's Air µg -346 x -173 -173 x 128 particulates (PM10) Air g 11.4 4.01 1.34 2.07 4.01 129 particulates Air mg 566 199 66.4 103 199 (unspecified) 130 Pb Air mg -3.09 0.0167 -1.56 -1.56 0.0167

128

Table A-2. Concrete life cycle emissions (continued). Recycling, Recycling, Compart- Unlined Facility Lined No Substance Unit Total Job Site ment landfill Site Landfill Separated Separated 131 pentachlorobenzene Air ng -16.3 x -8.17 -8.17 x 132 pentachlorophenol Air ng -2.64 x -1.32 -1.32 x 133 pentane Air mg -284 x -142 -142 x 134 phenol Air µg 32.9 14.4 0.788 3.41 14.4 135 propane Air mg -242 x -121 -121 x 136 propene Air mg -15.4 x -7.68 -7.68 x 137 propionic acid Air µg -440 x -220 -220 x 138 Pt Air ng -430 x -215 -215 x 139 Sb Air µg -68.9 4.55 -39.4 -38.6 4.55 140 Sc Air µg -21.1 x -10.6 -10.6 x 141 Se Air µg -1010 8.61 -516 -514 8.61 142 Si Air mg -397 x -198 -198 x 143 Sn Air µg -28.5 x -14.2 -14.2 x 144 SOx Air g 19.4 6.82 2.28 3.52 6.82 145 SOx (as SO2) Air g -48.8 x -24.4 -24.4 x 146 Sr Air mg -3.25 x -1.62 -1.62 x 147 tetrachloroethene Air ng 1570 550 184 284 550 148 tetrachloromethane Air µg -48.3 2.27 -26.6 -26.2 2.27 149 Th Air µg -41.3 x -20.7 -20.7 x 150 Ti Air mg -6.74 x -3.37 -3.37 x 151 Tl Air µg -18.4 x -9.2 -9.2 x 152 toluene Air mg -38.2 x -19.1 -19.1 x 153 trichloroethene Air ng 1500 526 176 272 526 154 trichloromethane Air µg -6.08 x -3.04 -3.04 x 155 U Air µg -43.7 x -21.8 -21.8 x 156 V Air mg -42.1 x -21 -21 x 157 vinyl chloride Air µg -37.4 x -18.7 -18.7 x 158 xylene Air mg -43.2 x -21.6 -21.6 x 159 Zn Air mg -51.3 x -25.7 -25.7 x 160 Zr Air ng -1350 x -675 -675 x 161 1,1,1- Water ng -105 x -52.4 -52.4 x trichloroethane 162 acenaphthylene Water µg -616 x -308 -308 x 163 Acid as H+ Water µg 2.86 1 0.336 0.519 1 164 acids (unspecified) Water µg -452 x -226 -226 x 165 Ag Water µg -63.1 x -31.5 -31.5 x 166 Al Water g -2.66 x -1.33 -1.33 x 167 alkanes Water mg -13.2 x -6.61 -6.61 x 168 alkenes Water µg -1220 x -609 -609 x 169 AOX Water µg -325 x -162 -162 x 170 As Water mg -5.32 x -2.66 -2.66 x 171 B Water mg 3.58 3.35 -1.87 -1.25 3.35 172 Ba Water mg -462 x -231 -231 x 173 baryte Water mg -1940 x -972 -972 x 174 Be Water µg -4.08 x -2.04 -2.04 x 175 benzene Water mg -13.4 x -6.7 -6.7 x

129

Table A-2. Concrete life cycle emissions (continued). Recycling, Recycling, Compart- Unlined Facility Lined No Substance Unit Total Job Site ment landfill Site Landfill Separated Separated 176 BOD Water mg 29.3 15.5 -2.34 0.498 15.5 177 calcium ions Water oz 296 293 -0.11 -0.11 3.53 178 carbonate Water oz 588 581 x x 7.05 179 Cd Water µg 110 155 -115 -86.5 155 180 chlorinated solvents Water µg -3.78 x -1.89 -1.89 x (unspec.) 181 chlorobenzenes Water pg -386 x -193 -193 x 182 chromate Water µg 33.4 11.7 3.92 6.06 11.7 183 Cl- Water g 630 700 -35.2 -35.2 0.153 184 Co Water mg -5.18 x -2.59 -2.59 x 185 COD Water mg -7.1 104 -117 -98.1 104 186 Cr Water µg 443 155 52 80.4 155 187 Cr (III) Water mg -27 x -13.5 -13.5 x 188 Cr (VI) Water µg -7.46 x -3.73 -3.73 x 189 Cs Water µg -101 x -50.6 -50.6 x 190 Cu Water mg -13.3 x -6.64 -6.64 x 191 CxHy Water µg -1030 x -516 -516 x 192 CxHy aromatic Water mg -61.2 x -30.6 -30.6 x 193 cyanide Water µg -528 0.227 -264 -264 0.227 194 di(2- Water ng -11.3 x -5.63 -5.63 x ethylhexyl)phthalate 195 dibutyl p-phthalate Water ng -62.4 x -31.2 -31.2 x 196 dichloroethane Water µg -118 x -59.1 -59.1 x 197 dichloromethane Water µg -996 x -498 -498 x 198 dimethyl p- Water ng -392 x -196 -196 x phthalate 199 dissolved solids Water lb 65.1 64.4 0.00307 0.00474 0.671 200 dissolved Water mg -1110 x -554 -554 x substances 201 DOC Water mg -10.7 x -5.37 -5.37 x 202 ethyl benzene Water mg -2.42 x -1.21 -1.21 x 203 fats/oils Water mg -1960 x -979 -979 x 204 fatty acids as C Water mg -513 x -256 -256 x 205 Fe Water g -2.82 0.00227 -1.41 -1.41 0.00227 206 fluoride ions Water mg -23.9 0.049 -12 -12 0.049 207 formaldehyde Water ng -348 x -174 -174 x 208 glutaraldehyde Water µg -240 x -120 -120 x 209 H2S Water µg -89.6 x -44.8 -44.8 x 210 H2SO4 Water µg 2350 825 276 427 825 211 hexachloroethane Water ng -2.62 x -1.31 -1.31 x 212 Hg Water µg -7 0.0117 -3.51 -3.51 0.0117 213 HOCL Water mg -13.7 x -6.83 -6.83 x 214 I Water mg -10.1 x -5.03 -5.03 x 215 K Water mg -1270 x -634 -634 x 216 metallic ions Water mg 61.4 21.5 7.2 11.1 21.5 217 Mg Water g -2.27 x -1.13 -1.13 x

130

Table A-2. Concrete life cycle emissions (continued). Recycling, Recycling, Compart- Unlined Facility Lined No Substance Unit Total Job Site ment landfill Site Landfill Separated Separated 218 Mn Water mg -61.5 1.1 -31.9 -31.7 1.1 219 Mo Water mg -9.16 x -4.58 -4.58 x 220 MTBE Water ng -618 x -309 -309 x 221 N-tot Water mg -162 x -81 -81 x 222 N organically Water mg -24.3 x -12.1 -12.1 x bound 223 Na Water g -35.8 1.91E- -17.9 -17.9 1.91E- 05 05 224 NH3 Water mg 4.77 1.67 0.56 0.866 1.67 225 NH3 (as N) Water mg -364 x -182 -182 x 226 Ni Water mg -13.4 x -6.71 -6.71 x 227 nitrate Water mg -321 0.00466 -161 -161 0.00466 228 nitrite Water mg -3.49 x -1.75 -1.75 x 229 OCl- Water mg -13.7 x -6.83 -6.83 x 230 oil Water mg 276 96.9 32.4 50.1 96.9 231 other organics Water mg 29 10.2 3.4 5.26 10.2 232 P-compounds Water µg -63.4 x -31.7 -31.7 x 233 PAH's Water µg -1330 x -665 -665 x 234 Pb Water mg -15.3 0.00179 -7.66 -7.66 0.00179 235 phenol Water µg 198 69.4 23.2 35.9 69.4 236 phenols Water mg -12.7 x -6.33 -6.33 x 237 phosphate Water mg -156 0.419 -78.4 -78.3 0.419 238 Ru Water µg -1010 x -506 -506 x 239 salts Water g -4.38 x -2.19 -2.19 x 240 Sb Water µg -37.2 x -18.6 -18.6 x 241 Se Water mg -13.3 x -6.65 -6.65 x 242 Si Water mg -2.3 x -1.15 -1.15 x 243 Sn Water µg -16.3 x -8.16 -8.16 x 244 SO3 Water mg -2.06 x -1.03 -1.03 x 245 Sr Water mg -641 x -321 -321 x 246 sulphate Water g 778 800 -11.3 -11.3 0.123 247 sulphide Water mg -2.69 x -1.35 -1.35 x 248 suspended solids Water mg 269 94.5 31.6 48.8 94.5 249 tetrachloroethene Water ng -312 x -156 -156 x 250 tetrachloromethane Water ng -476 x -238 -238 x 251 Ti Water mg -156 x -78 -78 x 252 TOC Water g -2.07 x -1.04 -1.04 x 253 toluene Water mg -11.1 x -5.53 -5.53 x 254 tributyltin Water µg -140 x -70.2 -70.2 x 255 trichloroethene Water µg -19.7 x -9.85 -9.85 x 256 trichloromethane Water µg -72.2 x -36.1 -36.1 x 257 triethylene glycol Water mg -10.7 x -5.37 -5.37 x 258 undissolved Water g -6.26 x -3.13 -3.13 x substances 259 V Water mg -13.8 x -6.9 -6.9 x 260 vinyl chloride Water ng -88.4 x -44.2 -44.2 x

131

Table A-2. Concrete life cycle emissions (continued). Recycling, Recycling, Compart- Unlined Facility Lined No Substance Unit Total Job Site ment landfill Site Landfill Separated Separated 261 VOC as C Water mg -35.2 x -17.6 -17.6 x 262 W Water µg -172 x -86.1 -86.1 x 263 xylene Water mg -9.57 x -4.78 -4.78 x 264 Zn Water mg -29.4 0.0777 -14.8 -14.8 0.0777 265 solid waste Solid g 45.4 15.9 5.32 8.22 15.9 266 Al (ind.) Soil mg -143 x -71.6 -71.6 x 267 As (ind.) Soil µg -57.2 x -28.6 -28.6 x 268 C (ind.) Soil mg -442 x -221 -221 x 269 Ca (ind.) Soil mg -572 x -286 -286 x 270 Cd (ind.) Soil µg -2.16 x -1.08 -1.08 x 271 Co (ind.) Soil µg -2.76 x -1.38 -1.38 x 272 Cr (ind.) Soil µg -716 x -358 -358 x 273 Cu (ind.) Soil µg -13.8 x -6.89 -6.89 x 274 Fe (ind.) Soil mg -286 x -143 -143 x 275 Hg (ind.) Soil ng -382 x -191 -191 x 276 Mn (ind.) Soil mg -5.72 x -2.86 -2.86 x 277 N Soil µg -110 x -55.2 -55.2 x 278 Ni (ind.) Soil µg -20.6 x -10.3 -10.3 x 279 oil (ind.) Soil mg -89.2 x -44.6 -44.6 x 280 oil biodegradable Soil µg -304 x -152 -152 x 281 Pb (ind.) Soil µg -62.8 x -31.4 -31.4 x 282 phosphor (ind.) Soil mg -7.3 x -3.65 -3.65 x 283 S (ind.) Soil mg -86 x -43 -43 x 284 Zn (ind.) Soil mg -2.28 x -1.14 -1.14 x 285 Ag110m to air Non mat. µBq -35 x -17.5 -17.5 x 286 Ag110m to water Non mat. mBq -238 x -119 -119 x 287 alpha radiation Non mat. µBq -28.2 x -14.1 -14.1 x (unspecified) to water 288 Am241 to air Non mat. µBq -680 x -340 -340 x 289 Am241 to water Non mat. mBq -89.6 x -44.8 -44.8 x 290 Ar41 to air Non mat. Bq -75.6 x -37.8 -37.8 x 291 Ba140 to air Non mat. µBq -168 x -84.1 -84.1 x 292 Ba140 to water Non mat. µBq -974 x -487 -487 x 293 beta radiation Non mat. µBq -8.54 x -4.27 -4.27 x (unspecified) to air 294 C14 to air Non mat. Bq -56 x -28 -28 x 295 C14 to water Non mat. Bq -4.54 x -2.27 -2.27 x 296 Cd109 to water Non mat. µBq -5.62 x -2.81 -2.81 x 297 Ce141 to air Non mat. µBq -3.28 x -1.64 -1.64 x 298 Ce141 to water Non mat. µBq -145 x -72.7 -72.7 x 299 Ce144 to air Non mat. mBq -7.24 x -3.62 -3.62 x 300 Ce144 to water Non mat. Bq -2.06 x -1.03 -1.03 x 301 Cm (alpha) to air Non mat. µBq -1080 x -540 -540 x 302 Cm (alpha) to water Non mat. mBq -119 x -59.4 -59.4 x 303 Cm242 to air Non mat. nBq -3.42 x -1.71 -1.71 x

132

Table A-2. Concrete life cycle emissions (continued). Recycling, Recycling, Compart- Unlined Facility Lined No Substance Unit Total Job Site ment landfill Site Landfill Separated Separated 304 Cm244 to air Non mat. nBq -31 x -15.5 -15.5 x 305 Co57 to air Non mat. nBq -59.8 x -29.9 -29.9 x 306 Co57 to water Non mat. µBq -998 x -499 -499 x 307 Co58 to air Non mat. µBq -990 x -495 -495 x 308 Co58 to water Non mat. mBq -570 x -285 -285 x 309 Co60 to air Non mat. µBq -1520 x -758 -758 x 310 Co60 to water Non mat. Bq -20.1 x -10.1 -10.1 x 311 Cr51 to air Non mat. µBq -127 x -63.4 -63.4 x 312 Cr51 to water Non mat. mBq -21.4 x -10.7 -10.7 x 313 Cs134 to air Non mat. mBq -25.8 x -12.9 -12.9 x 314 Cs134 to water Non mat. Bq -4.59 x -2.3 -2.3 x 315 Cs136 to water Non mat. µBq -5.22 x -2.61 -2.61 x 316 Cs137 to air Non mat. mBq -49.8 x -24.9 -24.9 x 317 Cs137 to water Non mat. Bq -42.4 x -21.2 -21.2 x 318 Fe59 to air Non mat. nBq -1350 x -676 -676 x 319 Fe59 to water Non mat. µBq -17.2 x -8.62 -8.62 x 320 Fission and Non mat. mBq -256 x -128 -128 x activation products (RA) to water 321 H3 to air Non mat. Bq -548 x -274 -274 x 322 H3 to water Non mat. kBq -134 x -67.2 -67.2 x 323 I129 to air Non mat. mBq -194 x -97.2 -97.2 x 324 I129 to water Non mat. Bq -13 x -6.48 -6.48 x 325 I131 to air Non mat. mBq -30.2 x -15.1 -15.1 x 326 I131 to water Non mat. mBq -10.5 x -5.23 -5.23 x 327 I133 to air Non mat. mBq -11.6 x -5.81 -5.81 x 328 I133 to water Non mat. mBq -4.46 x -2.23 -2.23 x 329 I135 to air Non mat. mBq -17.3 x -8.64 -8.64 x 330 K40 to air Non mat. mBq -244 x -122 -122 x 331 K40 to water Non mat. mBq -310 x -155 -155 x 332 Kr85 to air Non mat. kBq -3340 x -1670 -1670 x 333 Kr85m to air Non mat. Bq -6.82 x -3.41 -3.41 x 334 Kr87 to air Non mat. Bq -2.6 x -1.3 -1.3 x 335 Kr88 to air Non mat. Bq -152 x -75.9 -75.9 x 336 Kr89 to air Non mat. Bq -2.14 x -1.07 -1.07 x 337 La140 to air Non mat. µBq -91.6 x -45.8 -45.8 x 338 La140 to water Non mat. µBq -202 x -101 -101 x 339 land use (sea floor) Non mat. cm2a -1560 x -780 -780 x II-III 340 land use (sea floor) Non mat. cm2a -161 x -80.5 -80.5 x II-IV 341 land use II-III Non mat. m2a - x -0.418 -0.418 x 0.836 342 land use II-IV Non mat. cm2a -1630 x -814 -814 x 343 land use III-IV Non mat. cm2a -156 x -78.2 -78.2 x 344 land use IV-IV Non mat. cm2a -51.6 x -25.8 -25.8 x

133

Table A-2. Concrete life cycle emissions (continued). Recycling, Recycling, Compart- Unlined Facility Lined No Substance Unit Total Job Site ment landfill Site Landfill Separated Separated 345 Mn54 to air Non mat. µBq -35.8 x -17.9 -17.9 x 346 Mn54 to water Non mat. Bq -3.05 x -1.52 -1.52 x 347 Mo99 to water Non mat. µBq -68 x -34 -34 x 348 Na24 to water Non mat. mBq -30 x -15 -15 x 349 Nb95 to air Non mat. µBq -6.38 x -3.19 -3.19 x 350 Nb95 to water Non mat. µBq -552 x -276 -276 x 351 Np237 to air Non mat. nBq -35.6 x -17.8 -17.8 x 352 Np237 to water Non mat. mBq -5.72 x -2.86 -2.86 x 353 Pa234m to air Non mat. mBq -21.6 x -10.8 -10.8 x 354 Pa234m to water Non mat. mBq -400 x -200 -200 x 355 Pb210 to air Non mat. mBq -1110 x -555 -555 x 356 Pb210 to water Non mat. mBq -248 x -124 -124 x 357 Pm147 to air Non mat. mBq -18.4 x -9.18 -9.18 x 358 Po210 to air Non mat. mBq -1820 x -909 -909 x 359 Po210 to water Non mat. mBq -248 x -124 -124 x 360 Pu alpha to air Non mat. mBq -2.16 x -1.08 -1.08 x 361 Pu alpha to water Non mat. mBq -356 x -178 -178 x 362 Pu238 to air Non mat. nBq -77.2 x -38.6 -38.6 x 363 Pu241 Beta to air Non mat. mBq -59.4 x -29.7 -29.7 x 364 Pu241 beta to water Non mat. Bq -8.86 x -4.43 -4.43 x 365 Ra224 to water Non mat. Bq -5.04 x -2.52 -2.52 x 366 Ra226 to air Non mat. mBq -900 x -450 -450 x 367 Ra226 to water Non mat. Bq -1660 x -828 -828 x 368 Ra228 to air Non mat. mBq -121 x -60.4 -60.4 x 369 Ra228 to water Non mat. Bq -10.1 x -5.03 -5.03 x 370 radio active noble Non mat. Bq -10.3 x -5.14 -5.14 x gases to air 371 radioactive Non mat. Bq 2420 849 284 439 849 substance to air 372 radionuclides Non mat. µBq -204 x -102 -102 x (mixed) to water 373 Rn220 to air Non mat. Bq -6.76 x -3.38 -3.38 x 374 Rn222 (long term) Non mat. kBq -4800 x -2400 -2400 x to air 375 Rn222 to air Non mat. kBq -52.2 x -26.1 -26.1 x 376 Ru103 to air Non mat. nBq -402 x -201 -201 x 377 Ru103 to water Non mat. µBq -326 x -163 -163 x 378 Ru106 to air Non mat. mBq -216 x -108 -108 x 379 Ru106 to water Non mat. Bq -21.6 x -10.8 -10.8 x 380 Sb122 to water Non mat. µBq -974 x -487 -487 x 381 Sb124 to air Non mat. µBq -9.76 x -4.88 -4.88 x 382 Sb124 to water Non mat. mBq -69 x -34.5 -34.5 x 383 Sb125 to air Non mat. nBq -1960 x -980 -980 x 384 Sb125 to water Non mat. mBq -7.94 x -3.97 -3.97 x 385 Sr89 to air Non mat. µBq -62.8 x -31.4 -31.4 x 386 Sr89 to water Non mat. mBq -2.2 x -1.1 -1.1 x

134

Table A-2. Concrete life cycle emissions (continued). Recycling, Recycling, Compart- Unlined Facility Lined No Substance Unit Total Job Site ment landfill Site Landfill Separated Separated 387 Sr90 to air Non mat. mBq -35.6 x -17.8 -17.8 x 388 Sr90 to water Non mat. Bq -4.32 x -2.16 -2.16 x 389 Tc99 to air Non mat. nBq -1510 x -756 -756 x 390 Tc99 to water Non mat. Bq -2.26 x -1.13 -1.13 x 391 Tc99m to water Non mat. µBq -458 x -229 -229 x 392 Te123m to air Non mat. µBq -155 x -77.7 -77.7 x 393 Te123m to water Non mat. µBq -41 x -20.5 -20.5 x 394 Te132 to water Non mat. µBq -16.8 x -8.41 -8.41 x 395 Th228 to air Non mat. mBq -102 x -51.1 -51.1 x 396 Th228 to water Non mat. Bq -20.1 x -10.1 -10.1 x 397 Th230 to air Non mat. mBq -240 x -120 -120 x 398 Th230 to water Non mat. Bq -62.6 x -31.3 -31.3 x 399 Th232 to air Non mat. mBq -65 x -32.5 -32.5 x 400 Th232 to water Non mat. mBq -57.8 x -28.9 -28.9 x 401 Th234 to air Non mat. mBq -21.6 x -10.8 -10.8 x 402 Th234 to water Non mat. mBq -404 x -202 -202 x 403 U alpha to air Non mat. mBq -774 x -387 -387 x 404 U alpha to water Non mat. Bq -26.1 x -13 -13 x 405 U234 to air Non mat. mBq -258 x -129 -129 x 406 U234 to water Non mat. mBq -534 x -267 -267 x 407 U235 to air Non mat. mBq -12.5 x -6.27 -6.27 x 408 U235 to water Non mat. mBq -796 x -398 -398 x 409 U238 to air Non mat. mBq -440 x -220 -220 x 410 U238 to water Non mat. mBq -1350 x -674 -674 x 411 waste heat to air Non mat. MJ -203 x -101 -101 x 412 waste heat to soil Non mat. kJ -376 x -188 -188 x 413 waste heat to water Non mat. kJ -930 x -465 -465 x 414 Xe131m to air Non mat. Bq -11.9 x -5.97 -5.97 x 415 Xe133 to air Non mat. kBq -2.38 x -1.19 -1.19 x 416 Xe133m to air Non mat. mBq -1150 x -576 -576 x 417 Xe135 to air Non mat. Bq -454 x -227 -227 x 418 Xe135m to air Non mat. Bq -67 x -33.5 -33.5 x 419 Xe137 to air Non mat. mBq -1530 x -767 -767 x 420 Xe138 to air Non mat. Bq -18.3 x -9.17 -9.17 x 421 Y90 to water Non mat. µBq -112 x -56.2 -56.2 x 422 Zn65 to air Non mat. µBq -168 x -83.8 -83.8 x 423 Zn65 to water Non mat. mBq -63.2 x -31.6 -31.6 x 424 Zr95 to air Non mat. µBq -2.26 x -1.13 -1.13 x 425 Zr95 to water Non mat. mBq -184 x -91.9 -91.9 x

135

Table A-3. Drywall life cycle emissions. Recycling, Recycling, Compart- Unlined Facility Lined No Substance Unit Total Job Site ment Landfill Site Landfill Separated Separated 1 baryte Raw g -10.4 x -5.2 -5.2 x 2 bauxite Raw g -2.28 x -1.14 -1.14 x 3 bentonite Raw g -2.43 x -1.22 -1.22 x 4 chromium (in ore) Raw mg -360 x -180 -180 x 5 clay Raw g -3.76 x -1.88 -1.88 x 6 coal ETH Raw g -507 x -253 -253 x 7 coal FAL Raw g 53.2 15.5 9.61 12.4 15.5 8 cobalt (in ore) Raw µg -6.19 x -3.09 -3.09 x 9 copper (in ore) Raw mg -486 x -243 -243 x 10 crude oil ETH Raw kg -2.31 x -1.16 -1.16 x 11 crude oil FAL Raw g 3120 913 564 731 913 12 gravel Raw g -230 x -115 -115 x 13 iron (in ore) Raw g -143 x -71.7 -71.7 x 14 lead (in ore) Raw mg -125 x -62.5 -62.5 x 15 lignite ETH Raw g -478 x -239 -239 x 16 limestone Raw mg 3080 902 557 722 902 17 manganese (in ore) Raw mg -393 x -196 -196 x 18 marl Raw g -41.3 x -20.7 -20.7 x 19 methane (kg) ETH Raw g -3.66 x -1.83 -1.83 x 20 molybdene (in ore) Raw ng -1280 x -641 -641 x 21 natural gas ETH Raw l -201 x -100 -100 x 22 natural gas FAL Raw g 217 63.4 39.2 50.7 63.4 23 nickel (in ore) Raw mg -38.3 x -19.1 -19.1 x 24 palladium (in ore) Raw ng -233 x -116 -116 x 25 petroleum gas ETH Raw l -158 x -79.1 -79.1 x 26 platinum (in ore) Raw ng -267 x -133 -133 x 27 potential energy Raw MJ -2.13 x -1.06 -1.06 x water ETH 28 reservoir content Raw m3y - x -0.0232 -0.0232 x ETH 0.0464 29 rhenium (in ore) Raw ng -238 x -119 -119 x 30 rhodium (in ore) Raw ng -248 x -124 -124 x 31 rock salt Raw g -3.08 x -1.54 -1.54 x 32 sand Raw g -9.27 x -4.63 -4.63 x 33 silver (in ore) Raw mg -7.28 x -3.64 -3.64 x 34 tin (in ore) Raw mg -4.05 x -2.02 -2.02 x 35 turbine water ETH Raw m3 -11.2 x -5.6 -5.6 x 36 uranium (in ore) Raw mg -32.5 x -16.2 -16.2 x ETH 37 uranium FAL Raw µg 217 63.4 39.2 50.7 63.4 38 water Raw kg -132 x -66.1 -66.1 x 39 wood (dry matter) Raw g -7.12 x -3.56 -3.56 x ETH 40 wood/wood wastes Raw mg 2230 653 403 523 653 FAL 41 zinc (in ore) Raw mg -3.52 x -1.76 -1.76 x

136

Table A-3. Drywall life cycle emissions (continued). Recycling, Recycling, Compart- Unlined Facility Lined No Substance Unit Total Job Site ment Landfill Site Landfill Separated Separated 42 acetaldehyde Air µg -1170 x -585 -585 x 43 acetic acid Air mg -5.24 x -2.62 -2.62 x 44 acetone Air µg -1170 x -586 -586 x 45 acrolein Air µg -1.86 0.562 -1.54 -1.44 0.562 46 Al Air mg -25.4 x -12.7 -12.7 x 47 aldehydes Air mg 192 56.2 34.7 45 56.2 48 alkanes Air mg -51.9 x -25.9 -25.9 x 49 alkenes Air mg -2.41 x -1.21 -1.21 x 50 ammonia Air mg -479 4.78 -245 -244 4.78 51 As Air µg -188 9.45 -104 -102 9.45 52 B Air mg -18.4 x -9.18 -9.18 x 53 Ba Air µg -405 x -202 -202 x 54 Be Air µg -2.11 0.658 -1.77 -1.65 0.658 55 benzaldehyde Air ng -1300 x -649 -649 x 56 benzene Air mg -23.7 0.00179 -11.8 -11.8 0.00179 57 benzo(a)pyrene Air µg -23.6 x -11.8 -11.8 x 58 Br Air mg -2.08 x -1.04 -1.04 x 59 butane Air mg -181 x -90.3 -90.3 x 60 butene Air mg -5.7 x -2.85 -2.85 x 61 Ca Air mg -33.9 x -17 -17 x 62 Cd Air µg -197 14.4 -114 -111 14.4 63 CFC-11 Air µg -10.3 x -5.14 -5.14 x 64 CFC-114 Air µg -272 x -136 -136 x 65 CFC-116 Air µg -24.8 x -12.4 -12.4 x 66 CFC-12 Air µg -2.21 x -1.1 -1.1 x 67 CFC-13 Air ng -1390 x -694 -694 x 68 CFC-14 Air µg -223 x -111 -111 x 69 Cl2 Air µg 613 179 111 144 179 70 CO Air g 2.74 13 -12.8 -10.4 13 71 CO2 Air kg -9.06 x -4.53 -4.53 x 72 CO2 (fossil) Air kg 10.5 3.07 1.89 2.45 3.07 73 CO2 (non-fossil) Air mg 2490 730 451 584 730 74 cobalt Air µg -353 13.2 -191 -188 13.2 75 Cr Air µg -332 10.8 -178 -176 10.8 76 Cu Air µg -1310 x -656 -656 x 77 CxHy aromatic Air µg -753 x -377 -377 x 78 cyanides Air µg -43.5 x -21.8 -21.8 x 79 dichloroethane Air µg -70.7 x -35.4 -35.4 x 80 dichloromethane Air µg 6.77 2.51 0.642 1.1 2.51 81 dioxin (TEQ) Air pg -501 2.99 -254 -253 2.99 82 dust (coarse) Air g -1360 x -681 -681 x process 83 dust (PM10) mobile Air mg -114 x -57.2 -57.2 x 84 dust (PM10) Air g -13 x -6.52 -6.52 x stationary 85 ethane Air mg -80.7 x -40.4 -40.4 x

137

Table A-3. Drywall life cycle emissions (continued). Recycling, Recycling, Compart- Unlined Facility Lined No Substance Unit Total Job Site ment Landfill Site Landfill Separated Separated 86 ethanol Air mg -2.34 x -1.17 -1.17 x 87 ethene Air mg -60.2 x -30.1 -30.1 x 88 ethylbenzene Air mg -6.21 x -3.1 -3.1 x 89 ethyne Air µg -104 x -52.2 -52.2 x 90 Fe Air mg -26.3 x -13.1 -13.1 x 91 formaldehyde Air mg 2860 837 514 667 837 92 H2S Air mg -10.8 x -5.42 -5.42 x 93 HALON-1301 Air µg -896 x -448 -448 x 94 HCFC-21 Air µg -432 x -216 -216 x 95 HCFC-22 Air µg -2.45 x -1.22 -1.22 x 96 HCl Air mg -281 2.99 -144 -143 2.99 97 He Air mg -159 x -79.6 -79.6 x 98 heptane Air mg -41.7 x -20.8 -20.8 x 99 hexachlorobenzene Air ng -2.26 x -1.13 -1.13 x 100 hexane Air mg -87.2 x -43.6 -43.6 x 101 HF Air mg -37.3 0.395 -19.1 -19 0.395 102 Hg Air µg -96 3.11 -51.4 -50.8 3.11 103 I Air µg -1020 x -510 -510 x 104 K Air mg -27.8 x -13.9 -13.9 x 105 kerosene Air µg 40.9 12 7.39 9.57 12 106 La Air µg -11.8 x -5.91 -5.91 x 107 metals Air µg 1020 299 185 239 299 108 methane Air g -11.7 0.484 -6.4 -6.31 0.484 109 methanol Air mg -2.98 x -1.49 -1.49 x 110 Mg Air mg -9.29 x -4.64 -4.64 x 111 Mn Air mg -6.68 0.0132 -3.36 -3.35 0.0132 112 Mo Air µg -155 x -77.6 -77.6 x 113 MTBE Air µg -9.11 x -4.56 -4.56 x 114 n- Air ng 405 118 73.2 94.8 118 nitrodimethylamine 115 N2 Air mg -53.9 x -26.9 -26.9 x 116 N2O Air mg -326 0.335 -164 -163 0.335 117 Na Air mg -8.76 x -4.38 -4.38 x 118 naphthalene Air ng 2860 837 517 670 837 119 Ni Air mg -5.46 0.203 -2.95 -2.92 0.203 120 non methane VOC Air g 4.24 10.5 -9.33 -7.41 10.5 121 NOx Air g 195 57.1 35.3 45.7 57.1 122 NOx (as NO2) Air g -96.6 x -48.3 -48.3 x 123 organic substances Air mg 123 35.9 22.2 28.7 35.9 124 P-tot Air µg -494 x -247 -247 x 125 PAH's Air µg -126 x -63 -63 x 126 particulates (PM10) Air g 13.7 4.01 2.48 3.21 4.01 127 particulates Air mg 679 199 123 159 199 (unspecified) 128 Pb Air mg -2.93 0.0167 -1.48 -1.48 0.0167 129 pentachlorobenzene Air ng -6.05 x -3.03 -3.03 x

138

Table A-3. Drywall life cycle emissions (continued). Recycling, Recycling, Compart- Unlined Facility Lined No Substance Unit Total Job Site ment Landfill Site Landfill Separated Separated 130 pentachlorophenol Air pg -977 x -489 -489 x 131 pentane Air mg -228 x -114 -114 x 132 phenol Air µg 45.6 14.4 7.12 9.74 14.4 133 propane Air mg -184 x -92.2 -92.2 x 134 propene Air mg -8.86 x -4.43 -4.43 x 135 propionic acid Air µg -77.7 x -38.8 -38.8 x 136 Pt Air ng -527 x -264 -264 x 137 Sb Air µg -7.63 4.55 -8.78 -7.95 4.55 138 Sc Air µg -3.96 x -1.98 -1.98 x 139 Se Air µg -664 8.61 -341 -340 8.61 140 Si Air mg -89.8 x -44.9 -44.9 x 141 Sn Air µg -8.62 x -4.31 -4.31 x 142 SOx Air g 23.3 6.82 4.21 5.46 6.82 143 SOx (as SO2) Air oz 1270 635 -0.399 -0.399 635 144 Sr Air µg -403 x -202 -202 x 145 tetrachloroethene Air ng 1880 550 340 440 550 146 tetrachloromethane Air µg -9.21 2.27 -7.09 -6.67 2.27 147 Th Air µg -7.48 x -3.74 -3.74 x 148 Ti Air µg -1120 x -560 -560 x 149 Tl Air µg -2.85 x -1.42 -1.42 x 150 toluene Air mg -27.5 x -13.7 -13.7 x 151 trichloroethene Air ng 1800 526 325 421 526 152 trichloromethane Air ng -1870 x -935 -935 x 153 U Air µg -8.3 x -4.15 -4.15 x 154 V Air mg -19.4 x -9.69 -9.69 x 155 vinyl chloride Air µg -11.5 x -5.76 -5.76 x 156 xylene Air mg -27 x -13.5 -13.5 x 157 Zn Air mg -7.86 x -3.93 -3.93 x 158 Zr Air µg -2.14 x -1.07 -1.07 x 159 1,1,1- Water ng -112 x -56 -56 x trichloroethane 160 acenaphthylene Water µg -202 x -101 -101 x 161 Acid as H+ Water µg 3.43 1 0.621 0.804 1 162 acids (unspecified) Water µg -578 x -289 -289 x 163 Ag Water µg -79 x -39.5 -39.5 x 164 Al Water mg -838 x -419 -419 x 165 alkanes Water mg -15.1 x -7.55 -7.55 x 166 alkenes Water µg -1390 x -696 -696 x 167 AOX Water µg -467 x -234 -234 x 168 As Water µg -1750 x -876 -876 x 169 B Water mg 6.29 3.35 -0.509 0.103 3.35 170 Ba Water mg -359 x -179 -179 x 171 baryte Water g -2.06 x -1.03 -1.03 x 172 Be Water ng -1130 x -567 -567 x 173 benzene Water mg -15.3 x -7.65 -7.65 x 174 BOD Water mg 23 15.5 -5.45 -2.61 15.5

139

Table A-3. Drywall life cycle emissions (continued). Recycling, Recycling, Compart- Unlined Facility Lined No Substance Unit Total Job Site ment Landfill Site Landfill Separated Separated 175 calcium ions Water lb 292 289 -0.00579 -0.00579 3.09 176 carbonate Water lb 64.6 63.9 x x 0.661 177 Cd Water µg 240 155 -49.7 -21.3 155 178 chlorinated solvents Water µg -15.9 x -7.94 -7.94 x (unspec.) 179 chlorobenzenes Water pg -445 x -223 -223 x 180 chromate Water µg 40.1 11.7 7.24 9.38 11.7 181 Cl- Water oz 174 176 -1.3 -1.3 0.0054 182 Co Water µg -1650 x -826 -826 x 183 COD Water mg -80.2 104 -154 -135 104 184 Cr Water µg 532 155 96.1 124 155 185 Cr (III) Water mg -9.63 x -4.82 -4.82 x 186 Cr (VI) Water ng -1260 x -632 -632 x 187 Cs Water µg -116 x -58 -58 x 188 Cu Water mg -4.56 x -2.28 -2.28 x 189 CxHy Water µg -772 x -386 -386 x 190 CxHy aromatic Water mg -69.5 x -34.7 -34.7 x 191 cyanide Water µg -1090 0.227 -544 -544 0.227 192 di(2- Water ng -4.06 x -2.03 -2.03 x ethylhexyl)phthalate 193 dibutyl p-phthalate Water ng -20.6 x -10.3 -10.3 x 194 dichloroethane Water µg -36.4 x -18.2 -18.2 x 195 dichloromethane Water µg -949 x -474 -474 x 196 dimethyl p- Water ng -129 x -64.5 -64.5 x phthalate 197 dissolved solids Water kg 549 543 0.00257 0.00333 5.7 198 dissolved Water mg -340 x -170 -170 x substances 199 DOC Water mg -2.97 x -1.49 -1.49 x 200 ethyl benzene Water mg -2.77 x -1.39 -1.39 x 201 fats/oils Water g -2.14 x -1.07 -1.07 x 202 fatty acids as C Water mg -586 x -293 -293 x 203 Fe Water mg -1060 2.27 -532 -532 2.27 204 fluoride ions Water mg -38.3 0.049 -19.2 -19.2 0.049 205 formaldehyde Water ng -250 x -125 -125 x 206 glutaraldehyde Water µg -255 x -127 -127 x 207 H2S Water µg -195 x -97.7 -97.7 x 208 H2SO4 Water µg 2820 825 510 661 825 209 hexachloroethane Water pg -807 x -404 -404 x 210 Hg Water µg -12.8 0.0117 -6.42 -6.42 0.0117 211 HOCL Water mg -5.27 x -2.63 -2.63 x 212 I Water mg -11.6 x -5.79 -5.79 x 213 K Water mg -821 x -411 -411 x 214 metallic ions Water mg 73.6 21.5 13.3 17.2 21.5 215 Mg Water mg -868 x -434 -434 x 216 Mn Water mg -21.8 1.1 -12.1 -11.9 1.1

140

Table A-3. Drywall life cycle emissions (continued). Recycling, Recycling, Compart- Unlined Facility Lined No Substance Unit Total Job Site ment Landfill Site Landfill Separated Separated 217 Mo Water mg -2.87 x -1.44 -1.44 x 218 MTBE Water ng -746 x -373 -373 x 219 N-tot Water mg -287 x -143 -143 x 220 N organically Water mg -39.1 x -19.6 -19.6 x bound 221 Na Water g -39.7 1.91E- -19.9 -19.9 1.91E- 05 05 222 NH3 Water mg 5.72 1.67 1.03 1.34 1.67 223 NH3 (as N) Water mg -434 x -217 -217 x 224 Ni Water mg -4.66 x -2.33 -2.33 x 225 nitrate Water mg -345 0.00466 -172 -172 0.00466 226 nitrite Water µg -1290 x -643 -643 x 227 OCl- Water mg -5.27 x -2.63 -2.63 x 228 oil Water mg 331 96.9 59.9 77.6 96.9 229 other organics Water mg 34.8 10.2 6.28 8.14 10.2 230 P-compounds Water µg -60 x -30 -30 x 231 PAH's Water µg -1530 x -763 -763 x 232 Pb Water mg -7.78 0.00179 -3.89 -3.89 0.00179 233 phenol Water µg 237 69.4 42.9 55.5 69.4 234 phenols Water mg -15.1 x -7.57 -7.57 x 235 phosphate Water mg -92.2 0.419 -46.6 -46.5 0.419 236 Ru Water µg -1160 x -580 -580 x 237 salts Water mg -1700 x -850 -850 x 238 Sb Water µg -17.2 x -8.58 -8.58 x 239 Se Water mg -4.25 x -2.13 -2.13 x 240 Si Water µg -1250 x -624 -624 x 241 Sn Water µg -6.29 x -3.14 -3.14 x 242 SO3 Water µg -918 x -459 -459 x 243 Sr Water mg -711 x -356 -356 x 244 sulphate Water lb 577 571 -0.0143 -0.0143 5.95 245 sulphide Water mg -3.8 x -1.9 -1.9 x 246 suspended solids Water mg 323 94.5 58.4 75.6 94.5 247 tetrachloroethene Water ng -96.1 x -48 -48 x 248 tetrachloromethane Water ng -147 x -73.3 -73.3 x 249 Ti Water mg -48.8 x -24.4 -24.4 x 250 TOC Water g -2.26 x -1.13 -1.13 x 251 toluene Water mg -12.6 x -6.31 -6.31 x 252 tributyltin Water µg -121 x -60.3 -60.3 x 253 trichloroethene Water µg -6.07 x -3.03 -3.03 x 254 trichloromethane Water µg -22.3 x -11.1 -11.1 x 255 triethylene glycol Water mg -2.97 x -1.49 -1.49 x 256 undissolved Water g -6.52 x -3.26 -3.26 x substances 257 V Water mg -4.4 x -2.2 -2.2 x 258 vinyl chloride Water ng -27.2 x -13.6 -13.6 x 259 VOC as C Water mg -40.5 x -20.3 -20.3 x

141

Table A-3. Drywall life cycle emissions (continued). Recycling, Recycling, Compart- Unlined Facility Lined No Substance Unit Total Job Site ment Landfill Site Landfill Separated Separated 260 W Water µg -29.1 x -14.5 -14.5 x 261 xylene Water mg -10.9 x -5.46 -5.46 x 262 Zn Water mg -12.6 0.0777 -6.39 -6.38 0.0777 263 solid waste Solid g 54.4 15.9 9.83 12.7 15.9 264 Al (ind.) Soil mg -137 x -68.3 -68.3 x 265 As (ind.) Soil µg -54.6 x -27.3 -27.3 x 266 C (ind.) Soil mg -423 x -212 -212 x 267 Ca (ind.) Soil mg -546 x -273 -273 x 268 Cd (ind.) Soil µg -2.48 x -1.24 -1.24 x 269 Co (ind.) Soil µg -3.16 x -1.58 -1.58 x 270 Cr (ind.) Soil µg -683 x -342 -342 x 271 Cu (ind.) Soil µg -15.8 x -7.89 -7.89 x 272 Fe (ind.) Soil mg -274 x -137 -137 x 273 Hg (ind.) Soil ng -439 x -219 -219 x 274 Mn (ind.) Soil mg -5.46 x -2.73 -2.73 x 275 N Soil µg -128 x -64 -64 x 276 Ni (ind.) Soil µg -23.6 x -11.8 -11.8 x 277 oil (ind.) Soil mg -100 x -50.1 -50.1 x 278 oil biodegradable Soil µg -112 x -55.8 -55.8 x 279 Pb (ind.) Soil µg -71.9 x -36 -36 x 280 phosphor (ind.) Soil mg -7 x -3.5 -3.5 x 281 S (ind.) Soil mg -82.1 x -41.1 -41.1 x 282 Zn (ind.) Soil mg -2.21 x -1.11 -1.11 x 283 Ag110m to air Non mat. µBq -13.4 x -6.71 -6.71 x 284 Ag110m to water Non mat. mBq -91.5 x -45.7 -45.7 x 285 alpha radiation Non mat. µBq -10.8 x -5.42 -5.42 x (unspecified) to water 286 Am241 to air Non mat. µBq -250 x -125 -125 x 287 Am241 to water Non mat. mBq -33 x -16.5 -16.5 x 288 Ar41 to air Non mat. Bq -29.1 x -14.5 -14.5 x 289 Ba140 to air Non mat. µBq -52.4 x -26.2 -26.2 x 290 Ba140 to water Non mat. µBq -165 x -82.5 -82.5 x 291 beta radiation Non mat. nBq -1680 x -842 -842 x (unspecified) to air 292 C14 to air Non mat. Bq -20.1 x -10 -10 x 293 C14 to water Non mat. mBq -1660 x -832 -832 x 294 Cd109 to water Non mat. nBq -954 x -477 -477 x 295 Ce141 to air Non mat. nBq -1240 x -622 -622 x 296 Ce141 to water Non mat. µBq -24.7 x -12.3 -12.3 x 297 Ce144 to air Non mat. mBq -2.65 x -1.33 -1.33 x 298 Ce144 to water Non mat. mBq -753 x -377 -377 x 299 Cm (alpha) to air Non mat. µBq -396 x -198 -198 x 300 Cm (alpha) to water Non mat. mBq -43.5 x -21.8 -21.8 x 301 Cm242 to air Non mat. nBq -1.32 x -0.659 -0.659 x 302 Cm244 to air Non mat. nBq -12 x -5.98 -5.98 x

142

Table A-3. Drywall life cycle emissions (continued). Recycling, Recycling, Compart- Unlined Facility Lined No Substance Unit Total Job Site ment Landfill Site Landfill Separated Separated 303 Co57 to air Non mat. nBq -22.9 x -11.5 -11.5 x 304 Co57 to water Non mat. µBq -169 x -84.6 -84.6 x 305 Co58 to air Non mat. µBq -381 x -190 -190 x 306 Co58 to water Non mat. mBq -143 x -71.4 -71.4 x 307 Co60 to air Non mat. µBq -566 x -283 -283 x 308 Co60 to water Non mat. Bq -7.29 x -3.64 -3.64 x 309 Cr51 to air Non mat. µBq -47.1 x -23.5 -23.5 x 310 Cr51 to water Non mat. mBq -3.62 x -1.81 -1.81 x 311 Cs134 to air Non mat. mBq -9.49 x -4.74 -4.74 x 312 Cs134 to water Non mat. mBq -1680 x -842 -842 x 313 Cs136 to water Non mat. nBq -884 x -442 -442 x 314 Cs137 to air Non mat. mBq -18.4 x -9.18 -9.18 x 315 Cs137 to water Non mat. Bq -15.5 x -7.75 -7.75 x 316 Fe59 to air Non mat. nBq -522 x -261 -261 x 317 Fe59 to water Non mat. µBq -2.92 x -1.46 -1.46 x 318 Fission and Non mat. mBq -98.6 x -49.3 -49.3 x activation products (RA) to water 319 H3 to air Non mat. Bq -207 x -104 -104 x 320 H3 to water Non mat. kBq -49.4 x -24.7 -24.7 x 321 I129 to air Non mat. mBq -71.4 x -35.7 -35.7 x 322 I129 to water Non mat. Bq -4.76 x -2.38 -2.38 x 323 I131 to air Non mat. mBq -7.92 x -3.96 -3.96 x 324 I131 to water Non mat. mBq -3.15 x -1.57 -1.57 x 325 I133 to air Non mat. mBq -4.44 x -2.22 -2.22 x 326 I133 to water Non mat. µBq -755 x -377 -377 x 327 I135 to air Non mat. mBq -6.65 x -3.32 -3.32 x 328 K40 to air Non mat. mBq -38.1 x -19 -19 x 329 K40 to water Non mat. mBq -120 x -59.8 -59.8 x 330 Kr85 to air Non mat. kBq -1230 x -615 -615 x 331 Kr85m to air Non mat. mBq -1460 x -728 -728 x 332 Kr87 to air Non mat. mBq -651 x -326 -326 x 333 Kr88 to air Non mat. Bq -58 x -29 -29 x 334 Kr89 to air Non mat. mBq -456 x -228 -228 x 335 La140 to air Non mat. µBq -33.2 x -16.6 -16.6 x 336 La140 to water Non mat. µBq -34.2 x -17.1 -17.1 x 337 land use (sea floor) Non mat. cm2a -1660 x -829 -829 x II-III 338 land use (sea floor) Non mat. cm2a -172 x -85.9 -85.9 x II-IV 339 land use II-III Non mat. m2a -4.37 x -2.18 -2.18 x 340 land use II-IV Non mat. m2a -3.42 x -1.71 -1.71 x 341 land use III-IV Non mat. cm2a -150 x -75.1 -75.1 x 342 land use IV-IV Non mat. mm2a -226 x -113 -113 x 343 Mn54 to air Non mat. µBq -13.6 x -6.81 -6.81 x 344 Mn54 to water Non mat. mBq -1120 x -558 -558 x

143

Table A-3. Drywall life cycle emissions (continued). Recycling, Recycling, Compart- Unlined Facility Lined No Substance Unit Total Job Site ment Landfill Site Landfill Separated Separated 345 Mo99 to water Non mat. µBq -11.5 x -5.76 -5.76 x 346 Na24 to water Non mat. mBq -5.08 x -2.54 -2.54 x 347 Nb95 to air Non mat. µBq -2.41 x -1.21 -1.21 x 348 Nb95 to water Non mat. µBq -93.5 x -46.8 -46.8 x 349 Np237 to air Non mat. nBq -13.1 x -6.54 -6.54 x 350 Np237 to water Non mat. mBq -2.11 x -1.05 -1.05 x 351 Pa234m to air Non mat. mBq -7.94 x -3.97 -3.97 x 352 Pa234m to water Non mat. mBq -147 x -73.4 -73.4 x 353 Pb210 to air Non mat. mBq -222 x -111 -111 x 354 Pb210 to water Non mat. mBq -95.4 x -47.7 -47.7 x 355 Pm147 to air Non mat. mBq -6.73 x -3.37 -3.37 x 356 Po210 to air Non mat. mBq -333 x -167 -167 x 357 Po210 to water Non mat. mBq -95.4 x -47.7 -47.7 x 358 Pu alpha to air Non mat. µBq -792 x -396 -396 x 359 Pu alpha to water Non mat. mBq -131 x -65.4 -65.4 x 360 Pu238 to air Non mat. nBq -29.7 x -14.9 -14.9 x 361 Pu241 Beta to air Non mat. mBq -21.8 x -10.9 -10.9 x 362 Pu241 beta to water Non mat. Bq -3.25 x -1.62 -1.62 x 363 Ra224 to water Non mat. Bq -5.79 x -2.9 -2.9 x 364 Ra226 to air Non mat. mBq -283 x -141 -141 x 365 Ra226 to water Non mat. Bq -617 x -309 -309 x 366 Ra228 to air Non mat. mBq -18.7 x -9.35 -9.35 x 367 Ra228 to water Non mat. Bq -11.6 x -5.79 -5.79 x 368 radio active noble Non mat. mBq -1750 x -876 -876 x gases to air 369 radioactive Non mat. Bq 2900 849 525 680 849 substance to air 370 radionuclides Non mat. µBq -71.2 x -35.6 -35.6 x (mixed) to water 371 Rn220 to air Non mat. mBq -1750 x -876 -876 x 372 Rn222 (long term) Non mat. kBq -1770 x -884 -884 x to air 373 Rn222 to air Non mat. kBq -19.2 x -9.61 -9.61 x 374 Ru103 to air Non mat. nBq -136 x -68 -68 x 375 Ru103 to water Non mat. µBq -55.3 x -27.6 -27.6 x 376 Ru106 to air Non mat. mBq -79.2 x -39.6 -39.6 x 377 Ru106 to water Non mat. Bq -7.92 x -3.96 -3.96 x 378 Sb122 to water Non mat. µBq -165 x -82.5 -82.5 x 379 Sb124 to air Non mat. µBq -3.69 x -1.84 -1.84 x 380 Sb124 to water Non mat. mBq -23.6 x -11.8 -11.8 x 381 Sb125 to air Non mat. nBq -469 x -235 -235 x 382 Sb125 to water Non mat. µBq -1340 x -672 -672 x 383 Sr89 to air Non mat. µBq -23.8 x -11.9 -11.9 x 384 Sr89 to water Non mat. µBq -372 x -186 -186 x 385 Sr90 to air Non mat. mBq -13.1 x -6.55 -6.55 x 386 Sr90 to water Non mat. mBq -1590 x -793 -793 x

144

Table A-3. Drywall life cycle emissions (continued). Recycling, Recycling, Compart- Unlined Facility Lined No Substance Unit Total Job Site ment Landfill Site Landfill Separated Separated 387 Tc99 to air Non mat. nBq -554 x -277 -277 x 388 Tc99 to water Non mat. mBq -833 x -417 -417 x 389 Tc99m to water Non mat. µBq -77.7 x -38.8 -38.8 x 390 Te123m to air Non mat. µBq -59.8 x -29.9 -29.9 x 391 Te123m to water Non mat. µBq -6.95 x -3.48 -3.48 x 392 Te132 to water Non mat. µBq -2.86 x -1.43 -1.43 x 393 Th228 to air Non mat. mBq -15.8 x -7.91 -7.91 x 394 Th228 to water Non mat. Bq -23.1 x -11.6 -11.6 x 395 Th230 to air Non mat. mBq -88.2 x -44.1 -44.1 x 396 Th230 to water Non mat. Bq -22.9 x -11.5 -11.5 x 397 Th232 to air Non mat. mBq -10 x -5.02 -5.02 x 398 Th232 to water Non mat. mBq -22.3 x -11.1 -11.1 x 399 Th234 to air Non mat. mBq -7.94 x -3.97 -3.97 x 400 Th234 to water Non mat. mBq -148 x -74.1 -74.1 x 401 U alpha to air Non mat. mBq -284 x -142 -142 x 402 U alpha to water Non mat. Bq -9.6 x -4.8 -4.8 x 403 U234 to air Non mat. mBq -95 x -47.5 -47.5 x 404 U234 to water Non mat. mBq -197 x -98.6 -98.6 x 405 U235 to air Non mat. mBq -4.61 x -2.3 -2.3 x 406 U235 to water Non mat. mBq -292 x -146 -146 x 407 U238 to air Non mat. mBq -122 x -61.2 -61.2 x 408 U238 to water Non mat. mBq -498 x -249 -249 x 409 waste heat to air Non mat. MJ -137 x -68.6 -68.6 x 410 waste heat to soil Non mat. kJ -126 x -62.8 -62.8 x 411 waste heat to water Non mat. kJ -1350 x -677 -677 x 412 Xe131m to air Non mat. Bq -3.01 x -1.5 -1.5 x 413 Xe133 to air Non mat. Bq -882 x -441 -441 x 414 Xe133m to air Non mat. mBq -444 x -222 -222 x 415 Xe135 to air Non mat. Bq -151 x -75.3 -75.3 x 416 Xe135m to air Non mat. Bq -14.9 x -7.44 -7.44 x 417 Xe137 to air Non mat. mBq -369 x -184 -184 x 418 Xe138 to air Non mat. Bq -4.03 x -2.01 -2.01 x 419 Y90 to water Non mat. µBq -19 x -9.52 -9.52 x 420 Zn65 to air Non mat. µBq -58.5 x -29.2 -29.2 x 421 Zn65 to water Non mat. mBq -10.7 x -5.36 -5.36 x 422 Zr95 to air Non mat. nBq -872 x -436 -436 x 423 Zr95 to water Non mat. mBq -67.3 x -33.7 -33.7 x

145

Table A-4. Wood life cycle emissions. Recyc- Recyc- Incin- ling, Com- ling, Job erated, Unlined Incin- Facility Lined No Substance part- Unit Total Site No Landfill erated Site Landfill ment Sepa- Energy Sepa- rated Capture rated 1 coal FAL Raw kg -936 0.0113 0.0156 -936 0.0142 0.0156 0.16 2 crude oil Raw lb -43.4 1.47 2.01 -66.4 1.83 2.01 15.7 FAL 3 energy from Raw GJ -1.34 x x -1.34 x x 0 hydro power 4 limestone Raw lb 137 0.00145 0.00199 8.91 0.00181 0.00199 128 5 natural gas Raw lb -346 0.102 0.14 -350 0.127 0.14 3.48 FAL 6 uranium Raw g -3.65 4.61E-05 6.34E-05 -3.67 5.77E-05 6.34E-05 0.024 FAL 7 wood/wood Raw kg 2010 0.000475 0.000653 1010 0.000594 0.000653 1010 wastes FAL 8 Acetal- Air g 3 x x 1.5 x x 1.5 dehyde 9 acrolein Air mg -31.9 0.000409 0.000562 -31.9 0.000512 0.000562 0 10 aldehydes Air g -5.94 0.0409 0.0562 -6.14 0.0512 0.0562 0 11 ammonia Air g -8.35 0.00348 0.00479 -8.36 0.00436 0.00479 0 12 As Air mg -23.1 0.00688 0.00945 -67.1 0.0086 0.00945 44 13 Ba Air g 4.4 x x 2.2 x x 2.2 14 Be Air mg -13.1 0.000479 0.000658 -13.1 0.000599 0.000658 0 15 benzene Air g 3.56 1.31E-06 1.79E-06 1.76 1.63E-06 1.79E-06 1.8 16 Cd Air mg -23.3 0.0104 0.0144 -23.4 0.0131 0.0144 0 17 Cl2 Air g 7.79 0.000131 0.000179 3.89 0.000163 0.000179 3.9 18 CO Air oz 444 0.333 0.457 199 0.416 0.457 243 19 CO2 Air kg 2320 x 69.5 1050 x 150 1050 20 CO2 (fossil) Air kg -2470 2.23 3.07 -2480 2.79 3.07 0 21 CO2 (non- Air g -839 0.531 0.73 -842 0.664 0.73 0 fossil) 22 cobalt Air mg -39.8 0.00957 0.0132 -39.9 0.012 0.0132 0 23 Cr Air mg -135 0.00783 0.0108 -158 0.0098 0.0108 23 24 Dichloro- Air mg -135 0.00183 0.00251 -135 0.00229 0.00251 0 methane 25 dioxin Air ng -174 0.00218 0.00299 -174 0.00272 0.00299 0 (TEQ) 26 Fe Air g 4.4 x x 2.2 x x 2.2 27 Formal- Air g 9.54 0.609 0.837 3.19 0.762 0.837 3.3 dehyde 28 HCl Air g -161 0.00218 0.00299 -161 0.00272 0.00299 0 29 HF Air g -22.3 0.000287 0.000395 -22.3 0.000359 0.000395 0 30 Hg Air mg -60.9 0.00226 0.00311 -60.9 0.00283 0.00311 0 31 K Air g 780 x x 390 x x 390 32 kerosene Air mg -816 0.0087 0.012 -816 0.0109 0.012 0 33 metals Air mg -339 0.218 0.299 -340 0.272 0.299 0 34 methane Air lb 53.1 0.000777 65.1 -12 0.000972 0.00107 0 35 Mn Air g 8.64 9.57E-06 1.32E-05 4.14 0.000012 1.32E-05 4.5

146

Table A-4. Wood life cycle emissions (continued). Recyc- Recyc- Incin- ling, Com- ling, Job erated, Unlined Incin- Facility Lined No Substance part- Unit Total Site No Landfill erated Site Landfill ment Sepa- Energy Sepa- rated Capture rated 36 n-nitro- Air mg -6.74 8.62E-05 0.000118 -6.74 0.000108 0.000118 0 dimethyl- amine 37 N2O Air g -20 0.000244 0.000335 -20 0.000305 0.000335 0 38 Na Air g 18 x x 9 x x 9 39 naphthalene Air g 2.4 6.09E-07 8.37E-07 1.2 7.62E-07 8.37E-07 1.2 40 Ni Air mg 161 0.148 0.203 -120 0.185 0.203 280 41 non methane Air oz -60.5 0.269 0.37 -61.8 0.337 0.37 0 VOC 42 NOx Air oz -231 1.47 2.01 -277 1.83 2.01 39.2 43 organic Air g 157 0.0261 0.0359 73.6 0.0327 0.0359 83 substances 44 particulates Air g -295 2.92 4.01 -394 3.65 4.01 85 (PM10) 45 particulates Air oz -83.4 0.0051 0.00701 -83.5 0.00638 0.00701 0.106 (unspecified) 46 Pb Air mg 1090 0.0122 0.0167 495 0.0152 0.0167 600 47 phenol Air g 39.9 1.04E-05 1.44E-05 19.9 1.31E-05 1.44E-05 20 48 Sb Air mg -14.1 0.00331 0.00455 -14.1 0.00414 0.00455 0 49 Se Air mg -226 0.00627 0.00861 -226 0.00784 0.00861 0 50 SOx Air oz -676 0.175 0.241 -678 0.219 0.241 1.76 51 Tetrachloro- Air mg -30.4 0.0004 0.00055 -30.4 0.000501 0.00055 0 ethene 52 Tetrachloro- Air mg -49.5 0.00165 0.00227 -49.5 0.00207 0.00227 0 methane 53 Trichloro- Air mg -30.2 0.000383 0.000526 -30.2 0.000479 0.000526 0 ethene 54 Zn Air g 4.4 x x 2.2 x x 2.2 55 Acid as H+ Water µg -32.6 0.731 1 -36.2 0.915 1 0 56 As Water oz 327 x 42.3 0.000282 x 2.12 282 57 B Water g -85.9 0.00244 0.00335 -85.9 0.00305 0.00335 0 58 BOD Water g -8.59 0.0113 0.0156 -8.65 0.0142 0.0156 0 59 calcium ions Water oz 413 2.76E-07 409 -0.0248 3.46E-07 3.53 0 60 carbonate Water g 731 x 731 x x 0 x 61 Cd Water mg -386 0.113 0.156 -387 0.142 0.156 0 62 chromate Water mg -20.9 0.00853 0.0117 -20.9 0.0107 0.0117 0 63 Cl- Water oz 58.7 0.00393 72.7 -14 0.00492 0.0054 0 64 COD Water g -120 0.0757 0.104 -121 0.0947 0.104 0 65 Cr Water mg -386 0.113 0.156 -387 0.142 0.156 0 66 Cr (III) Water oz 46.6 x 45.9 x x 0.706 x 67 Cr (VI) Water oz 141 x x 0.000141 x x 141 68 Cu Water oz 36.2 x 0.706 2.47E-07 x 35.3 0.247 69 cyanide Water µg -578 0.165 0.227 -579 0.207 0.227 0 70 dissolved Water lb 223 0.00668 239 -18.8 0.00835 2.43 0 solids 71 Fe Water g -127 0.00165 0.00227 -127 0.00207 0.00227 0

147

Table A-4. Wood life cycle emissions (continued). Recyc- Incin- Recyc- ling, erated, Com- ling, Job Unlined Incin- Facility Lined No No Substance part- Unit Total Site Landfill erated Site Landfill Energy ment Sepa- Sepa- Cap- rated rated ture 72 fluoride ions Water g -3.25 3.57E-05 4.91E-05 -3.25 4.46E-05 4.91E-05 0 73 H2SO4 Water g -21.5 0.000601 0.000825 -21.5 0.000751 0.000825 0 74 Hg Water µg -30.3 0.00853 0.0117 -30.4 0.0107 0.0117 0 75 metallic ions Water mg -688 15.7 21.5 -766 19.6 21.5 0 76 Mn Water g -73.3 0.000801 0.0011 -73.3 0.001 0.0011 0 77 Na Water g -1.29 1.39E-05 1.91E-05 -1.29 1.74E-05 1.91E-05 0 78 NH3 Water g -1.43 0.00122 0.00167 -1.43 0.00152 0.00167 0 79 nitrate Water mg -307 0.00339 0.00467 -307 0.00425 0.00467 0 80 oil Water g -150 0.0705 0.0969 -150 0.0882 0.0969 0 81 other Water g -40.8 0.0074 0.0102 -40.9 0.00925 0.0102 0 organics 82 Pb Water µg -57.5 1.31 1.79 -64 1.63 1.79 0 83 phenol Water mg -2.25 0.0505 0.0694 -2.5 0.0632 0.0694 0 84 phosphate Water g -10.7 0.000305 0.000419 -10.7 0.000381 0.000419 0 85 sulphate Water oz 57.8 0.00316 82.8 -25 0.00396 0.00435 0 86 suspended Water oz -56 0.00243 0.00333 -56 0.00303 0.00333 0 solids 87 Zn Water mg -133 0.0566 0.0778 -133 0.0708 0.0778 0 88 solid waste Solid lb -747 0.0255 0.0351 -849 0.0319 0.0351 103 89 As (ind.) Soil kg 2.4 1.2 x x 1.2 x x 90 Cr (III) Soil kg 2.6 1.3 x x 1.3 x x (ind.) 91 Cu (ind.) Soil g 1600 800 x x 800 x x 92 radioactive Non Bq - 618 849 - 773 849 0 substance to mat. 4.5E+07 4.5E+07 air

APPENDIX B C&D DEBRIS RECYCLING POLICY SURVEY FORM AND RESULTS

148 149

Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences P.O. Box 116450 Solid and Hazardous Waste Engineering Program Gainesville, FL 32611-6450 Phone: (352) 846-3035 Fax: (352) 392-7735

Dear:

I am a student at the University of Florida, where I am working on a Florida state funded research project investigating state, county, and city policies that encourage construction and demolition debris recycling. We are interested in determining how many types of recycling policies currently exist for construction and demolition debris and how effective these policies are in increasing recycling.

I read with great interest about the {policy that exists there in [city/county/state]}. While I have been able to find a considerable amount of information about this that is available on the internet, some of the data we are gathering is not. This is where I need your help. We are collecting information regarding costs, revenues and recycling success of the program that was implemented. Upon your convenience, please fill out the questionnaire on the next page and return it to me via email at [email protected] or fax at 352-392-7735.

If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me. Any help that you can provide is greatly appreciated. Thank you very much for your time.

Sincerely,

Stephanie L. Henry Research Assistant

150

Policy Analysis Questionnaire

Policy Title: City/County:

Part One: Costs

These questions are looking for the amount of money that your [city or county] had to spend to get this policy rolling. If you are unsure of the answers, approximate numbers are fine.

1) Did your [city/county] have to buy any equipment for the program? If so, what equipment was purchased? Approximately how much did you spend to purchase the equipment?

2) Please fill in the table based on the county’s annual budget for the policy.

Category Annual Costs to the [City/County] from the Policy ($/year) Personnel

Other Administration

Enforcement

Equipment Operation and Maintenance Other: (please specify) Other: (please specify)

Part Two: Revenues

1) How much revenue from licenses or permits does the [county or city] collect per year?

2) Revenue through citations?

3) Revenue from advanced disposal fees or deposits?

151

Policy Analysis Questionnaire (continued)

Part Three: Recycling Success

1) Please fill in the following table about the tonnage recycled and disposed in your [city/county].

C&D Debris MSW Annual Annual Annual Annual Amount Amount Amount Amount Disposed Recycled Disposed Recycled (tons/year) (tons/year) (tons/year) (tons/year) Before the policy was implemented After the policy was implemented

2) Where is the C&D debris in your [city/county] primarily disposed?

Name of Landfill Location (City) Owned by the Privately [city/county]? owned?

Recycled?

Name of Landfill Location (City) Owned by the Privately [city/county]? owned?

3) Please provide a mark in the box next to the recycling programs that your [city/county]participates in? Please provide names of other programs that your [city/county] participates in but have not been listed.

152

Curbside Pick-Up Drop-Off Buy Recycled Newsprint Program Trash Bag Program Used Oil Program School Waste Reduction Campaign White Office Paper Collection

Other programs:

Follow-Up

May I contact you if I have any additional questions? If so, please list the best way to contact you.

Name: Title:

Please contact me by: ______phone ______email ______fax

153

Table B-1. Results of the city C&D debris recycling policy survey. City Pleasanton Berkeley Cotati Atherton Policy Type Green Green Salvage Deposit/ADF/ Building Building Rebate Length of Program ~ 3 years ~2 years ~13 years ~7 years Ave. C&D debris Unknown recycled prior to program (tons/year) Ave. C&D debris Unknown disposed prior to program (tons/year) Ave. total waste recycled prior to program (tons/year) Ave. total waste 139,790 disposed prior to program (tons/year) Ave. C&D debris Unknown 435,295 recycled during program (tons/year) Ave. C&D debris 88,632 disposed during program (tons/year) Ave. total waste recycled during program (tons/year) Ave. total waste disposed during program (tons/year) C&D debris recycling rate before policy C&D debris recycling rate after policy Total recycling rate 48% 52% Unknown 31% before policy Total recycling rate after 52% 57% 39% 55% policy Direct cost to the public $0.00 $0.00 Publishing fee $-10.00 Initial equipment cost $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Annual operation & $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 maintenance costs Administration costs $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $30,000 Enforcement costs $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Revenues per year $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $30,000 Revenues lost per year $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

154

Table B-1. Results of the city C&D debris recycling policy survey (continued). City Laguna San Jose Santa Oakland Hills Monica Policy Type Deposit/ Deposit/ Deposit/ Deposit/ ADF/ ADF/ ADF/ ADF/ Rebate Rebate Rebate Rebate Length of Program ~3 years ~5 years ~6 years ~6 years Ave. C&D debris recycled prior to program (tons/year) Ave. C&D debris disposed 150,000 prior to program (tons/year) Ave. total waste recycled prior to program (tons/year) Ave. total waste disposed prior to program (tons/year) Ave. C&D debris recycled 6,899 150,000 56,750 during program (tons/year) Ave. C&D debris disposed 3,454 during program (tons/year) Ave. total waste recycled during program (tons/year) Ave. total waste disposed during program (tons/year) C&D debris recycling rate before policy C&D debris recycling rate after policy Total recycling rate before 21% 64% 55% 41% policy Total recycling rate after 29% 63% 65% 52% policy Direct cost to the public $100.00 $50.00 $25.00 $150.00 Initial equipment cost $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Annual operation & $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 maintenance costs Administration costs $3,750.00 $187,500.00 $0.00 $0.00 Enforcement costs $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Revenues per year $40,000.00 $1,500,000 $0.00 $0.00 Revenues lost per year $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

155

Table B-1. Results of the city C&D debris recycling policy survey (continued). City Burlingame Brawley Castro Valley Palo Alto Policy Type % Recycling % Recycling % Recycling % Recycling Requirement Requirement Requirement Requirement Length of Program ~6 years ~2 years ~4 years ~2 years Average C&D debris 50,000 recycled prior to program (tons/year) Average C&D debris 300,000 disposed prior to program (tons/year) Average total waste 48,097 recycled prior to program (tons/year) Average total waste disposed prior to program (tons/year) Average C&D debris 12,072 220,000 1,476 10,000 recycled during program (tons/year) Average C&D debris 1,957 82,000 10,000 disposed during program (tons/year) Average total waste recycled (tons/year) Average total waste disposed (tons/year) C&D debris recycling rate before policy C&D debris recycling rate after policy Total recycling rate before 46% 42% 57% policy Total recycling rate after 49% 45% 62% policy Direct cost to the public $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Initial equipment cost $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Annual operation & $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 maintenance costs Administration costs $42,000.00 $63,000.00 $1,800.00 $113,000.00 Enforcement costs $0.00 $23,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 Revenues per year $38,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 $112,500 Revenues lost per year $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

156

Table B-1. Results of the city C&D debris recycling policy survey (continued). City La Habra Policy Type Government recycling requirement Length of Program ~3 years Average C&D debris recycled prior to program (tons/year) Average C&D debris disposed prior to program (tons/year) Average total waste recycled prior to program (tons/year) Average total waste disposed prior to program (tons/year) Average C&D debris recycled during program (tons/year) Average C&D debris disposed during program (tons/year) Average total waste recycled during program (tons/year) Average total waste disposed during program (tons/year) C&D debris recycling rate before policy C&D debris recycling rate after policy Total recycling rate before 49% policy Total recycling rate after 53% policy Direct cost to the public $0.00 Initial equipment cost $0.00 Annual operation & $0.00 maintenance costs Administration costs $3,750.00 Enforcement costs $0.00 Revenues per year $40,000.00 Revenues lost per year $0.00

157

Table B-2. Results of the county C&D debris recycling policy survey. Contra County San Mateo Alameda Tulare Costa Policy Type % Recycling % Recycling % Recycling % Recycling Requirement Requirement Requirement Requirement Length of Program ~2 years ~4 years ~1 year ~4 years Average C&D debris Too Recent to recycled prior to Measure program (tons/year) Results Average C&D debris 160,000 disposed prior to program (tons/year) Average total waste recycled prior to program (tons/year) Average total waste disposed prior to program (tons/year) Average C&D debris 1,545 30,000 recycled during program (tons/year) Average C&D debris 35 disposed during program (tons/year) Average total waste recycled during program (tons/year) Average total waste disposed during program (tons/year) C&D debris recycling rate before policy C&D debris recycling rate after policy Total recycling rate Too Recent 48% 57% before policy to Measure Total recycling rate after Results 54% 60% policy Direct cost to the public $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Initial equipment cost $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Annual operation & $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 maintenance costs Administration costs Enforcement costs $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Revenues per year $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Revenues lost per year $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

158

Table B-2. Results of the county C&D debris recycling policy survey (continued). County Orange Policy Type Disposal Restriction Length of Program ~4 years Average C&D debris 1,000 recycled prior to program (tons/year) Average C&D debris 35,000 disposed prior to program (tons/year) Average total waste recycled prior to program (tons/year) Average total waste disposed prior to program (tons/year) Average C&D debris 9,000 recycled during program (tons/year) Average C&D debris 26,000 disposed during program (tons/year) Average total waste recycled during program (tons/year) Average total waste disposed during program (tons/year) C&D debris recycling 3% rate before policy C&D debris recycling 22% rate after policy Total recycling rate 40% before policy Total recycling rate 63% after policy Direct cost to the $15/hauler for public license, $0/ton tipping fee Initial equipment cost $1,3000,000 Annual operation & Included in maintenance costs administration costs Administration costs $150,000.00 Enforcement costs $0.00 Revenues per year $25,000 Revenues lost per year $210,000

159

LIST OF REFERENCES

Ackerman, F. and K. Gallagher, 2002. Mixed Signals: Market Incentives, Recycling, and the Price Spike of 1995. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 30(4), 275-295.

Adalberth, K., 1997. Energy Use During the Live Cycle of Single-Unit Dwellings: Examples. Building and Environment 32(4), 321-329.

American Wood Preservers’ Association (AWPA), 1999. American Wood Preservers’ Association Book of Standards. American Wood Preservers’ Association, Grandbury, Texas, USA.

American Institute of Architects (AIA), 1994. Environmental Resource Guide. Washington, DC, USA.

Asphalt Roofing Manufacturers Association, 2006. Homepage www.arma.org (accessed March 23, 2006).

Athena Institute, 2006. Environmental Impact Estimator. Ontario, Canada.

Bailey, I., 2002. European Environmental Taxes and Charges: Economic Theory and Policy Practice. Applied Geography 22, 235-251.

Bantillo, S., 2000. San Jose to Impose Recycling Deposits on C&D Waste, Construction Materials Recycler, January.

Barnes, A., 2002. Feasibility of Recycling Scrap Gypsum Drywall from New Construction Activities in Florida. Master’s Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.

Barr, S. and A. Gilg, In Press. Conceptualising and analyzing household attitudes and actions to a growing environmental problem: Development and application of a framework to guide local waste policy. Applied Geography.

Barron, W. and G. Ng, 1996. An Assessment Methodology for Environmental Policy Instruments: An Illustrative Application to Solid Wastes in Hong Kong. Journal of Environmental Management 48, 283-298.

Blassino, M., Solo-Gabriele, H., and T. Townsend, 2002. Pilot scale evaluation of sorting technologies for CCA treated wood waste. Waste Management & Research 20(3), 290-301.

160 161

Bolen, W., 2003. Sand and Gravel, Construction. Minerals Yearbook. United States Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, USA.

Bolt, S. 1997. Roofing the Right Way, Third Edition. McGraw-Hill, New York City, New York, USA.

Borjesson, P. and L. Gustavsson, 2000. Greenhouse gas balances in building construction: wood versus concrete from life-cycle and forest land-use perspectives. Energy Policy 28(9), 575-588.

Brick Industry Association (BIA), 2006. 2002 Sales and Marketing Report. Reston, Virginia, USA.

Burns, R., 1997. “Neighbors Raise Stink About Orange City Landfill,” The Deland Beacon, January 29: pp A1, A10.

Calcott, P. and M. Walls, In Press. Waste, Recycling, and Design for Environment: Roles for Markets and Policy Instruments. Resource and Energy Economics.

California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), 1996. Market Status Report: Urban Wood. 443-96-069. Sacramento, California, USA.

California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), 2001. Asphalt Roofing Shingles Recycling: Introduction. Sacramento, California, USA.

California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB), 2006. California Waste Stream Profiles. http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Profiles/ (accessed October 14, 2006).

Cascadia Consulting Group, Inc., 2004. Statewide Waste Characterization Study. California Integrated Waste Management Board, Sacramento, California, USA.

Chapman, R.E. and C.A. Izzo, 2002. Baseline Measures for Improving Housing Durability. NISTIR 6870. US Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA.

Chevalier, J.L. and J.F. Le Teno, 1996. Requirements for an LCA-based Model for the Evaluation of the Environmental Quality of Building Products. Building and Environment 31(5), 487-491.

Clark, C., Jambeck, J., and T. Townsend, 2006. A Review of Construction and Demolition Debris Regulations in the US. Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology 36, 141-186.

Cochran, K., 2001. Estimation of the Generation and Composition of Construction and Demolition Debris in Florida. Master’s Thesis, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.

162

Cochran, K., Townsend, T., Reinhart, D., and H. Heck, 2006. Estimation of regional building-related C&D debris generation and composition: Case study for Florida, US. Waste Management.

Cole, R.J. and P.C. Kernan, 1996. Life Cycle Energy Use in Office Buildings. Building and Environment 31(4), 307-317.

Dagostino, F.R., and L. Feigenbaum, 1999. Estimating in Building Construction. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA.

DelPico, W.J., 2004. Builder’s Essentials: Estimating Building Costs. RS Means, Kingston, Massachusetts, USA.

Duryea, M., 2001. Landscape Mulches: What Are The Choices in Florida? University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute for Food and Agricultural Sciences, Gainesville, Florida, USA.

Eagle Crusher Co., Inc., 2005. Team Eagle: Partnerships for Profitability in Aggregate and Recycling. Product brochure, Galion, Ohio, USA.

Ehlen, M.A., 1997. Life-Cycle Costs of New Construction Materials. Journal of Infrastructure Systems 3(12), 129-133.

Emmanuel, R., 2004. Estimating the environmental suitability of wall materials: preliminary results from Sri Lanka. Building and Environment 39(10), 1253-1261.

Energy Information Administration (EIA), 2003. Renewable Energy Annual 2002 With Preliminary Data for 2002. DOE/EIA-0603(2002). US Department of Energy, Washington, DC, USA.

Energy Information Administration (EIA), 2005. Annual Energy Review 2004. DOE/EIA-0384(2004). US Department of Energy, Washington, DC, USA.

Erin Systems, 2003. Fingerscreener. Product brochure, Riviere-du-Loup, Quebec, Canada.

Erlandsson, M. and B. Mathias, 2003. Generic LCA-methodology applicable for buildings, constructions, and operation services – today practice and development needs. Building and Environment 38(7), 919-938.

Erlandsson, M. and P. Levin, 2005. Environmental assessment of rebuilding and possible performance improvements effect on a national scale. Building and Environment 40(11), 1439-1471.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), 2001. 1999 Annual Report for a Construction and Demolition Debris Facility: Florida. Compiled by Jennifer Caldwell-Kurka., Tallahassee, Florida, USA.

163

Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), 2004. 2002 Solid Waste Annual Report. Tallahassee, Florida, USA.

Founie, A, 2004. Gypsum. Minerals Yearbook. United States Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, USA.

Frangopol, D.M., Kong, J.S., and E.S Gharaibeh, 2001. Reliability-Based Life Cycle Management of Highway Bridges. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering 15(1), 27-34.

Franklin Associates, 1998. Characterization of Building-Related Construction and Demolition Debris in the United States. EPA530-R-98-010. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA.

Gabel, K., Forsberg, P., and A.M. Tillman, 2004. The design and building of a life cycle- based process model for simulating environmental performance, product performance and cost in cement manufacturing. Journal of Cleaner Production 12 (2004), 77-93.

Gardinier, B., September 12, 1998. Dump Critics Applaud Town Board. The Times Union: B4.

Georgia Department of Natural Resources, 2005. Pollution Prevention Assistance Division website. http://www.p2ad.org/ (accessed August 8, 2005).

Gonzalez, M.J. and J.G. Navarro, 2006. Assessment of the decrease of CO2 emissions in the construction field through the selection of materials: Practical case study of three houses of low environmental impact. Building and Environment 41(7), 902- 909.

Graedel, T., 1998. Streamlined Life-Cycle Assessment. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey, USA.

Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD), 2005. http://www.gvrd.bc.ca/recycling- and-garbage/banned-materials.htm. (accessed August 8, 2005).

Grzybowski, K.F., 1993. Recycled Asphalt Roofing Materials – A Multi-Functional, Low Cost Hot Mix Asphalt Pavement Additive. Use of Waste Materials in Hot-Mix Asphalt. ASTM STP 1193, H. Fred Waller, Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Häkkinen, T. and K. Mäkelä, 1996. Environmental Adaption of Concrete: Environmental impact of concrete and asphalt pavements. Technical Research Centre of Finland, Espoo, Finland.

Hao, J.O., Jin, M.C., and H. Li, 1996. Sulfate-Reducing Bacteria. Critical Review in Environmental Science and Technology 26, 155-187.

164

Harris, D., 1998. A Quantitative Approach to the Assessment of the Environmental Impact of Building Materials. Building and Environment 34(6), 751-758.

Hendrickson, C., Lave, L., and F. McMichael, 1995. Time to Dump Recycling? Issues in Science and Technology 11(3), 79-84.

Hendrickson, C. and A. Horvath, 2000. Resource Use and Environmental Emissions of U.S. Construction Sectors. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 126(1), 38-44.

Horvath, A., 1997. Estimation of Environmental Implications of Construction Materials and Designs Using Life Cycle Assessment Techniques. Dissertation for Doctor of Philosophy in Civil Engineering, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA.

Horvath, A. and C. Hendrickson, 1998. Steel Versus Steel-Reinforced Concrete Bridges: Environmental Assessment. Journal of Infrastructure Systems 4(9), 111-117.

Horvath, A., Pacca, S., and E. Masanet, 2003. PaLATE. University of California, Berekley, California, USA.

Howard, J. 2003. U.S. Timber Production, Trade, Consumption, and Price Statistics 1965 – 2002. FPL-RP-615. US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.

Iida, K., Pierman, J., Tolaymat, T., Townsend, T., and C.-Y. Wu, 2004. Control of Chromated Copper Arsenate Wood Incineration Air Emissions and Ash Leaching Using Sorbent Technology. Journal of Environmental Engineering 130(2), 184- 192.

Jambeck, J., Weitz, K., Solo-Gabriele, H., Townsend, T., and S. Thorneloe, In Press. CCA-treated Wood Disposed in Landfills and Life-cycle Trade-offs with Waste-to- Energy and MSW Landfill Disposal. Waste Management.

Jambeck, J., Townsend, T., Weitz, K., and H. Solo-Gabriele, 2005. CCA-Treated Wood Disposed in Landfills and Life-cycle Trade-Offs With Waste-to-Energy and MSW Landfill Disposal. 36th Annual Meeting of the International Research Group on Wood Protection, Bangalore, India, April 24-28.

Jang, Y., and T. Townsend, 2001 Occurrence of Organic Pollutants in Recovered Soil Fines from Construction and Demolition Waste. Waste Management 21(8), 703- 715.

Jang, Y., and T. Townsend, 2003. Effect of Waste Depth on Leachate Quality from Laboratory Construction and Demolition Debris Landfills. Environmental Engineering Science 20(3), 183-196.

165

Jonsson, A., Tillman, A-M, and T. Svensson, 1997. Life Cycle Assessment of Flooring Materials: Case Study. Building and Environment 32(3), 245-255.

Junnila, S. and Horvath, A., 2003. “Life-Cycle Environmental Effects of an Office Building.” Journal of Infrastructure Systems 9(4) 157-166.

Kaplan, P., Barlaz, M., and S. Ranjithan, 2004. A Procedure for Life-Cycle-Based Solid Waste Management with Consideration of Uncertainty. Journal of Industrial Ecology 8(4), 155-172.

Katz, A., 2004. Environmental Impact of Steel and Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Reinforced Pavements. Journal of Composites for Construction 8(6), 481-488.

Kelly, T. and G. Matos, 2006. Historical Statistics for Mineral and Material Commodities in the United States. Data Series 140, US Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, USA.

Keolian, G.A., Blanchard, S., and P. Reppe, 2001. Life-Cycle Energy, Costs, and Strategies for Improving a Single-Family House. Journal of Industrial Ecology 4(2), 135-156.

Keoleian, G., Kendall, A., Dettling, J., Smith, V., Chandler, R., Lepech, M., and V. Li, 2005. Life Cycle Modeling of Concrete Bridge Design: Comparison of Engineered Cementitious Composite Link Slabs and Conventional Steel Expansion Joints. Journal of Infrastructure Systems 11(3), 51-60.

Landfill’s Odors Prompt Lawsuit in Virginia, 1996. The Washington Post. September 28: F04.

Lavin, P., 2003. Asphalt Pavements: A Practical Guide to Design, Production and Maintenance for Engineers and Architects. Spon Press, London, United Kingdom.

Li, Z. 2006. A New Life Cycle Impact Assessment Approach for Buildings. Building and Environment 41(10), 1414-1422.

Lindert, L., 1993. Market Status Report: Pavement. California Integrated Waste Management Board, Market Development Branch, Sacramento, California, USA.

Lollini, Barozzi, Fasano, Meroni, and Zini, 2006. Optimisation of opaque components of the building envelope: Energy, economic and environmental issues. Building and Environment 41(8), 1001-1013.

Lubo Screening and Recycling Systems B.V., 2004. Separation Plants. Product brochure, Veenoord, The Netherlands.

Marceau, M.L., Nisbet, M.A., and M.G VanGeem, 2006. Life Cycle Inventory of Portland Cement Manufacture. 2095b. Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Illinois, USA.

166

Matos, G. and L. Wagner, 1998. Consumption of Materials in the United States, 1900- 1995. Annual Reviews of Energy and the Environment 23(1), 107-122.

McCauley-Bell, P., Reinhart, D., Sfeir, H., and B. O’Toole Ryan, 1997. Municipal Solid Waste Composition Studies. Practice Periodical of Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste Management 1(4), 158-163.

McKeever, D., 1998. Wood Residual Quantities in the United States. Biocycle 39(1), 65- 68.

McKeever, D., 2003. Taking Inventory of Woody Residuals. Biocycle 44(7), 31-35.

Mithraratne, N. and B. Vale, 2004. Life cycle analysis model for New Zealand houses. Building and Environment 39(4), 483-492.

Morbark, 2004. Product Guide. Product brochure, Winn, Michigan, USA.

National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), 2002. 2002 Census. US Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC, USA.

National Homebuilders Association (NAHB) Research Center, 1998. From Roofs To Roads…Recycling Asphalt Shingles into Paving Materials. Upper Marlboro, Maryland, USA.

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), 2003. BEES Version 3.0d. Gaithersburg, Maryland, USA.

National Renewable Energy Laboratory. U.S. Life-Cycle Inventory Database. Golden, Colorado. See http://www.nrel.gov/lci (accessed March 29, 2006).

Newcomb, D.E., Stroup-Gardiner, M., Weikle, B.M., and A. Drescher, 1993. Properties of Dense-Graded and Stone-Mastic Asphalt Mixtures Containing Roofing Shingles. Use of Waste Materials in Hot-Mix Asphalt, ASTM STP 1193, H. Fred Waller, Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.

Nishioka, Y., Yanagisawa, Y., and J.D. Spengler, 2000. Saving Energy versus Saving Materials: Life-Cycle Inventory Analysis of Housing in a Cold-Climate Region of Japan. Journal of Industrial Ecology 4(1), 119-135.

North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), 1998. 1998 North Carolina Markets Assessment of the Recycling Industry and Recyclable Materials. State of North Carolina, Raleigh, North Carolina, USA.

North Carolina Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance (NCDPPEA), 2005. North Carolina Recycling Business Assistance Center website. http://www.p2pays.org/rbac/ (accessed August 8, 2005).

167

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA), 2004. Estimated Construction and Demolition Debris Disposal in Ohio in 2003 by State of Origin. Columbus, Ohio, USA.

Park, K., Hwang, Y., Seo, S., and H. Seo, 2003. Quantitative Assessment of Environmental Impacts on Life Cycle of Highways. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management 129(1), 25-31.

Portland Cement Association (PCA), 2003. Apparent Use of Portland Cement and Ready-Mix Concrete. Skokie, Illinois, USA.

Postgate, J.R., 1984. The Sulphate Reducing Bacteria. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.

Powerscreen, 2005. Recycling. Product brochure, Dungannon, UK.

PRé Consultants, SimaPro 5.1 software, Amersfoort, The Netherlands, 2002.

Reiner, L.E., 1981. Methods and Materials of Residential Construction. Prentice-Hall Inc., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

Reinhart, D., Townsend, T., Heck, H., Chakrabarti, S., Cochran, K., and S. Medeiros, 2003. Generation and Composition of Construction and Demolition Debris in Florida. 03-08. Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, Gainesville, Florida, USA.

Ries, R. and A. Mahdavi, 2001. Integrated Computational Life-Cycle Assessment of Buildings. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering 15(1), 59-66.

Rivela, B., Moreira, M.T., Munoz, I., Rieradevall, and G. Feijoo, 2006. Life cycle assessment of wood wastes: A case study of ephemeral architecture. Science of the Total Environment 357(1), 1-11.

Robinson, G., Menzie, W., and H. Hyun, 2004. Recycling of construction debris as aggregate in the Mid-Atlantic Region, USA. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 42(3), 275-294.

Resource Management Group (RMG), 2001. Roofs-to-Roads Innovative Recycling Grant. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, Florida, USA.

Sandler, K., 2003. Analyzing What’s Recyclable in C&D Debris. Biocycle 44(11), 51-54.

Schenk, R., 2000. Using LCA for Procurement Decisions: A Case Study Performed for the US Environmental Protection Agency. Environmental Progress 19(2), 110-116.

Scheuer, C., Keoleian, G., and P. Reppe, 2003. Life Cycle Energy and Environmental Performance of a New University Building: Modeling Challenges and Design Implications. Energy and Buildings 35(10), 1049-1064.

168

Sengal, B. and A. Topal, 2005. Use of asphalt roofing shingle waste in HMA. Construction and Building Materials 19(5), 337-346.

Seo, S., Aramaki, T., Hwang, Y., and K. Hanaki, 2003. Evaluation of Solid Waste Management System Using Fuzzy Composition. Journal of Environmental Engineering 129(6), 520-531.

Sheridan, S., Townsend, T., Price, J., and J. Connell, 2000. Policy Options for Hazardous-Building-Component Removal Before Demolition. Practice Periodical of Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste Management 4(3), 111-117.

Solano, E., Ranjithan, S.R., Barlaz, M., and E.D. Brill, 2002a. Life Cycle-based Solid Waste Management I: Model Development. Journal of Environmental Engineering 128(10), 981-992.

Solano, E., Dumas, R., Harrison, K., Ranjithan, S., Barlaz, M., and E. Brill, 2002b. Life Cycle-based Solid Waste Management II: Illustrative Applications. Journal of Environmental Engineering 128(10), 993-1005.

Solo-Gabriele, H.M. and T. Townsend, 1999. Disposal Practices and Management Alternatives for CCA-Treated Wood Waste. Waste Management & Research 17(5), 378-389.

Solo-Gabriele, H.M., Townsend, T.G., Messick, B., and V. Calitu, 2002. Characteristics of chromated copper arsenate-treated wood ash. Journal of Hazardous Materials 89 (2-3), 213-232.

Solo-Gabriele, H., Sakura-Lemessy, D.-M., Townsend, T., Dubey, B., and J. Jambeck, 2003. Quantities of Arsenic Within the State of Florida. 03-06. Hinkley Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, Gainesville, Florida, USA.

Solo-Gabriele, H.M., Townsend, T.G., Hahn, D.W., Moskal, T.M., Hosein, N., Jambeck, J., and G. Jacobi, 2004. Evaluation of XRF and LIBS technologies for on-line sorting of CCA-treated wood waste. Waste Management 24(4), 413-424.

Stammer, R.E., and F. Stodolsky, 1995. Assessment of Energy Impacts of Improving Highway-Infrastructure Materials. ANL/ESD/TM-115. US Department of Energy, Argonne Laboratory, Center for Transportation Research, Argonne, Illinois, USA.

Stripple, H., 2001. Life Cycle Assessment of Road: A Pilot Study for Inventory Analysis, 2nd Revised Edition. IVL Swedish Environmental Research Institute, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Tellus Institute, 2003. Waste Reduction Program Assessment and Analysis for Massachusetts. Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

169

Tchobanoglous, G., Theisen, H., and S. Vigil, 1993. Integrated Solid Waste Management: Engineering Principles and Management Issues. Irwin McGraw-Hill, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.

Tepordei, V., 2003. Stone, Crushed. Minerals Yearbook. United States Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, USA.

Tepordei, V., 2004. Stone, Crushed. Minerals Yearbook. United States Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, USA.

Thomas, P., 1991. The Contractor’s Field Guide. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA.

Thormark, C., 2002. A low energy building in a life cycle—its embodied energy, energy need for operation and recycling potential. Building and Environment 37(4), 429- 435.

Tierney, J., June 30, 1996. Recycling Is Garbage. New York Times pp. 24-29, 44, 48, 51, 53.

Tolaymat, T., 2001. Leaching Tests for Assessing Management Options for Industrial Solid Waste: A Case Study Using Ash from the Combustion of Wood and Tires. Doctor of Philosophy Dissertation, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, USA.

Townsend, T., Hicks, M., Royal, G., Davis, R., and B. Mercure, 1998. A Guide to Job Site Recycling of Construction and Demolition Waste. Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste, Gainesville, Florida, USA.

Townsend, T., Barnes, A., Cochran, K., and J. Jambeck-Carlson, 2001. Recycling of Discarded Gypsum Drywall in Florida. Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Tallahassee, Florida, USA.

Townsend, T.G.; Jang, Y.C.; and L.G Thurn, 1999. Simulation of Construction and Demolition Waste Leachate. Journal of Environmental Engineering 125(11), 1071- 1081.

Townsend, T.G., Solo-Gabriele, H., Tolaymat, T., and K. Stook, 2003. Impact of chromated copper arsenate (CCA) in wood mulch. The Science of the Total Environment 309(1-3), 173-185.

US Census Bureau, 2000. Census 2000. Washington, DC, USA.

US Census Bureau, 2002. Economic Census. Washington, DC, USA.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2003c. Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2001 Facts and Figures. EPA530-R-03-011. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, USA.

170

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 2003b. Background Document for Life- Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors for Clay Brick Reuse and Concrete Recycling. EPA530-R-03-017. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, USA.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2004. Air Pollutant Emission Factors, Volume 1: Stationary Point and Area Sources. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.

US Census Bureau, 2005a. New Privately Owned Housing Units Authorized by Building Permits in Permit-Issuing Places: Annual Data http://www.census.gov/const/www/newresconstindex.html (accessed October 10, 2006).

US Census Bureau, 2005b. 2005 Population Estimates. Washington, DC, USA.

US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), 2006. Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2005 Facts and Figures. EPA530-R-06-011. Office of Solid Waste, Washington, DC, USA.

US Geological Survey (USGS). 2002. Minerals Yearbook. Reston, Virginia, USA.

US Geological Survey (USGS), 2004. Minerals Yearbook, Reston, Virginia, USA.

US Geological Survey (USGS), 2006. Gypsum. Minerals Commodity Summary, Reston, Virginia, USA.

Wang, J., Touran, A., Christoforou, C., and H. Fadlalla, 2004. A Systems Analysis Tool for Construction and Demolition Wastes Management. Waste Management 24(10), 989-997.

Weitz, K. Barlaz, M., Ranjithan, R., Brill, D., Thorneloe, S. and R. Ham, 1999. Life Cycle Management of Municipal Solid Waste. International Journal of Life Cycle Management 4(4), 195-201.

Weitz, K. and S. Thorneloe, 2003. EPA Applies MSW DST to Assess Its Own Composting Options. MSW Management 12(4).

White, P.R., Franke, M. and P. Hindle, P. 1995. Integrated Solid Waste Management: A Lifecycle Inventory. Blackie Academic & Professional, London, UK.

Wilburn, D.R. and T.G. Goonan, 1998. Aggregates from Natural and Recycled Sources: Economic Assessments for Construction Applications—A Materials Flow Analysis. Circular 1176. United States Geological Survey, Denver, Colorado, USA.

Wilson, A. 1993. Cement and Concrete: Environmental Considerations. Environmental Building News 2(2).

171

Yost, P. and J. Halstead, 1996. A Methodology for Quantifying the Volume of Construction Waste. Waste Management & Research 14(5), 453-461.

Zapata, P., and J. Gambatese, 2005. Energy Consumption of Asphalt and Reinforced Concrete Pavement Materials and Construction. Journal of Infrastructure Systems 11(1), 9-20.

Zhang, Z., Wu, X., Yang, X., and Y. Zhu, 2006. BEPAS—a life cycle building environmental performance assessment model. Building and Environment 41(5), 669-675.

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Kimberly Marie Cochran has studied construction and demolition (C&D debris) for the past six years. Although born in Bloomington, Indiana, she grew up primarily in

Orlando, Florida. She received both her bachelor of science and master of engineering degrees in environmental engineering at the University of Florida. After graduating in

2001, she worked for two years for an environmental consultant, RW Beck, in Orlando,

Florida. Following her passion for research, she returned to academia to pursue a doctor of philosophy degree at the University of Florida. During her studies, she has received a

National Science Fellowship that allowed her to co-teach sixth grade science.

Additionally, she has participated in an Engineers Without Borders project to help a small town in Macedonia with solid waste management problems.

172