construction + demolition waste trends trends in construction and demolition waste in oregon aor...
TRANSCRIPT
Construction + Demolition Waste Trends
Trends in Construction and Demolition Waste in Oregon
AOR Construction and Demolition Recycling ForumMarch 15, 2012
Peter SpendelowOregon Department of Environmental
Quality
Construction + Demolition Waste Trends
Construction and demolition waste:
waste from construction, renovation, or demolition of:– buildings– roads, and – bridges
EPA does not include C&D as part of municipal solid waste (MSW)
Construction + Demolition Waste Trends
Oregon DEQ “Counting Waste”
• The waste that counts towards wasteshed recovery/disposal rates
• Includes MSW and some but not all C&D wastes
Excludes:• Inert materials (rock, concrete, brick, asphalt)• Major metal demolition debris
Construction + Demolition Waste Trends
Composition of Landfilled Waste from 131 C&D Loads in 2009
Material PercentCardboard/Brown Bags 2.19%Rigid Plastic Products 2.04%Wood (total) 28.81%Carpet 4.89%Roofing / Tarpaper 21.08%Flat Window Glass 1.15%Other Ferrous Metal 2.75%Rock / Concrete / Brick 4.99%Gypsum Wallboard 11.26%Fiberglass Insulation 2.50%Other Inorganics 5.82%Total: Above Materials 87.47%
Construction + Demolition Waste Trends
Amount of C&D Waste Disposed (low end)
Tons% C&D Loads C&D Tons
Route trucks 1,359,698 0.0% 0
Compacting boxes 180,255 2.5% 4,506
Loose boxes 256,544 15.8% 40,620
Self-haul 613,195 45.3% 278,048
Dirty MRF residue 186,647 58.6% 109,322
Total 2,596,340 16.7% 432,496
Excludes inerts and other non-counting waste. These are very rough estimates.
Construction + Demolition Waste Trends
Amount of C&D Waste Disposed by Type (low end)
Tons % All Loads% C&D Loads
Demolition 77,534 3.0% 17.9%
New Construction 80,246 3.1% 18.6%
Renovation 274,715 10.6% 63.5%
Total 432,496 16.7% 100.0%
Excludes inerts and other non-counting waste. These are very rough estimates.
Construction + Demolition Waste Trends
C&D Materials in Disposed Waste SubstreamsSource: 2009/ 2010 waste composition study Route
TrucksCompacting
BoxesLooseBoxes Self-haul
Dirty MRFs Total
Cardboard 2.48% 5.73% 2.84% 2.70% 2.27% 2.80%
Rigid plastic products 3.54% 4.08% 5.29% 4.91% 5.53% 4.13%
All Wood 3.12% 9.33% 19.15% 22.57% 13.45% 11.10%
Carpet, Rugs, fiber pads 1.15% 0.08% 6.82% 5.35% 4.59% 2.64%
Asphalt roofing & tarpaper 0.19% 0.10% 4.32% 6.25% 18.95% 3.90%
Flat window glass 0.05% 0.03% 0.47% 1.02% 0.41% 0.39%
Other ferrous metal 1.22% 2.90% 2.95% 3.06% 2.02% 1.98%
Rock, concrete, brick 0.41% 0.46% 0.66% 2.04% 3.35% 1.33%
Gypsum wallboard 0.35% 0.42% 2.96% 5.21% 9.60% 2.83%
Fiberglass Insulation 0.11% 0.05% 2.00% 1.21% 1.45% 0.55%
Other miscellaneous inorganics 1.13% 1.11% 1.22% 2.98% 3.84% 2.04%
Total without cardboard, plastics 7.75% 14.47% 40.56% 49.68% 57.66% 26.76%
Construction + Demolition Waste Trends
Tons of C&D Material Disposed & Recovered
MaterialTons
disposedPercent of
total disposal 2009
recovery2010
recovery2009
recovery rate
Cardboard 72,612 2.8% 367,536 368,602 83.5%
Rigid plastic products 107,102 4.1% 11,122 10,983
All Wood 288,248 11.1% 307,005 340,794 51.6%
Carpet, Rugs, fiber pads 68,462 2.6% 515 1,641 0.7%
Asphalt roofing & tarpaper 101,189 3.9% 7,830 15,803 7.2%
Window glass 10,135 0.4% 709 867 6.5%
Other ferrous metal 51,411 2.0% 332,781 368,249
Rock, concrete, brick 34,575 1.3% not available
Gypsum wallboard 73,560 2.8% 3,338 3,261 4.3%
Fiberglass Insulation 14,216 0.5% 0 0.0%
Other miscellaneous inorganics 52,872 2.0% not available
Paint 3,171 0.1% 1,308 1,931 29.2%
Total excluding cardboard, plastic 697,838 26.9%
Construction + Demolition Waste TrendsMost environmental impact comes from
production/upstream, not recycling/demolition/end-of-life
• Harvesting of trees, minerals, other raw materials
• Energy use in production/manufacture of materials
• But much (most?) of the impact also comes from the use of the building: energy used in heating, cooling
Construction + Demolition Waste Trends
Value of recycling a material based on:
• the environmental impacts of the material being replaced, minus
• the net environmental impact of collecting and processing the material for recycling
Construction + Demolition Waste Trends
Greenhouse Gas Impacts of Making and Recycling Concrete
MTCE per ton
0.0009 Making aggregate from virgin rock
0.0006 Making aggregate from concrete
0.0003 Difference = GHG savings from recycling
0.033 Making concrete itself
Source: EPA WAste Reduction Model (WARM) for recycling data
Greenhouse Gas Savings from Recycling Materials
“Break-Even Point” is where GHG emissions transporting the recyclables equals GHG emissions avoided when the recyclables displace virgin feedstocks. Avoided disposal-related emissions are not included.
Material Production & Forestry Savings
Break-Even Point (miles)
MTCE/ton collected Truck Rail Freighter
Aluminum 3.44 116,000 451,000 524,000
Corrugated Cardboard 0.79 27,000 104,000 120,000
Newspaper 0.68 23,000 90,000 104,000
Steel 0.48 16,000 63,000 73,000
LDPE 0.36 12,000 47,000 55,000
HDPE 0.30 10,000 39,000 45,000
Glass (to bottles) 0.07 2,000 9,000 11,000
Concrete (to aggregate) 0.0003 10 39 46
Construction + Demolition Waste Trends
National Concrete Tonnage: 2007
919,000,000 Tons of concrete produced
200,000,000 Tons of waste concrete generated (demolition)
50 – 60% Crude estimate of percent concrete waste recycled
Source: EPA WARM background document
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/downloads/Concrete.pdf
Construction + Demolition Waste Trends
Greenhouse Gas Savings of Asphalt Roofing Recycling and Combustion
MTCE per ton
0.025 Recycling into road asphalt
0.093 Energy recovery in cement kiln (theoretical)
-0.011 Landfilling
MTCE per ton
-0.009 Recycling into wallboard & soil amendment
-0.035 Landfilling
Greenhouse Gas Savings of Wallboard Recycling
Construction + Demolition Waste Trends
Other hazards: Toxins in C & D
• Asbestos• Lead pipe• Lead paint• Mercury• Glues and solvents in construction
Construction + Demolition Waste TrendsPer Capita Disposed Waste from Oregon 1993-2010
(all “counting” waste: lbs/person-year)
0
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Industrial Landfills
PCS Treated Thermally
PCS at MSW/C&D Facilities
Other Waste at MSW/C&D Facilities
'Counting' Waste at MSW/C&D Facilities
Construction + Demolition Waste TrendsWood Recovery and Disposal Per Capita
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Year
Po
un
ds p
er
pers
on
per
year
Recovered
Disposed
Construction + Demolition Waste TrendsAsphalt Roofing Recovery and Disposal Per Capita
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Year
Po
un
ds p
er
pers
on
per
year
Recovered
Disposed
Construction + Demolition Waste TrendsGypsum Recovery and Disposal Per Capita
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Year
Po
un
ds p
er
pers
on
per
year
Recovered
Disposed
Construction + Demolition Waste TrendsSelected Construction Materials Recovery and Disposal Per Capita
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009Year
Po
un
ds p
er
pers
on
per
year
Recovered
Disposed
Construction + Demolition Waste Trends
0
1,000
2,000
3,000
4,000
5,000
6,000
7,000
8,000
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
Em
plo
ym
en
t: B
uild
ing
Co
ns
tru
cti
on
pe
r m
illio
n p
op
ula
ito
n
Po
un
ds p
er
pe
rso
n p
er
ye
ar
Recovered
Disposed
ConstructEmploy
Construction + Demolition Waste Trends
Summary
• DEQ tracks disposal and recovery of many C&D materials, but not inerts or major metal demolition
• Most environmental impact comes from the production and use of construction materials, not end-of-life
• Because of shear volume, C&D materials are important.
• Strong decline in C&D waste generation in 2007-2010 due to less construction activity