Construction + Demolition Waste Trends Trends in Construction and Demolition Waste in Oregon AOR Construction and Demolition Recycling Forum March 15, 2012 Peter Spendelow Oregon 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 MaterialPercent Cardboard/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 LoadsC&D Tons Route trucks1,359,6980.0%0 Compacting boxes180,2552.5%4,506 Loose boxes256, %40,620 Self-haul613, %278,048 Dirty MRF residue186, %109,322 Total2,596, %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 Demolition77,5343.0%17.9% New Construction80,2463.1%18.6% Renovation274, %63.5% Total432, %100.0% Excludes inerts and other non-counting waste. These are very rough estimates.

Construction + Demolition Waste Trends C&D Materials in Disposed Waste Substreams Source: 2009/ 2010 waste composition studyRoute Trucks Compacting Boxes Loose BoxesSelf-haul Dirty MRFsTotal Cardboard2.48%5.73%2.84%2.70%2.27%2.80% Rigid plastic products3.54%4.08%5.29%4.91%5.53%4.13% All Wood3.12%9.33%19.15%22.57%13.45%11.10% Carpet, Rugs, fiber pads1.15%0.08%6.82%5.35%4.59%2.64% Asphalt roofing & tarpaper0.19%0.10%4.32%6.25%18.95%3.90% Flat window glass0.05%0.03%0.47%1.02%0.41%0.39% Other ferrous metal1.22%2.90%2.95%3.06%2.02%1.98% Rock, concrete, brick0.41%0.46%0.66%2.04%3.35%1.33% Gypsum wallboard0.35%0.42%2.96%5.21%9.60%2.83% Fiberglass Insulation0.11%0.05%2.00%1.21%1.45%0.55% Other miscellaneous inorganics1.13%1.11%1.22%2.98%3.84%2.04% Total without cardboard, plastics7.75%14.47%40.56%49.68%57.66%26.76%

Construction + Demolition Waste Trends Tons of C&D Material Disposed & Recovered Material Tons disposed Percent of total disposal 2009 recovery 2010 recovery 2009 recovery rate Cardboard72,6122.8%367,536368, % Rigid plastic products107,1024.1%11,12210,983 All Wood288, %307,005340, % Carpet, Rugs, fiber pads68,4622.6%5151,6410.7% Asphalt roofing & tarpaper101,1893.9%7,83015,8037.2% Window glass10,1350.4% % Other ferrous metal51,4112.0%332,781368,249 Rock, concrete, brick34,5751.3%not available Gypsum wallboard73,5602.8%3,3383,2614.3% Fiberglass Insulation14,2160.5%0 0.0% Other miscellaneous inorganics52,8722.0%not available Paint3,1710.1%1,3081, % Total excluding cardboard, plastic697, %

Construction + Demolition Waste Trends Most 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 Making aggregate from virgin rock Making aggregate from concrete Difference = GHG savings from recycling 0.033Making 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. MaterialProduction & Forestry Savings Break-Even Point (miles) MTCE/ton collectedTruckRailFreighter Aluminum ,000451,000524,000 Corrugated Cardboard0.7927,000104,000120,000 Newspaper0.6823,00090,000104,000 Steel0.4816,00063,00073,000 LDPE0.3612,00047,00055,000 HDPE0.3010,00039,00045,000 Glass (to bottles)0.072,0009,00011,000 Concrete (to aggregate)

Construction + Demolition Waste Trends National Concrete Tonnage: ,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

Construction + Demolition Waste Trends Greenhouse Gas Savings of Asphalt Roofing Recycling and Combustion MTCE per ton 0.025Recycling into road asphalt 0.093Energy recovery in cement kiln (theoretical) Landfilling MTCE per ton Recycling into wallboard & soil amendment 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 Trends Per Capita Disposed Waste from Oregon (all “counting” waste: lbs/person-year)

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 due to less construction activity