CHARACTERIZATION OF BUILDING-RELATED

CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION

DEBRIS IN THE UNITED STATES

Prepared for

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste Division

Office of Solid Waste

by

Franklin Associates, A Division of Eastern Research Group

Contract No. 68W02-036, Work Assignment 3-06

December 2005

Printed on recycled paper

Table of Contents

Chapter	Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY	ES-1

		Introduction	ES-1

		Methodology	ES-1

		Report Highlights	ES-2

			Building-Related C&D Debris Generation Estimates	ES-2

			Composition of C&D Debris from Buildings	ES-4

			Road, Bridge, and Land Clearing Debris	ES-4

			Management Practices for C&D Debris	ES-4

			Peer Review and Data Sources	ES-5

	1	INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY	1-1

		Background	1-1

		Methodology	1-2

		Defining C&D Debris	1-2

		Construction and Demolition Debris in Perspective	1-9

		Definitions	1-10

		Overview of This Report	1-11

		References	1-12

	2	GENERATION OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS	2-1

		Introduction	2-1

		Building-Related Construction and Demolition Debris Generation	2-1

			Construction Debris	2-1

				Residential	2-1

				Nonresidential	2-4

			Demolition debris	2-4

				Residential	2-4

				Nonresidential	2-7

			Renovation Debris	2-8

				Residential	2-8

				Nonresidential	2-11

			Summary of Building-Related C&D Generation	2-12

		Composition of Construction and Demolition Debris	2-13

		References	2-21

	3	MANAGEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS IN THE              
    UNITED STATES	3-1

		Introduction	3-1

		Landfilling	3-1

		Recovery of C&D Debris for Recycling	3-2

			Deconstruction	3-3

			Asphalt and Concrete Recycling	3-4

			Waste Wood Recycling	3-4

			Metals Recycling	3-4

			Asphalt Shingles	3-5

			Drywall (Sheetrock, Gypsum)	3-5

			Estimated Recovery Rate	3-5

		References	3-8

	4	ADDITIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS	4-1

		Introduction	4-1

		MSW collected with C&D debris	4-1

Table of Contents (continued)

Chapter	Page

	4	C&D debris collected with MSW	4-2

		References	4-3

	Appendix	Page

	A	Calculations	

	B	Typical Construction and Demolition Debris Constituents	

List of Tables

Table		Page

	ES-1	Summary of Estimated Building-Related C&D Debris Generation
(Thousand Tons)	ES-3

	ES-2	Summary of Estimated Building-Related C&D Debris Generation
(Percent)	ES-3

	1	Representative Generation Sources of C&D Sector Materials	1-4

	2	Typical Components of Construction and Demolition Debris	1-8

	3	Empirical Waste Assessments for Residential Construction Debris	2-3

	4	Empirical Waste Assessments for Nonresidential Construction Debris
2-5

	5	Empirical Waste Assessments for Residential Demolition Debris	2-7

	6	Empirical Waste Assessments for Nonresidential Demolition Debris	2-9

	7	Empirical Waste Assessments for Residential Renovation Debris	2-10

	8	Empirical Waste Assessments for Nonresidential Renovation Debris	2-11

	9	Summary of Estimated Building-Related C&D Debris Generation, 2003
2-12

	10	Preliminary National Demolition Association 2005 Survey Results	3-6

	11	Florida’s C&D Debris Disposal and Recovery, 1998	3-7

	12	Estimated Management of Building-Related C&D Debris in The United
States, 2003	3-7

	A-1	Residential Construction Debris Worksheet	

	A-2	Nonresidential Construction Debris Worksheet	

	A-3	Residential Demolition Worksheet	

	A-4	Residential Renovation Worksheet	

	A-5	Nonresidential Renovation Worksheet	

	A-6	Estimated Weight of Concrete Driveways Replaced each Year	

	A-7	Estimated Weight of Asphalt Roofs Replaced per Year	

	A-8	Estimated Weight of Wood Roofs Replaced per Year	

	A-9	Estimated Weight of Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning
Equipment Replaced each                    Year	

	A-10	Construction Waste from Single Family Residential Construction	

A-11		Riverdale Case Study	

A-12		Residential C&D Debris Composition	

A-13		Nonresidential C&D Debris Composition	

A-14		Construction & Demolition Debris Composition	

A-15		Composition of Building Construction & Demolition Debris	

A-16		Composition of C&D Debris in Des Moines, Iowa	

A-17		Average Composition of Waste from 19 Industrial/Commercial
Demolition Projects in the             Northwest Area	

A-18		Number of Wood-Framed Building Deconstruction and Reused Building
Materials Companies	

B-1		Typical Construction and Demolition Debris Constituents	

List of Figures

Figure		Page

	1	C&D Debris in Perspective	1-9

	2	Average Size of New House Construction	2-6

	3	Generation of Construction and Demolition Debris From Buildings	2-13

	4	Sample Composition of Residential Construction Debris	2-15

	5	Sample Composition of Residential Construction Debris	2-16

	6	Sample Composition of Residential Renovation Debris	2-17

	7	Sample Composition of Residential Demolition Debris	2-18

	8	Sample Composition of Residential Demolition Debris	2-19

	9	Sample Composition of Non-Residential Demolition Debris 	2-20

CHARACTERIZATION OF BUILDING-RELATED

CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS

IN THE UNITED STATES

Executive Summary

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study is to update the findings of the 1998 EPA
report Characterization of Building-Related Construction and Demolition
Debris in the United States that characterized the quantity and
composition of building-related construction and demolition (C&D) debris
generated in the United States. C&D debris is produced when new
structures are built and when existing structures are renovated or
demolished. Structures include all residential and nonresidential
buildings as well as public works projects, such as streets and
highways, bridges, piers, and dams. Many state definitions of C&D debris
also include trees, stumps, earth, and rock from the clearing of
construction sites.

This update follows the same methodology as the original report to the
extent possible. Information compiled in the original version has been
updated with additional sampling studies and current statistics. Much of
the information in the original study was judged to still be relevant
and included in this update.

The focus of this report is on building-related wastes, including
construction, demolition, and renovation of residential and
nonresidential buildings. Road and bridge debris, and land clearing
debris, are not included in this report.

METHODOLOGY

The methodology used for this study combines national Census Bureau data
on construction industry activities with point source waste assessment
data (i.e., waste sampling and weighing at a variety of construction and
demolition sites) to estimate the amount of building-related C&D debris
produced nationally. The data compiled in the previous report were
augmented with sampling study data published after 1998.

The limited point source waste assessment data used in this analysis may
be a source of considerable uncertainty.

Since the method developed here makes use of readily available Census
Bureau data on national C&D activity, (e.g., construction permits and
construction value) the methodology should be well suited for periodic
updating. Waste assessment results should change very slowly over time
because construction materials used and building construction practices
remain relatively constant from year to year. Composition of waste from
demolished buildings, which have been built over a range of years,
should change even more slowly.

DEFINITIONS

(For purposes of this report, following is a working set of definitions)

Construction and Demolition (C&D) Debris is waste material that is
produced in the process of construction, renovation, or demolition of
structures. Structures include buildings of all types (both residential
and nonresidential) as well as roads and bridges. Components of C&D
debris typically include concrete, asphalt, wood, metals, gypsum
wallboard, and roofing. Land clearing debris, such as stumps, rocks, and
dirt, are also included in some state definitions of C&D debris.

Generation of C&D debris, as used in this report, refers to the weight
of materials and products as they enter the waste management system from
the construction, renovation, or demolition of structures, and before
materials recovery or combustion takes place. Source reduction
activities (e.g., removal and reuse of products from structures
scheduled for demolition) take place ahead of generation, i.e., they
reduce the amount of waste generated.

Recovery of materials, as estimated in this report, includes the removal
of products or materials from the waste stream for the purpose of
recycling the materials in the manufacture of new products.

Source reduction activities reduce the amount or toxicity of wastes
before they enter the waste management system. Reuse is a source
reduction activity involving the recovery or reapplication of a product
or material in a manner that retains its original form and identity.
Reuse of products such as light fixtures, doors, or used brick is
considered source reduction, not recycling.

Discards include the C&D debris remaining after recovery for recycling
(including composting). These discards would presumably be combusted or
landfilled, although some debris is littered, stored or disposed
on-site, or burned on-site.

REPORT HIGHLIGHTS

Building-Related C&D Debris Generation Estimates

Tables ES-1 and ES-2 summarize the estimated building-related C&D
generation in 1009 and 2003. Table ES-1 shows the estimates on a tonnage
basis and Table ES-2 shows the same information on a percentage basis.

•	An estimated 164 million tons of building-related C&D debris were
generated in 2003 compared to 134 million in 1996.

•	The estimated per capita generation rate in 2003 was 3.1 compared to
2.8 pounds per person per day in 1996.

•	In 2003 forty percent of the waste (65 million tons per year) is
generated from residential sources and 60 percent (98 million tons per
year) is from nonresidential sources.

•	Also in 2003 building demolitions account for 53 percent of the
waste stream, or 86 million tons per year; renovations account for 38
percent, or 62 million tons per year; and 9 percent, or 15 million tons
per year, is generated at construction sites.



Composition of C&D Debris from Buildings

The composition of C&D debris is highly variable and depends critically
on the type of activity where sampling is done. Whereas wood is
typically the largest component of waste material generated at
construction and renovation sites, concrete is commonly the largest
component of building demolition debris.

Road, Bridge, and Land Clearing Debris

Road, bridge, and land clearing wastes represent a major portion of
total C&D debris, and some of the materials produced are managed by the
same processors and landfills that manage building-related wastes. A
methodology was not developed in the scope of this project to estimate
these wastes. Point source waste assessment data were not available for
these projects.

Management Practices for C&D Debris

•	The most common management practice for C&D debris is landfilling,
including C&D landfills, MSW landfills, and unpermitted sites. An
estimated 65 to 75 percent was discarded in MSW, C&D or at unpermitted
landfills.

•	An estimated 23 - 35 percent of building-related C&D debris was
recovered for processing and recycling in 2003. The materials most
frequently recovered and recycled are concrete, asphalt, metals, and
wood.

•	There is an trend toward increasing recovery of C&D debris in the
United States. About 3,500 operating facilities that process C&D debris
materials in the United States has been estimated.

•	Metals have the highest recycling rates among the materials
recovered from C&D sites. The Steel Recycling Institute estimates that
the recycling rate for C&D steel is about 85 percent (14.43 million tons
out of 16.96 million tons generated). These numbers include not only
scrap steel from buildings but also from roads and bridges.

Peer Review and Data Sources

The 1998 edition of this report underwent extensive internal and
external peer review of methodology and data sources. Due to the general
acceptance of this methodology and data sources by the peer reviewers,
this update follows the original study to the extent possible.

Methodology adjustments were made for the estimation of non-residential
renovation and demolition debris. Modifications were necessary because
the original data sources no longer exist.

As part of an ongoing effort to better characterize non-hazardous wastes
subject to regulation under Subtitle D of RCRA, USEPA encourages public
comment on this report, including additional methodological
considerations and data sources.

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION AND METHODOLOGY

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this report is to update the 1996 estimates of
building-related construction and demolition (C&D) debris generated in
the United States as estimated in the earlier version of this report
(EPA 1998). Construction and demolition debris is produced when new
structures are built and when existing structures are renovated or
demolished. Structures include all residential and nonresidential
buildings as well as public works projects, such as streets and
highways, bridges, piers, and dams. Many state definitions of C&D debris
also include trees, stumps, earth, and rock from the clearing of
construction sites.

Prior to the 1998 report, national estimates of construction and
demolition debris generation had been limited to extrapolation of local
data, using population or construction employment to make the
extrapolations. Values for generation rates reported in various
locations across the country have ranged from 0.12 to 3.52 pounds per
capita per day (Wilson 1977), a range too large for meaningful
extrapolations.

At least three studies in the past 30 years have made national
generation rate estimates. The first was a 1969 Public Health Service
study, which reported a national average of 0.66 pounds per person per
day (ppd) (PHS 1969). The same study reported an urban average
generation rate of 0.72 ppd, a number that was also reported in the 1986
EPA municipal solid waste characterization report as an estimate for the
national average (EPA 1986). Based on the U.S. population in 1986 (240
million), the EPA report estimated 31.5 million tons per year of C&D
debris generation.

In a draft report prepared for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory
in 1994 (Franklin 1994), Franklin Associates identified 22 cities,
counties, or states for which C&D debris data were reported. There was a
weak but positive correlation between C&D debris generation and per
capita construction employment in each area. The national extrapolated
estimate for C&D debris generation using that methodology was 64.4
million tons per year.

These previous C&D debris estimates for the United States appear to be
low, based on the results of this study. As discussed in the sections
that follow, we estimate that C&D debris generation for building-related
wastes only (i.e., excluding wastes from roadways, bridges, land
clearing, and excavation), was about 164 million tons in 2003. This
compares to 136 million tons estimated for 1996 in the earlier version
of this report.

METHODOLOGY

The initial objective of the original study was to develop a methodology
somewhat parallel to EPA’s material flows methodology used for MSW
characterization that would use readily available national data, which
would be suitable for periodic updates. The material flows methodology
starts with national production data by material and product, adjusts
for imports, exports, average lifetimes, and consumption, and then
calculates national generation by summing up all the materials and
products that make up MSW. Because of the long and extremely variable
lifetimes of buildings, roads, and other structures, the material flows
method was determined to be infeasible for C&D debris.

Another approach—sampling and weighing at landfills—is often used
for determining local waste management system needs. However, even on
the local level there may be significant barriers to this method.
Sampling from a mixed waste stream with statistical confidence is very
difficult, time consuming, and costly. Locating all the places where C&D
debris is placed is not a trivial matter in some localities, and
obtaining permission to sample at private landfills can be a major
challenge. For a national study of this type, this method would be both
cost and time prohibitive.

The methodology used for this study combines national Census Bureau data
on construction industry project activity with point source waste
assessment data (i.e., waste sampling and weighing at a variety of
construction and demolition sites) to estimate the amount of C&D debris
produced nationally. The limited point source waste assessment data may
be a source of considerable uncertainty in the analysis. Because of the
lack of point source waste assessment data from roadway, bridge, and
land clearing projects, this study was limited to building-related
wastes.

Since the methodology developed here makes use of readily available
Census Bureau data on national C&D activity, (e.g., construction permits
and construction value) the methodology should be well suited for
periodic updating. Waste assessment results should change very slowly
over time because construction materials used and building construction
practices remain relatively constant from year to year. Composition of
waste from demolished buildings, which were built over a range of years,
should change even more slowly.

The 1998 edition of this report underwent extensive internal and
external peer review of methodology and data sources. A finding of the
earlier peer review process was that the methodology used in this report
represents a credible approach for estimating national generation of
building-related construction and demolition debris. It was noted,
however, that the report could benefit from additional waste sampling
studies to strengthen the source category (construction, demolition, and
renovation) estimates. This current report builds on the previous work;
adding sampling data published after 1998 to strengthen the source
category database.

DEFINING C&D DEBRIS

A broad definition of the representative projects and sources of C&D
debris is shown below (Table 1). This table shows that the generation
sources of C&D debris cover a broad segment of the U.S. economy. The
sources range from homebuilders and homeowners to general commercial
developers, general building contractors, highway and street
contractors, bridge erectors/constructors, bituminous pavement
contractors, small home remodelers, site grading contractors, demolition
contractors, roofing contractors and drywallers, and excavation
specialists.

The amount of C&D debris generated and reported to regulatory agencies
around the country varies considerably from one community to another.
This variation is created, in part, by the difference in state
regulations on the subject material, and also by the historical
demographics and current growth and development activity of the
community.

Excerpts from a number of state definitions of C&D debris are presented
in this chapter. This is a representative sample of how states are
defining C&D debris. It illustrates the diversity of C&D debris
terminology. Oregon excludes clean fill materials when separated from
other C&D wastes and used as fill materials or otherwise land disposed.
New York, Kansas, and Rhode Island’s definitions specifically exclude
some materials, even if resulting from C&D activities. Examples of
exclusions include garbage, carpeting, furniture, corrugated
containerboard, and other containers. 

The variance in state definitions affects the interpretation of the
results of this report. Corrections or adjustments may be required when
comparing the results of this report with state data, depending on the
definition the state used. Corrections may also be required when
comparing data from any two states.

The amount of C&D debris available for discard in any region also
depends on the general economic conditions of the region, the weather,
major disasters, special projects, and local regulations. In fast
growing areas, the C&D waste stream from buildings consists primarily of
construction debris, with much smaller quantities of demolition debris.
Demolition debris is produced when older buildings are demolished to
make way for the new developments. By contrast, in many urban areas
demolition debris dominates the C&D waste stream.



Table 1

REPRESENTATIVE GENERATION SOURCES OF C&D

SECTOR MATERIALS*

Site clearance materials

	(Brush, tree, and stumpage materials)

Excavated materials

	(Earth, fill, and other excavated rock and granular materials)

Roadwork materials

	Concrete slabs and chunks from concrete road construction

	Asphalt chunks and millings from asphalt pavement

Bridge/overpass construction/renovation materials

New construction materials

(Residential, commercial, and industrial project sources)

Renovation, remodeling or repair materials

(Residential, commercial, and industrial project sources)

Demolition materials … including wrecking, implosion, dismantling, and
deconstruction

	(Residential, commercial, and industrial project sources)

Disaster debris																				

*Note that estimates for site clearance, excavated materials, and
roadwork materials are not included in this report.

Source: Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. Fairfax, Virginia.

Reprinted from Characterization of Building-Related Construction and
Demolition Debris in the United States. 1998.

STATE DEFINITIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS

(A representative sample of definitions that points out the variability
of definitions used)

California. Construction and demolition (C&D) debris includes concrete,
asphalt, wood, drywall, metals, and many miscellaneous and composite
materials. C&D debris is generated by demolition and new construction of
structures such as residential and commercial buildings and roadways.

Florida. "Construction and demolition debris" means discarded materials
generally considered to be not water soluble and non-hazardous in
nature, including but not limited to steel, glass, brick, concrete,
asphalt material, pipe, gypsum wallboard, and lumber, from the
construction or destruction of a structure as part of a construction or
demolition project or from the renovation of a structure, including such
debris from construction of structures at a site remote from the
construction or demolition project site. The term includes rocks, soils,
tree remains, trees, and other vegetative matter which normally results
from land clearing or land development operations for a construction
project; clean cardboard, paper, plastic, wood and metal scraps from a
construction project . . . unpainted, non-treated wood scraps from
facilities manufacturing materials used for construction of structures
or their components and unpainted, non-treated wood pallets provided the
wood scraps and pallets are separated from other solid waste where
generated and the generator of such wood scraps or pallets implements
reasonable practices of the generating industry to minimize the
commingling of wood scraps or pallets with other solid waste; and de
minimis amounts of other non-hazardous wastes that are generated at
construction or demolition projects, provided such amounts are
consistent with best management practices of the construction and
demolition industries. Mixing of construction and demolition debris with
other types of solid waste will cause it to be classified as other than
construction and demolition debris.

Hawaii. "Construction and demolition waste" means solid waste, largely
inert waste, resulting from the demolition or razing of buildings, of
roads, or other structures, such as concrete, rock, brick, bituminous
concrete, wood, and masonry, composition roofing and roofing paper,
steel, plaster, and minor amounts of other metals, such as copper.
Construction and demolition waste does not include cleanup materials
contaminated with hazardous substances, friable asbestos, waste paints,
solvents, sealers, adhesives, or similar materials.

Kansas. The current definition of C&D waste . . . "solid waste resulting
from the construction, remodeling, repair and demolition of structures,
roads, sidewalks and utilities; untreated wood and untreated sawdust
from any source; treated wood from construction or demolition projects;
small amounts of municipal solid waste generated by the consumption of
food and drinks at construction or demolition sites, including, but not
limited to, cups, bags and bottles; furniture* and appliances from which
ozone depleting chlorofluorocarbons have been removed in accordance with
the provisions of the federal clean air act; solid waste consisting of
motor vehicle window glass; and solid waste consisting of vegetation
from land clearing and grubbing, utility maintenance, and seasonal or
storm related cleanup. Such wastes include, but are not limited to,
bricks, concrete, and other masonry materials, roofing materials, soil,
rock, wood, wood products, wall or floor coverings, plaster, drywall,
plumbing fixtures, electrical wiring, electrical components containing
no hazardous materials, nonasbestos insulation and construction related
packaging**."

*Furniture does not include computer monitors or other computer
components, TVs, VCRs, stereos, or other similar waste electronics.

** . . . " 'construction related packaging' means small quantities of
packaging wastes that are generated in the construction, remodeling or
repair of structures and related appurtenances. 'Construction related
packaging' does not include packaging wastes that are generated at
retail establishments selling construction materials, chemical
containers generated from any source or packaging generated during
maintenance of existing structures."

Kentucky. . . . Construction/demolition debris . . . results from the
construction, remodeling, repair, and demolition of structures and roads
and . . . uncontaminated solid waste consisting of vegetation resulting
from land clearing and grubbing, utility line maintenance, and seasonal
and storm-related cleanup. Such waste includes, but is not limited to
bricks, shredded or segmented tires, concrete and other masonry
materials, soil, rock, wood, wall coverings, plaster, drywall, plumbing
fixtures, tree stumps, limbs, saw dust, leaves, yard waste, paper, paper
products, metals, furniture, insulation, roofing shingles, asphalt
pavement, glass, plastics that are not sealed in a manner that conceals
other wastes, electrical wiring and components containing no liquids or
hazardous metals that are incidental to any of the above . . . Asbestos
. . . only if approved by the division . . . 

STATE DEFINITIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS (Continued)

Maricopa County, Arizona. Construction debris is a general term used to
describe a large class of solid wastes usually generated as a byproduct
of the construction, demolition, or maintenance of residences,
commercial or industrial facilities and infrastructure. Construction
debris includes such materials as: broken concrete, asphalt, steel,
aluminum, glass, brick, tile, paper, plastics, wood products, sheet
rock, street sweepings and canal dredgings.

Massachusetts. Construction and Demolition Waste means the waste
building materials and rubble resulting from the construction,
remodeling, repair or demolition of buildings, pavements, roads or other
structures. Construction and demolition waste includes but is not
limited to, concrete, bricks, lumber, masonry, road paving materials,
rebar and plaster.

Minnesota. Construction Debris—Building materials, packaging, and
rubble resulting from construction, remodeling, repair, and demolition
of buildings and roads.

Demolition Debris—Solid waste resulting from the demolition of
buildings, roads, and other man-made structures, including concrete,
brick, bituminous concrete, untreated wood, masonry, glass, trees, rock,
and plastic building parts. Demolition debris does not include asbestos.

North Carolina. Construction And Demolition Waste – wood, paper, and
other combustible waste resulting from construction and demolition
projects except for hazardous waste and asphaltic material.

Nebraska. "Construction and demolition waste" shall mean waste which
results from land clearing, the demolition of buildings, roads or other
structures, including, but not limited to, fill materials, wood
(including painted and treated wood), land clearing debris other than
yard waste, wall coverings (including wall paper, paneling and tile),
drywall, plaster, non-asbestos insulation, roofing shingles and other
roof coverings, plumbing fixtures, glass, plastic, carpeting, electrical
wiring, pipe and metals. Such waste shall also include the above listed
types of waste that result from construction projects. Construction and
demolition waste shall not include friable asbestos waste, special
waste, liquid waste, hazardous waste and waste that contains
polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB), putrescible waste, household waste,
industrial solid waste, corrugated cardboard, appliances, tires, drums,
and fuel tanks.

New York. Construction and demolition (C&D) debris means uncontaminated
solid waste resulting from the construction, remodeling, repair and
demolition of utilities, structures and roads; and uncontaminated solid
waste resulting from land clearing. Such waste includes, but is not
limited to bricks, concrete and other masonry materials, soil, rock,
wood (including painted, treated and coated wood and wood products),
land clearing debris, wall coverings, plaster, drywall, plumbing
fixtures, non asbestos insulation, roofing shingles and other roof
coverings, asphalt pavement, glass, plastics that are not sealed in a
manner that conceals other wastes, empty buckets ten gallons or less in
size and having no more than one inch of residue remaining on the
bottom, electrical wiring and components containing no hazardous
liquids, and pipe and metals that are incidental to any of the above.
Solid waste that is not C&D debris (even if resulting from the
construction, remodeling, repair and demolition of utilities, structures
and roads and land clearing) includes, but is not limited to asbestos
waste, garbage, corrugated container board, electrical fixtures
containing hazardous liquids such as fluorescent light ballasts or
transformers, fluorescent lights, carpeting, furniture, appliances,
tires, drums, containers greater than ten gallons in size, any
containers having more than one inch of residue remaining on the bottom
and fuel tanks. . .

Oregon. "Construction and Demolition Waste" means solid waste resulting
from the construction, repair or demolition of buildings, roads and
other structures, and debris from the clearing of land, but does not
include clean fill when separated from other construction and demolition
wastes and used as fill materials or otherwise land disposed. Such waste
typically consists of materials including concrete, bricks, bituminous
concrete, asphalt paving, untreated or chemically treated wood, glass,
masonry, roofing, siding, plaster; and soils, rock, stumps, boulders,
brush and other similar material. This term does not include industrial
solid waste and municipal solid waste generated in residential or
commercial activities associated with construction and demolition
activities.

STATE DEFINITIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS (Continued)

Portland, Oregon Metropolitan Service District. Construction Waste -
Waste materials resulting from the construction, remodeling and repair
of buildings and other structures.

Demolition Waste - Solid waste, largely inert, resulting from the
demolition or razing of buildings, roads, and other man-made structures.
Demolition waste consists of, but is not limited to, concrete, brick,
bituminous concrete, wood, masonry, composition, roofing and roofing
paper, steel, and amounts of other metals like copper. Plaster (i.e.,
sheet rock or plasterboard), any other non-wood material that is likely
to produce gases or leachate during the decomposition process, and
asbestos wastes are not considered to be demolition wastes.

Rhode Island. "Construction and Demolition (C&D) Debris" shall mean
non-hazardous solid waste resulting from the construction, remodeling,
repair, and demolition of utilities and structures; and uncontaminated
solid waste resulting from land clearing. Such waste includes, but is
not limited to wood (including painted, treated and coated wood and wood
products), land clearing debris, wall coverings, plaster, drywall,
plumbing fixtures, non-asbestos insulation, roofing shingles and other
roofing coverings, glass, plastics that are not sealed in a manner that
conceals other wastes, empty buckets ten gallons or less in size and
having no more than one inch of residue remaining on the bottom,
electrical wiring and components containing no hazardous liquids, and
pipe and metals that are incidental to any of the above. Solid waste
that is not C&D debris (even if resulting from the construction,
remodeling, repair, and demolition of utilities, structures, and roads
and land clearing) includes, but is not limited to, asbestos waste,
garbage, corrugated container board, electrical fixtures containing
hazardous liquids such as fluorescent light ballasts or transformers,
fluorescent lights, carpeting, furniture, appliances, tires, drums,
containers greater than ten gallons in size, any containers having more
than one inch of residue remaining on the bottom, and fuel tanks. . .

South Carolina. "Construction and demolition debris" means discarded
solid wastes resulting from construction, remodeling, repair and
demolition of structures, road building, and land-clearing. The wastes
include, but are not limited to, bricks, concrete, and other masonry
materials, soil, rock, lumber, road spoils, paving material, and tree
and brush stumps, but does not include solid waste from agricultural or
silvicultural operations.

Washington. "Demolition waste" means solid waste, largely inert waste,
resulting from the demolition or razing of buildings, roads and other
man-made structures. Demolition waste consists of, but is not limited
to, concrete, brick, bituminous concrete, wood and masonry, composition
roofing and roofing paper, steel, and minor amounts of other metals like
copper. Plaster (i.e., sheet rock or plaster board) or any other
material, other than wood, that is likely to produce gases or a leachate
during the decomposition process and asbestos wastes are not considered
to be demolition waste . . .

The components that make up C&D debris also vary a great deal depending
on the type of construction and the methods used by the construction
industry. Table 2 shows typical contents of C&D debris by broad material
types. Table B-1 in Appendix B shows a more detailed list of C&D debris
components.

Construction debris from building sites typically consists of trim
scraps of construction materials, such as wood, sheetrock, masonry, and
roofing materials. There is typically much less concrete in construction
debris than demolition debris, although some construction projects
produce considerable quantities of concrete, depending on the technology
used to build the concrete walls. Scrap from residential construction
sites typically represents between 6 and 8 percent of the total weight
of the building materials delivered to the site, excluding the
foundation, concrete floors, driveways, patios, etc. There is typically
very little waste concrete to dispose of from residential construction
projects.

Table 2

Typical components of Construction and Demolition Debris

Material

Components	

Content Examples

Wood	Forming and framing lumber, stumps, plywood, laminates, scraps

Drywall	Sheetrock, gypsum, plaster

Metals	Pipes, rebar, flashing, steel, aluminum, copper, brass, stainless
steel

Plastics	Vinyl siding, doors, windows, floor tile, pipes

Roofing	Asphalt & wood shingles, slate, tile, roofing felt

Rubble	Asphalt, concrete, cinder blocks, rock, earth

Brick	Bricks and decorative blocks

Glass	Windows, mirrors, lights

Miscellaneous	Carpeting, fixtures, insulation, ceramic tile



When buildings are demolished, large quantities of waste may be produced
in a relatively short period of time, depending on the demolition
technique used. The demolition project duration can vary depending on
the technique used—implode a structure with explosives, use a crane
and wrecking ball technique, or deconstruct the structure. In actual
practice, the vast majority of demolition projects use a combination of
the last two basic techniques depending on the materials used in the
original project, the physical size of the structure, the surrounding
buildings that cannot be disturbed or impacted, and the time allocated
for the project. One hundred percent of the weight of a building,
including the concrete foundations, driveways, patios, etc., may be
generated as C&D debris when a building is demolished. On a per building
basis, demolition waste quantities may be 20 to 30 times as much as
construction debris.

CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS IN PERSPECTIVE

C&D debris is generally a non-hazardous waste subject to regulation
under Subtitle D, as shown in Figure 1. Other non-hazardous wastes
include municipal solid waste (MSW), sludges from water and wastewater
treatment plants, nonhazardous wastes from industrial processes,
agricultural wastes, oil and gas wastes, mining wastes, spent
automobiles, and trees and brush. MSW, which is primarily the waste from
residential and commercial sources, has been characterized in more
detail and for a longer period of time by the EPA than the other
non-hazardous wastes. A material flows methodology was developed for MSW
characterization in the late 1960s and early 1970s, and has been
modified and updated periodically since then. The latest of the EPA
reports was published in 2005 (EPA 2005).

 

Although the C&D debris stream is usually described based on its origin
as outlined in Table 1 above, there are some potential overlaps with
other waste streams, in particular, MSW. For example, the MSW
characterization includes all postconsumer corrugated boxes, even though
significant quantities of these boxes enter the waste stream from
building construction sites. (See Appendix A, Table A-10.) To simply sum
up the national quantities of MSW and C&D debris could result in double
counting. Other examples of MSW sometimes collected at C&D sites include
wood pallets, food and beverage containers, caulking tubes, and paint
containers. On the other hand, building material wastes are frequently
collected by MSW waste management systems. However, EPA’s material
flows methodology does not include them. Examples include pipes,
plumbing fixtures, and building materials that are replaced by residents
and discarded with their household trash. The overlap issues are
discussed further in Chapter 4 of this report.

The six activities that generate C&D debris from buildings include the
construction, demolition, and renovation (improvements and repair) of
both residential and nonresidential buildings. Residential buildings
include single-family houses and duplexes, up to and including high rise
multi-family housing. Nonresidential buildings include commercial,
institutional, and industrial buildings.

Construction activities generally produce cleaner materials than
demolition. Demolitions may produce several types of materials bonded
together or contaminated with hazardous materials, such as asbestos or
lead paint. Renovation projects can produce both construction and
demolition type wastes.

DEFINITIONS

(For purposes of this report, following is a working set of definitions)

Construction and Demolition (C&D) Debris is waste material that is
produced in the process of construction, renovation, or demolition of
structures. Structures include buildings of all types (both residential
and nonresidential) as well as roads and bridges. Components of C&D
debris typically include concrete, asphalt, wood, metals, gypsum
wallboard, floor tile, and roofing. Land clearing debris, such as
stumps, rocks, and dirt, are also included in some state definitions of
C&D debris.

Generation of C&D debris, as used in this report, refers to the weight
of materials and products as they enter the waste management system from
the construction, renovation, or demolition of structures, and before
materials recovery or combustion takes place. Source reduction
activities (e.g., removal and reuse of products from structures
scheduled for demolition) take place ahead of generation, i.e., they
reduce the amount of waste generated. 

Recovery of materials, as estimated in this report, includes the removal
of products or materials from the waste stream for the purpose of
recycling the materials in the manufacture of new products.

Source reduction activities reduce the amount or toxicity of wastes
before they enter the waste management system. Reuse is a source
reduction activity involving the recovery or reapplication of a product
or material in a manner that retains its original form and identity.
Reuse of products such as light fixtures, doors, or used brick is
considered source reduction, not recycling.

Discards include the C&D debris remaining after recovery for recycling
(including composting). These discards would presumably be combusted or
landfilled, although some debris is littered, stored or disposed
on-site, or burned on-site.

OVERVIEW OF THIS REPORT

Chapter 1 contains background information on the methodology used for
this report, examples of state definitions for C&D debris, and
perspectives on the components of C&D and its relationship to other
non-hazardous wastes.

Chapter 2 contains estimates of the national generation of the building
fraction of C&D debris from each of six major building C&D activities,
i.e., residential construction, demolition, and renovation, and
nonresidential construction, demolition, and renovation. Chapter 2 also
shows composition of C&D debris from the various C&D activities. A
comparison of the estimates developed in this report with the estimates
developed in the 1998 version of this report is also included.

Chapter 3 of the report discusses the options for management of C&D
debris in the United States, including landfilling and recovery for
recycling.

Chapter 4, Perspectives, discusses the overlap of the C&D debris waste
stream and the MSW waste stream.

Chapter 1

REFERENCES

Franklin Associates, Ltd. Waste Stream Characterization for the RDF-to
Ethers Process. Prepared for the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
July 1994.

Public Health Service, Bureau of Solid Waste Management. Technical and
Economic Study of Solid Waste Disposal Needs and Practices. 1969.
(Referenced in Handbook of Solid Waste Management).

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste in the
United States: 2003 Facts and Figures. 2005.
www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/msw99.htm.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste.
Characterization of Building-Related Construction and Demolition Debris
in the United States. EPA530-R-98-010. June 1998.

Wilson, David Gordon, ed. (Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Handbook of Solid Waste Management. Von Nostrand Reinhold Company. 1977.

Chapter 2

GENERATION OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS

INTRODUCTION

For the purposes of this national report, emphasis has been placed on
the generation of construction and demolition (C&D) debris from building
construction, demolition, and renovation activities.

BUILDING-RELATED CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS GENERATION

For analysis purposes, building C&D debris is divided into six
categories: residential construction, demolition, and renovation and
nonresidential construction, demolition, and renovation. These
categories were selected based on the relationship between available
Census data and empirical composition factors.

The following sections describe the data used and the methods for
estimating the amount of building-related C&D debris generated, on a
weight basis. Tables A-1 through A-5 in Appendix A are worksheets that
provide details of the calculations used to arrive at generation for
each component of the C&D debris stream.

Construction Debris

Residential. Empirical data for new residential construction have been
identified from eight sources: The NAHB Research Center; METRO in
Portland, Oregon; Woodbin 2 in Cary, North Carolina; McHenry County,
Illinois; Cornell University; University of Florida Center for Solid and
Hazardous Waste Management Board; Calgary Region Home Builders
Association; and the California Integrated Waste Management Board. Each
of these groups has conducted waste assessments at new construction
sites.

The National Association of Homebuilders (NAHB) Research Center has
developed a detailed methodology for conducting waste assessments at
construction sites. Assessment data have been analyzed for single-family
residential construction debris at four sites, including Largo,
Maryland; Anne Arundel County, Maryland; Portland, Oregon; and Grand
Rapids, Michigan. The NAHB Research Center also conducted a waste
assessment at a 36-unit condominium construction project in Odenton,
Maryland.

The Metropolitan Service District in Portland, Oregon (METRO) conducted
a series of sampling projects at a large number of residential
construction sites in Oregon over the last 5 or more years.

Wake County, North Carolina and the North Carolina Division of Pollution
Prevention and Environmental Assistance conducted five residential
construction waste assessments in the Raleigh, North Carolina area.
Woodbin 2, a non-profit organization of the County, organized the
assessments.

McHenry County, Illinois conducted waste audits at a single-family
construction site and a 6-unit apartment building, and Cornell
University conducted a waste audit at a single-family residence in New
York.

The Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management conducted a
study to determine the composition of waste from construction of two
1,750 square-foot, wood-frame homes in Alachua County, Florida.

The construction of a 2,200 square-foot demonstration home in Bedford,
Nova Scotia was supported by the Canada Center for Mineral and Energy
Technology (CANMET) Advanced Homes Program. All construction waste was
separated, bagged, and weighed.

A 1997 pilot program in Calgary, Alberta was conducted by the Calgary
Region Home Builders Association (CRHBA) to test the feasibility of
reducing waste from residential construction. The contractor and waste
hauler coordinated the separation and collection of construction waste
generated during the project which included 191 homes.

Another CRHBA project, an audit of six homes constructed in Calgary, was
conducted with the assistance of six different builders. The homes
ranged in size from 1,066 to 1,924 square feet, with an average size of
1,480 square feet.

The data from the eight sources are summarized in Table 3. A total of
293 dwelling units are represented on this table. Generation rates
ranged from 2.41 to 11.3 pounds per square foot of floor space.
Geography does not appear to be the reason for the spread in data; it is
more likely the types of houses, the specific practices of the builders,
and the lack of uniform standards for the collection and storage of the
sampled materials. The weighted average value from the eight sources is
4.51 pounds per square foot.

Extrapolation factors are Census Bureau data that record the number of
construction permits and the total square feet of new construction.
According to the Department of Commerce Current Construction Reports
(C-30), in 2002 and 2003 the value of new private and public residential
construction put in place totaled $305.534 and $352.652 billion
respectively. Data from areas where permits are required were used to
calculate an average dollar per square foot. Total value in areas where
permits are required was $248.3 billion for a total of 3,352 million
square feet of floor space (2002). This amounts to $74.08 per square
foot. Applying this factor to the total dollar value of construction
results in a total of 4,125 million square feet of new residential
construction in 2002. At 4.51 pounds per square foot (Table 3), total
generation is 9.3 million tons per year.

Applying these same statistics for 2003 results in a cost factor of
$76.80 per square foot and total new residential construction debris
generation of 10.4 million tons per year. See Appendix Table A-1 for
detailed methodology.

Nonresidential. The methodology for nonresidential construction debris
is similar to that for residential construction debris. However,
nonresidential buildings are much more varied than residential buildings
and fewer waste assessments have been done, making the quantity
estimates more uncertain.

Nonresidential buildings include private industrial, office,
hotels/motels, other commercial, religious, educational, hospital and
institutional, and miscellaneous buildings plus public industrial,
educational, hospital, and other categories.

Table 4 shows the results of 12 nonresidential waste assessments.
Ranging from 1.61 to 8.59 pounds per square foot, the average generation
rate of the individual sampling studies is 4.34 pounds per square foot.
These buildings include a retail store, restaurant, institutional
building, seven office buildings, and two public facilities.

The 2002 value of nonresidential buildings, as reported in Current
Construction Reports, is $255.6 billion. Average construction costs in
2002 were $107.80 per square foot, resulting in an estimated 2,371
million square feet of new construction. Multiplying by 4.34 pounds per
square foot results in a total estimated generation of 5.15 million tons
per year.

Applying this same methodology to 2003 statistics results in cost factor
of $111.23 per square foot and a total nonresidential construction
debris generation of 4.95 million tons per year. See Appendix Table A-2
for detailed methodology.

Demolition Debris 

Residential. Demolition debris is estimated, starting with the number of
residential demolitions per year, estimating the average house size when
demolished, and then multiplying by the waste material per square foot,
from empirical demolition waste assessments.

The number of demolitions per year is estimated from Components of
Inventory Change (CINCH) data (HUD 2005). Residential units demolished
per year equals the single family and multifamily units lost to
demolition for the period 1999-2001 divided by 2 plus single family and
multifamily units lost due to damage or are condemned divided by 2 times
50%. The units lost to damage or are condemned do not reenter the
housing stock unless they are repaired. The 50% estimate accounts for
those types of units from previous years that are eventually demolished.

The units destroyed through intentional demolitions or disasters such as
fires or weather-related incidents between 1999 and 2001 averaged
270,000 per year.



Houses of all ages and sizes may be demolished, but on average it is
recognized that older houses are demolished more frequently, and older
houses are on average smaller than new ones. New single-family housing
units and multi-family housing units (including apartments and
condominiums) built in 2003 averaged 2,330 square feet and 1,170 square
feet, respectively. Figure 2 shows how average new house sizes have
increased over the last 20 years. Multi-family houses have remained
nearly the same, while new single-family houses grew from 1,600 square
feet to 2,330 square feet. For this analysis, we assumed the average
single-family and multi-family house sizes are 1,600 and 1,000 square
feet, respectively, when demolished.

Table 5 shows four single-family house demolition assessments and one
multi-family deconstruction assessment. The weight of houses when
demolished depends critically on whether the houses have concrete
foundations and basement walls or not. The use of masonry in exterior
cladding also affects the house weight significantly. None of the
single-family houses in Table 5 had full basements. Therefore, we made
adjustments to the sampling data to develop an estimate of residential
demolition debris, which reflects the likely impact of some of the
demolished houses having basements.

The Census Bureau provides data on the types of foundations in existing
houses in the Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2004.
Forty-three percent of single-family houses have basements, 29 percent
are on concrete slabs, and the remainder has crawl spaces. Table A-3 in
the appendix describes an analysis using these percentages to estimate
that on average the amount of concrete in a 1,600 square foot
single-family house is 61 pounds per square foot. The amount can range
from zero for houses without basements, garages, or driveways to more
than 150 pounds per square foot.

We estimate the total C&D debris generated when single-family houses are
demolished is 111 pounds per square foot. For multi-family housing, NAHB
Research Center’s value of 127 pounds per square foot (Table 5) was
used, resulting in an average for all residences of 115 pounds per
square foot. Applying this rate to the 270,000 housing units demolished
per year results in a waste generation estimate of 21.8 million tons per
year, as shown in Table 5. See Appendix A-3 for calculations.

Nonresidential. The method used in the earlier version of this report to
estimate the generation of nonresidential demolition debris was to first
determine the number of demolitions per year, then to estimate the
average size (in square feet) of buildings being demolished. The number
of square feet was then multiplied by the generation per square foot, as
determined by empirical waste assessments. The Census Bureau, the source
for demolition permits, discontinued permit data collection after 1995
so an alternative methodology was developed for this study.

The methodology used in this report for estimation of nonresidential
demolition debris relied on the 1996 estimate (from the earlier version
of this report) adjusted for additional empirical waste assessment data
and economic activity in the demolition industry.

Table 6 shows the results of waste assessments at 27 nonresidential
buildings. The assessments conducted after 1996 were added to the
assessments used in the original study. These additional assessments
increased the generation factor from 155 pounds per square foot to 158
pounds per square foot. Separate from this study, the Associated General
Contractors surveyed their membership in 2004. Survey results of 15
nonresidential demolition projects resulted in a similar generation
factor of 158 pounds per square foot.

The 1996 estimate of nonresidential demolition debris was used as the
baseline value for the 2002 estimates. The first step was to apply the
new generation factor to the original 1996 data. The number of
demolition projects estimated in 1996 (43,795) times the average
building size (13,300 sq ft) times the new generation factor of 158
pounds per square foot. The adjusted 1996 baseline, shown in Table 6, is
46 million tons (an increase of approximately one million tons over the
original published estimate).

The second step takes the net value of construction work in the North
American Industrial Classification Systems (NAICS) category wrecking &
demolition contractors (NAICS # 2359400) for 1997 and 2002. After
adjusting for inflation, the growth rate is calculated from 1997 to
2002. This assumes that economic growth (measured by net value) in the
wrecking & demolition industry is directly related to demolition debris
generation.

The growth rate of 1.4 predicts nonresidential demolition debris to be
64 million in 2002 (Table 6). Similar economic data were not available
to predict an estimate for 2003 therefore the nonresidential demolition
debris estimate was held constant for 2003.

Renovation Debris 

Renovation (or remodeling) includes improvements and repairs to existing
buildings. Renovation debris consists of both construction and
demolition materials. Remodeling waste quantities are even more variable
than construction or demolition waste. Renovation debris ranges from
single materials being generated, such as when driveways or roofs are
replaced, to multiple material generation, such as when buildings are
modified or enlarged. For this analysis, we made estimates for wastes
generated when major improvements are made.

Residential. In 2003, the U.S. Census reported that the value of
residential improvements and repairs amounted to $177 billion. Of this,
75 percent (or $132 billion) was for improvements and 25 percent (or $44
billion) was for repairs. Improvements are defined by the Census Bureau
to include additions, alterations, and major replacements, which add to
the value or useful life of a property, or adapt a property to a new or
different use. Repairs include incidental maintenance and repairs to
keep a property in ordinary operating condition (C-Series Reports).



Because of the wide variation in remodeling projects, waste assessments
to determine generation per square foot are not very useful for
estimating total generation. More important is the amount of material
produced per job, e.g., per kitchen addition or bath remodeling or roof
replacement. Table 7 shows the results of five waste assessments that
have been made at residential sites, showing a wide variation in
generation rates on a square foot basis. Remodeling typically generates
more waste per square foot than new construction, largely because of the
demolition that accompanies remodeling. However, some remodeling jobs,
like roof replacement, produce relatively low amounts of material on a
square foot basis.

We estimated renovation debris generation for this analysis by reviewing
the number of major home improvements, and then estimated the amount of
material produced by each type of improvement. Although all home
improvement projects cannot be included in a study of this type,
selection of the major projects can be useful for making first
estimates.

Appendix A Tables A-6, A-7, A-8, and A-9 show some of the assumptions
made and the results of estimating the amount of material produced when
driveways are replaced, when asphalt and wood roofs from residences
having one to four units per structure are replaced, and when
residential heating and cooling equipment is replaced. Based on the
assumptions made, replacement of these categories produces 14.7 and 14.8
million tons of concrete from driveways in 2002 and 2003. Asphalt roof
replacement in 2002 and 2003 produces 7.7 million tons each year and
wood roof replacement produces 1.6 million tons per year. The
replacement of heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC)
equipment produces 2.1 million tons per year.

The analysis above assumes that 60 percent of residential driveways are
made of concrete and are on average 45 feet long (NAHB 1995). Asphalt
driveways are also very common, but replacement generates much less
waste than concrete, since asphalt driveways are usually overlaid with
new asphalt rather than being replaced.

Approximately 67 percent of residences have asphalt roofs (NAHB 1997b).
For this analysis, 25 percent were assumed to have wood roofs. Other
residential roofing materials include slate, tile, metal, and concrete.
These materials are used much less than asphalt and wood, and generally
are used over long periods before being replaced.

The NAHB Research Center has compiled estimates of waste generation
rates by type of remodeling projects (Yost 1998). The major waste
generation remodeling activities involve kitchens, bathrooms, and room
additions. The Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University,
in a report released in 2005, estimated the number of remodeling jobs by
type of project. Generation from these job types is shown in Table A-4
in Appendix A.

Annually there are approximately 0.58 million major kitchen remodeling
jobs (complete tear-out), with an average generation of 4.5 tons per
job, and 1.41million minor kitchen remodeling jobs (facelift, e.g.,
cabinet replacement) at 0.75 tons per job. Major bath remodelings (0.7
million per year) produce on average one ton of waste material each, and
1.64 million minor bath remodeling jobs produce on average 0.25 tons of
waste each. Room additions, estimated at 2.59 million per year, produce
on average 0.75 tons apiece. On this basis, we estimated total
residential renovation generation, from the improvement or replacement
projects itemized above, to be 32.9 million tons in 2003.

Nonresidential. Based on Census Bureau data, total dollars spent for
nonresidential renovation projects in 2003 was $155.4 billion. We
calculated this number by assuming the ratio of residential to
nonresidential dollars is the same in 2003 as in 1996. We could not find
any information on total renovation dollars spent on nonresidential
renovation in 2003.

Very few waste assessments are available for nonresidential renovation.
Therefore, a methodology similar to the one used for residential
renovation cannot be used to estimate this amount. Lacking adequate
assessment data, we compared total dollars spent on nonresidential and
residential renovation and assumed that the amount of waste generated is
proportional to dollars spent in these two sectors. (See Table A-5 for
more details of this analysis.)

Based on the assumption that waste generation per dollar is equal to the
residential rate, total nonresidential renovation is equal to 28.9
million tons per year, less than residential generation by the ratio of
dollars spent. Table 8 shows nine waste assessments that have been made
at nonresidential sites, these data show a wide variation in generation
rates on a square foot basis.

Summary of Building-Related C&D Generation

Table 9 summarizes the estimates for C&D debris generation from the
construction, demolition, and renovation of residential and
nonresidential buildings in the United States. The estimated total for
2003 is almost 164 million tons, with 40 percent coming from residential
and 60 percent from nonresidential sources. Fifty-three percent of the
C&D debris generated is from building demolitions, 38 percent is from
renovation, and 9 percent is from building construction.

Figure 3 provides a breakdown, in percent of total, of the six building
sectors that generate C&D debris. The largest sector is nonresidential
demolition at 40 percent. Residential and nonresidential renovation
debris make up 20 and 18 percent, respectively, followed by residential
demolition at 13 percent. New construction represents 9 percent of total
C&D debris, with residential at 6 percent and nonresidential at 3
percent.

The 2003 estimate of 164 million tons per year is equal to 3.1 pounds
per capita per day (pcd). In 1996, this per capita rate was estimated to
be 2.8 pcd. The 2003 rate of 3.1 compares to 4.45 pcd of MSW generation
(EPA 2005). Note that the 3.1 pcd does not include C&D debris from
roadway and bridge construction and demolition or from land clearing
projects.

It is important to note that the methodology used in this report
includes all building-related C&D debris, whether managed in C&D or MSW
landfills, processing centers, land clearing landfills, or unpermitted
landfills. It also includes on-site managed waste, if any, e.g.,
concrete or asphalt that is used as fill material, since no method was
determined for making a correction. An important feature of the
methodology used for residential demolition debris estimation, i.e.,
changes in housing inventory, is that residential buildings destroyed by
natural disasters are included in this estimate.

COMPOSITION OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION Debris

Eight sets of C&D sorting data that provide some empirical measurements
of the composition of C&D debris were identified. Each of the sampling
studies was conducted with the specific goal of developing composition
data for C&D debris. Probably the most rigorous assessments have been
conducted at residential construction sites. These waste assessment
projects are:

The National Association of Homebuilders (NAHB) Research Center
conducted waste assessments at four residential construction sites:
Largo, Maryland; Anne Arundel County, Maryland; Portland, Oregon; and
Grand Rapids, Michigan. The Research Center also conducted a waste
assessment at a four-unit multi-family demolition (or deconstruction)
site (NAHB 1997b).

The Metropolitan Service District in Portland, Oregon (METRO) conducted
a series of sampling projects at a number of residential and
nonresidential construction, demolition, and renovation sites in Oregon.

The Calgary Region Home Builders Association (CRHBA) developed a
cooperative pilot project that assessed the waste generated at the
construction of 191 single family homes (CRHBA 1998).

The Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management conducted a
series of sampling projects of residential and nonresidential
construction and demolition sites in Florida (Townsend 1998)(Reinhart
2003).

Cunningham Environmental Consulting and the Cascadia Consulting Group
sampled loads of C&D debris at disposal sites and transfer stations.
Loads of residential and commercial construction, demolition, and
remodeling debris from the Seattle area were selected (Cunningham 1996).
Detailed sorting of these loads was done.

Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. (GBB) conducted a C&D sorting study
for the Town of Babylon, New York that was funded by the New York State
Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). The three-week
study included C&D samples from waste loads from all or parts of 16
residential and nonresidential construction, demolition, and renovation
projects (Brickner 1993). A total of 161.5 tons were sorted.

GBB, in association with the Metro Waste Authority, also sampled C&D
debris from residential and commercial construction, demolition, and
remodeling projects in Des Moines, Iowa for a one-week period (Brickner
1995).

R.W. Rhine, Inc. of Tacoma, Washington, a demolition contractor,
provided waste assessment data from the demolition of 19 nonresidential
(industrial/commercial) buildings in the greater Northwest area.

The detailed composition data from some of the sampling studies are
shown in Tables A-10 through A-17 in Appendix A of this report. A review
of these tables demonstrates that the composition of C&D debris is
highly variable, as may be expected because of the many different types
of buildings and construction practices in existence. The data
collections were done under many different conditions and levels of
detail. Therefore, we made no attempt to average all the compositions.
Although different, there are some observations that can be made.

The first two (Tables A-10 and A-11) sets of data characterize waste at
the source, i.e., at specific construction or demolition sites. Three
data sets (Cunningham in the Seattle area and GBB in Babylon, New York
and Des Moines, Iowa) characterize debris as disposed at the landfills.
The sectors (or sources) for each load of C&D debris that was sorted are
identified, but the specific phase of construction or demolition is not
identified.

CRHBA, the Florida Center for Solid and Hazardous Waste Management, NAHB
and Metro examined both composition and quantity per square foot of
floor space for single-family housing. These groups developed data from
well-defined construction projects, i.e., the materials consist of trim
scraps from beginning to end of the residential construction process,
without serious contamination from other sources. Figures 4 and 5 show
these data in percent by weight. Figure 4 shows the average composition
for four single-family houses, two in the East, one in the Midwest, and
one in the Northwest. Wood is the largest component, followed by
drywall.

Figure 5 shows the composition from new residential construction sites
in three locations. The composition studies were conducted in the
Portland, Oregon, Calgary, Alberta, and Alachua County, Florida areas.
Similar to the composite shown in Figure 4, these three sampling studies
show wood as the largest component, ranging from 53 to 67 percent.

Figure 6 shows the composition of residential renovation debris in the
Northwest. This stream is similar to the construction debris stream, but
with an obvious difference, an increase in the amount of roofing
materials. Only trim pieces of roofing are included in new construction
debris.

Concrete is missing from the renovation stream of Figure 6. Obviously
these two projects did not include projects like driveway replacement.
This demonstrates that many samples are required before we can report an
overall composition that represents the U.S. average with confidence.

Figure 7 displays the composition of residential demolition debris.
Concrete is an obvious component of the waste stream sampled in the
Oregon study but is not present in the Florida residential demolition
study.

Concrete is shown in Figure 8, which depicts the composition of a 2,000
square foot two story four-plex that was disassembled by NAHB in a
demonstration project for the USEPA

Figure 9 shows the average composition of 19 nonresidential buildings
that were demolished in the Northwest area. These were large industrial/
commercial type buildings that ranged in weight from 891 tons to 37,500
tons. While this figure represents the average composition, the
percentage of wood ranged from 0.03 percent to 88 percent in the 19
buildings. This demonstrates the huge variability of building types.

Figure 9 also shows the composition of a 230,000 square warehouse
demolished in Seattle, Washington and a non-residential demolition pilot
study in Gainesville, Florida.

Some general observations can be made from these figures. Residential
construction and renovation projects tend to yield significant
quantities of wood and drywall, whereas demolition sites are heavily
weighted toward concrete and rubble. The debris from the nonresidential
demolition projects of Figure 9 ranged from 66 to 82 percent concrete.





Chapter 2

REFERENCES

Alberta Environment. Communication with Dave Whitfield. February 2005.

Brickner, Robert. Demolition Age. October 1993.

Brickner, Robert. Scrap Processing and Recycling. March/April 1995.

Calgary Region Home Builders Association (CRHBA). “Success In
Residential Construction Recycling Rocky Ridge Pilot Project.” 1998.

Cunningham Environmental Consulting and the Cascadia Consulting Group.
Construction and Demolition Debris Study. City of Seattle. 1996.

Gershman, Brickner & Bratton Inc. Construction and Demolition (C&D)
Debris Generation and Disposal in Anne Arundel County, Maryland.
Prepared for Anne Arundel County Department of Public Works, Annapolis,
Maryland. March 1995.

Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University. The Changing
Structure of the Home Remodeling Industry. 2005.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/remodeling/remodeling2005.html
"  www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/remodeling/remodeling2005.html 

NAHB Research Center survey results for 1995.

NAHB Research Center, Inc. Deconstruction - Building Disassembly and
Material Salvage: The Riverdale Case Study. Prepared for the US
Environmental Protection Agency. June 1997.

NAHB Research Center. “Waste Management Update 2: Asphalt Roofing
Shingles.” October 1997b.

Reinhart, Debra, et al. Generation and Composition of Construction and
Demolition Debris in Florida. Florida Center For Solid and Hazardous
Waste Management. February 27, 2003.

Townsend, Timothy, et al. The Management and Environmental Impacts of
Construction and Demolition Waste in Florida. June 1998.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Characterization of
Building-Related Construction and Demolition Debris in the United
States. June 1998.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Municipal Solid Waste in the
United States: 2003 Facts and Figures. 2005.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/msw99.htm" 
www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/msw99.htm .

Washington State Dept. of General Administration, Division of
Engineering and Architectural Services. “Sustainable Design and
Construction: Demolition Waste Recycling”.
www.ga.wa.gov/EAS/green/WLCBWarehouse.doc

U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census. C-Series
(Construction) Reports.

U.S. Energy Information Administration. Commercial Building
Characteristics, 1992.

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. American Housing
Survey. Components of Inventory Change: 1999-2001. February 2005.
www.huduser.org/Datasets/CINCh/CINCH_1999-2001.pdf

Chapter 3

MANAGEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS 

IN THE UNITED STATES

INTRODUCTION

Construction and demolition (C&D) debris is managed in a variety of
ways, ranging from reuse to recycling to disposal in landfills or
combustion facilities. The most common management method is landfilling,
including specially permitted C&D landfills and municipal solid waste
(MSW) landfills, as well as unpermitted inert debris sites.

In most states there is no formal reporting mechanism that documents C&D
debris disposal, recovery, or recycling activities. The information
collected by many state agencies is largely anecdotal. In addition,
information from private companies is generally considered to be
proprietary and not available for public dissemination.

LANDFILLING

A large fraction of C&D debris generated in the United States ends up in
C&D landfills. Since much of this waste stream is inert, solid waste
rules in most states do not require the landfills to provide the same
level of environmental protection (liners, leachate collection, etc.) as
landfills licensed to receive MSW. Therefore, C&D landfills generally
have lower tipping fees, and handle a large fraction of the C&D debris.

There are differing estimates as to the number of C&D landfills in the
United States. A 2001 study conducted by R.W. Beck reported that there
were 600 C&D landfills (Aquino 2003) but BioCycle magazine estimated the
number to be over 1,900 in 2002 (Kaufman 2004). The difference may
partly be definitional in that the study with the higher number may
include inert-only fills not included in the other study.

The amount of C&D debris disposed of in MSW landfills is not known. It
is significant, however, because in many areas, particularly where
landfill tipping fees are low, disposal in MSW landfills is the most
common management method for C&D debris.

A significant fraction of residential renovation debris is discarded by
homeowners into the household trash and disposed of in MSW landfills.
Discarded items include replacement plumbing and electrical fixtures,
lumber, windows, doors, and other building materials used in home repair
or improvement projects.

Unpermitted landfills for C&D debris are also common in many states.
These are fill areas for inert materials, with little or no control or
record keeping by the state or local governments. Some of these are
on-site facilities that are used only for the disposal of C&D debris
generated at a specific site and may be closed following completion of
the activity.

Open burning of C&D debris at construction sites is practiced in many
rural areas. The amount of material burned is unknown.

In summary, disposal in landfills is the major waste management option
for C&D debris from buildings. We estimate that C&D, MSW, and other
landfills account for roughly 65 to 75 percent of that waste stream.

RECOVERY OF C&D DEBRIS FOR RECYCLING

The six major constituents of C&D debris, if not too severely
contaminated, have all been recovered and processed into
recycled-content products that have been marketed somewhere in the
United States. The materials most frequently recovered and recycled are
concrete, asphalt, metals, and wood. These are the materials most likely
to have favorable recycling economics.

Besides these four materials, the National Demolition Association (NDA)
has identified carpet, drywall, glass, ceiling tiles, asphalt roofing
shingles, and brick as being recycled. The relatively low value of some
of the materials can deter contractors from recycling. 

Drywall can be recycled and is recycled regularly in Europe. However,
issues such as the age of the drywall (it may contain asbestos) and
whether drywall was painted (it could have been painted with lead paint)
make recycling drywall somewhat unfeasible (Taylor 2005a).

The technologies to recover and process these materials for reuse are
available. The major barriers to increased recovery rates at this time
are:

•	The cost of collecting, sorting, and processing 

•	The low value of the recycled-content material in relation to the
cost of virgin-based materials

•	The low cost of C&D debris landfill disposal

•	Regulatory barriers such as excessive permits fees for C&D recycling
facilities, operational requirements, and limited state purchasing
procedures for the use of C&D recycled materials.

Regulatory barriers contribute to the sizable capital investment needed
in equipment, land, time, labor and all other cost points, and further
make setting up a profit-making C&D recycling venture difficult (Taylor
2005a).

Responses to a survey of North American aggregate producers indicated
that plant permitting issues, as well as product specifications that
favor the use of virgin materials, were also problems facing recyclers
(Deal 1997).

The number of recycling facilities for C&D debris has been growing
rapidly in the last few years. In 1996, it was estimated there were at
least 1,800 operating C&D recycling facilities (Brickner 1997). That
estimate included more than 1,000 asphalt and concrete crushing
facilities, 500 wood waste processing plants, and 300 mixed-waste C&D
facilities.

The estimate of 1,800 C&D facilities does not include quarry rock
crushing plants, brush/tree tub grinding plants, or pallet grinding
operations. The asphalt and concrete crushing plants handle large
quantities of road debris, but also concrete recovered from building
construction, renovation, and demolition. A more recent estimate placed
the number of C&D recycling facilities at 3,500 (Taylor 2005a). More C&D
recycling is occurring on the coasts where landfill tipping costs are
higher (Aquino 2003).

Because of the effort being exerted to develop markets for recovered
materials, the number of C&D recycling facilities is continuing to grow.
As more advanced processing techniques are developed, better separation
of materials will result and more added-value products can be created.

Deconstruction

Deconstruction is the process of selective dismantling or removal of
materials from buildings before or instead of demolition. A common
practice in the United States is to remove materials of value from
buildings prior to and during demolition for recycling or reuse. Reuse
and recycling examples include electrical and plumbing fixtures that are
reused, steel, copper, and lumber that are reused or recycled, wood
flooring that is remilled, and doors and windows that are refinished for
use in new construction.

Demolition contractors have been practicing deconstruction in varying
degrees for a number of years to remove some of the more valuable
materials prior to demolition by conventional methods. This activity,
along with recovery of demolition materials after the building has been
knocked down, has been increasing. Deconstruction minimizes
contamination of demolition debris, thus increasing the potential for
marketing the recovered materials. It is, however, labor intensive, and
may require more time than traditional demolition.

The USDA Forest Service has complied a directory of companies that are
involved in the deconstruction and reuse of materials from wood-framed
buildings (USDA 2004). Table A-18 shows the number of companies, by
state, that engage in four of the nine business activities presented in
the directory. The four business activities shown include the following:

•	Companies that broker recovered materials

•	Companies that use reclaimed materials

•	Deconstruction companies that practice partial or whole building
disassembly for the purpose of recovering building materials

•	Demolition companies that engage in selective dismantling and
deconstruction of buildings.

There are 420 companies listed in these four business activity
categories. Deconstruction companies (192) and demolition companies
(148) account for over 80 percent of the total number of companies.
California is listed as having the most companies: 55 out of the 420
or13 percent. New York is shown with 23 companies, Florida with 22, Ohio
and Pennsylvania with 20 each, and Texas is listed with 18 companies.
These five states account for another 25 percent of the total.

Asphalt and Concrete Recycling

Concrete is made up of cement, water, and aggregate, such as crushed
stone, sand, or grit. Concrete can be recycled by first crushing it to
remove any metals. The primary use of crushed concrete is as a
replacement for road-base gravel. Other applications include use as an
aggregate in asphalt or concrete. Concrete recycling is practiced in
most areas of the country. The practice is most prevalent in areas where
landfill tipping fees are high or aggregate is in short supply.

Asphalt pavements are made of asphalt concrete (AC), which consists of
asphalt (the bituminous binder) and aggregate. The aggregate makes up
the bulk of the asphalt concrete, while the asphalt binder comprises
about 5 to 7 percent (CIWMB 1997).

Reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) is often reused in new pavement
applications. The reclaimed asphalt is used for base and intermediate
courses, as well as, surface courses.

Waste Wood Recycling

Wood waste produced at construction sites generally has a better
potential for reuse than wood from demolition sites due to the ease of
separating the materials. Demolition wood is often less desirable
because of contamination and because of the difficulty in separating the
wood from other building materials.

Wood processing facilities have sprung up in many areas of the United
States in recent years, particularly in areas with high landfill costs.
Many of these facilities accept wood from C&D debris as well as other
wood. Processed (chipped) wood is used as mulch, composting bulking
agent, animal bedding, and fuel. Wood waste from construction or
demolition is attractive as a fuel because of its low moisture content.
Depending on the wood waste boiler system design and the state/regional
air pollution permit requirements for the facility, a level of quality
control may be necessary at the wood processing plant to reduce and/or
avoid the processing of treated and/or painted wood if used as a fuel
source in a combustion process.

Metals Recycling

Metals have the highest overall recycling rates among the materials
recovered from C&D sites. Good markets for ferrous metals, as well as
copper and brass, have existed for many years. The Steel Recycling
Institute estimates the recycling rate for C&D steel is about 85 percent
(14.43 million tons out of 16.96 million tons generated). These numbers
include not only scrap steel from buildings but also from streets,
bridges, and highways. The Steel Recycling Institute’s best estimate
of the percentage that comes from building demolition is 75 percent
(10.8 million tons) (Heenan 2005).

The structural plates and beams have a higher recycling rate
(approximately 96 percent) compared to reinforcement bars (rebar)
estimated to be around 60 percent. The economics of the recovery impacts
the recycling rate. During demolition, plates and beams can be removed
for recycling with less processing than rebar that needs to be separated
from concrete debris.

Asphalt Shingles

Asphalt shingles are most commonly used on slanted residential roofs.
Built-up roofing, which consists of roofing felt between layers of tar
and gravel, is traditionally used on flat commercial roofs. These two
materials represent the majority of the waste coming from roof
replacement or repair. About two-thirds of the residential roofing
market is made up of asphalt shingles (NAHB 1996). Other roofing
materials include wood, tile, and concrete.

The common uses for recycled roofing asphalt include hot mix asphalt for
paving, cold mix asphalt paving product, and new roofing materials.
Meeting the specifications for paving and roofing materials is still
limiting the growth of these applications. Preconsumer manufacturing
scrap is currently being used in hot mix asphalt; however, postconsumer
scrap which is less uniform in composition, is not nearly as widely used
in hot mix asphalt.

Drywall (Sheetrock, Gypsum)

Drywall is recycled by first separating the paper backing, which is
recycled into new paper backing, and then remixing the gypsum and using
it in the manufacture of new drywall. Recovered drywall has also been
used as animal bedding, cat litter, and as a soil amendment.

Estimated Recovery Rate

Because of the relatively benign nature of C&D debris (i.e., much of it
is inert), there has been no concerted effort in the past to track and
quantify the generation or recovery rate from a national perspective.
Therefore, only general estimates can be made based on data from
industry estimates and local communities.

In 2005, the National Demolition Association (NDA) surveyed their
membership to gather data on the quantity of demolition materials
recovered for recycling. Preliminary recycling rates for the materials
the survey responders handle are shown in Table 10.

The percentages shown are extremely high for concrete, metals, and
asphalt paving. Although these recycling rates do not represent the
entire industry, they do show the potential for recycling of the various
materials. These recycling rates are included in this report to
illustrate that in some areas of the country good markets for demolition
debris do exist.

The association’s preliminary analysis of the entire survey database
suggests that 60 percent of the demolition debris is recovered for
recycling (Taylor 2005b). This is an estimate for the demolition
industry nationwide and is not directly comparable to the recycling
rates reported by the NDA survey respondents shown in Table10.

A survey of states was not feasible for this project, but information
was obtained from the literature for the state of Florida and the
Portland, Oregon area. Table 11 shows 1998 data for the state of
Florida. At that time, an estimated 35 percent of the entire C&D debris
waste stream was being recovered for recycling. The three components
with the highest recovery were concrete, asphalt, and wood. Ferrous
metals recovery is shown to be less than one percent, which seems
unreasonably low. Due to the economic value of ferrous metals, metals
from C&D debris are most likely being recycled outside of the reporting
system.

In 1996, Portland, Oregon passed an ordinance that required construction
contractors with projects valued over $50,000 to submit recycling plans
for the materials generated during demolition and construction. Although
the Portland area has had reasonable success with this program, the city
is actively pursuing ways to improve the percentage of materials
recovered for recycling. The recycling rate is currently estimated to be
in the range of 30 to 40 percent (Walker 2005). One difficulty in
measuring the recycling rate is that not all of the C&D taken to a
recycler may be recyclable. The current range (30 to 40 percent) is a
measurement of the actual recovery through recycling and does not
include material ultimately disposed.

These data confirm that there is significant recovery of C&D debris for
recycling in these locations. However, it is not know, if these areas
are representative of the United States as a whole. We would expect that
the areas that keep records have higher recovery rates than the national
average.

However, if we assume that 60 percent of the demolition debris is
recovered (NDA estimate) and that there were 86.4 million tons of
demolition debris generated in 2003 (Chapter 2 Table 9) then an overall
recycling rate based on recovery of demolition debris would be 31.7
percent (86.4 million tons x 60 percent equals 51.8 million tons or 31.7
percent of the total 163.6 million tons). If we further assume that
construction and renovation debris is recovered at only a five percent
rate, then the overall C&D recycling rate increases to 34 percent.

In 1996, recovery of C&D debris was estimated to be in the range of 20
to 30 percent (EPA 1998). Since that time, C&D debris recycling has
received significant attention from the media as well as government
agencies. Indications from the media coverage is that the recycling of
C&D debris may be increasing however, at this time there are no public
measurements of this occurring on a national level.

Table 12 summarizes our estimated C&D debris management practices in the
United States in 2003. These quantity estimates apply to
building-related wastes, as estimated in Chapter 2. We show an increase
in the percentage recycled from the 20 to 30 percent estimated in 1996
to 25 to 35 percent in 2003. This estimated recycling rate equals 40 to
57 million tons in 2003. An estimated 65 to 75 percent of the waste
generated is managed by disposal in MSW and C&D landfills or at other
disposal sites, such as unpermitted landfills or combustion facilities.

Chapter 3

REFERENCES

Aquino, John. “C&D Waste: “A Sometimes Bumpy Road to More
Attention”. MSW Management. July/August 2003.

Brickner, Robert. “Overview of C&D Debris Recycling Plants.” C&D
Debris Recycling. January/February 1997.

California Integrated Waste Management Board. Construction & Demolition
Recycling Program. Publication #431-95-067. July 1997.

Deal, Tara A. “What it Costs to Recycle Concrete.” C&D Debris
Recycling. September/October 1997.	

Heenan, Bill, Steel Recycling Institute. Personal communication.
December 2005.

Kaufman, Scott, et al. “The State of Garbage in America”. BioCycle.
January 2004.

NAHB Research Center. Deconstruction - Building Disassembly and Material
Salvage: The Riverdale Case Study. June 1997.

NAHB Research Center. Waste Management Update 2: Asphalt Roofing
Shingles. October 1996.

Reinhart, Debra, et al. Generation and Composition of Construction and
Demolition Debris in Florida. Florida Center For Solid and Hazardous
Waste Management. February 27, 2003

Schneider, Ann, University of California, Santa Cruz. “The Fort Ord
Deconstruction Pilot Project.” Presentation at the 5th Annual
Construction Materials Recycling Seminar. October 1997.

Taylor, Michael, National Association of Demolition Contractors.
“Moving and Shaking”. Waste Age Online. October 2005.   HYPERLINK
"http://www.wasteage.com/mag/waste_moving_shaking/" 
http://www.wasteage.com/mag/waste_moving_shaking/ 

Taylor, Michael, National Association of Demolition Contractors.
Personal communication December 2005.

USDA Forest Service. Directory of Wood-Framed Building Deconstruction
and Reused Building Materials Companies, 2004. General Technical Report
FPL-GTR-150. July 2004.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Solid Waste.
Characterization of Building-Related Construction and Demolition Debris
in the United States. EPA530-R-98-010. June 1998.

Walker, Bruce. City of Portland Solid Waste and Recycling Division
Office of Sustainable Development. Personal communication December
2005.Chapter 4

ADDITIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON CONSTRUCTION AND 

DEMOLITION DEBRIS

INTRODUCTION

The solid waste industry usually identifies wastes according to the
source and predominant method of solid waste management. Waste materials
defined as municipal solid waste (MSW) are normally discarded from
residences or commercial establishments and managed in municipally
controlled landfills or processing facilities. Construction and
demolition (C&D) debris is generated at construction and demolition
sites, and managed on-site, in C&D landfills, MSW landfills, inert
fills, or processing facilities. 

However, the lines separating the various sectors of solid waste are
sometimes blurred. Data sources for the production of some components of
MSW (e.g., paper products) are developed from trade association data.
These sources tabulate the entire production, without regard to the
final discard point; i.e., some paper products are not discarded from
residences or commercial establishments, but are collected from
construction sites. Conversely, some wastes that are classified as C&D
debris by the methods developed in this report, because they are
building materials, are placed into the household trash and end up in
MSW landfills.

While this blurring of lines may not be an issue of great importance
because of the relatively small amounts of crossover, it could
potentially result in double counting of some fractions when estimating
the national generation.

MSW COLLECTED WITH C&D DEBRIS

Definitions for some components that make up MSW are affected by the
data that are available. For example, postconsumer old corrugated
containers (OCC) are included in EPA’s MSW characterization, even
though some of them are discarded from construction sites. Light
fixtures, major appliances, vinyl siding, and other items are often
delivered to construction sites in corrugated boxes. As a result, nearly
all construction site waste assessments include OCC as a waste category.
On a volume basis, up to 20 percent of wastes collected at residential
construction sites may be OCC. By weight, OCC ranged from 2 percent to
10 percent in the waste audits performed by NAHB. 

An extensive year-long demonstration project conducted by CornerStone of
Wisconsin, Inc. was monitored on a quarterly basis by GBB (Brickner
1997). GBB reported that through the use of specialized collection
vehicles serving new residential construction in Southeast Wisconsin,
the amount of collected and marketed OCC averaged about 25 percent of
the total collected volume of material. Since the loose corrugated
containers were estimated to occupy about 30 cubic yards per ton, the
actual weight recovered was estimated to be 7 percent of the total
average weight of material generated from each of the residential units
serviced by the CornerStone system. Additional data on several other C&D
debris sorts that also quantified OCC are presented in Appendix A of
this report.

Although the amount of OCC collected at C&D sites can be a significant
fraction of residential construction wastes, it is a small fraction of
the total OCC discarded, and on a weight basis it represents a very
small fraction of the total C&D debris stream.

Other common MSW items typically collected at C&D sites include food and
beverage containers, appliances, and carpeting. Containers discarded by
workers at construction and demolition sites typically show up in C&D
debris. Major appliances and carpeting also frequently remain in houses
that are demolished, and are included with mixed C&D debris.

C&D DEBRIS COLLECTED WITH MSW

Significant quantities of building materials, particularly renovation
scraps, are also discarded in the municipal waste stream. Examples
include pipes, plumbing fixtures, windows, doors, and building materials
that are replaced by the residents and discarded with their household
trash. The amount of these types of wastes in MSW is not known. However,
this “overlap” of MSW and C&D may account for some of the
discrepancies that have been experienced between expected MSW quantities
and actual weights.

At the current level of refinement of C&D generation and recovery data,
the overlap of MSW and C&D debris is not expected to be a cause for
concern at the national level in the near future.

Chapter 4

REFERENCES

Brickner, Robert H., Gershman, Brickner & Bratton Inc. (GBB), Fairfax,
VA. Communication. 1997.



Appendix A

CALCULATIONS





Appendix B

TYPICAL CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION

DEBRIS CONSTITUENTS

Table B-1

Typical construction and demolition Debris Constituents

Primary Inert Fractions

Asphalt

Brick

Cinder block

Concrete with rebar/wire mesh

Concrete without steel reinforcing

Masonite/slate

Tile-ceramic

Glass

Dirt/earth

Plastic sheet film

Plastic pipe

Porcelain, including bathroom fixtures

Metal-ferrous

Metal-nonferrous

Electrical wiring

Insulation-fiberglass

Plastic buckets/containers

High Organic Based Fractions

Ceiling tiles

Corrugated shipping containers

Insulation-treated cellulose

Insulation-sheathing

Pallets/spools/reels

Pressboard/chipboard

Roofing materials (e.g., roofing felt, asphalt shingles)

Dimensional lumber & shapes (clean)

Plywood, particleboard, oriented strandboard, etc.

Range of Composite Materials (may require special handling)

Carpeting

Carpet padding

Gypsum wallboard (mainly gypsum with paper backing)

Electrical fixtures (metal, light tubes/bulbs, ballasts)

Electrical switches

Rubber hosing/conduits

Tires (some with wheels)

Painted wood

Pressure treated wood

Wood composites

								

Source: Gershman, Brickner & Bratton, Inc. Fairfax, Virginia

Reprinted from “Characterization of Building-Related Construction and
Demolition Debris in the United States”. EPA June 1998.

 PAGE   

  PAGE  v 

 PAGE   v 

CLIENTS\EPA\KC051730.doc

12.16.05     0160.03.006

ES- PAGE   4 

CLIENTS\EPA\KC051730.doc

12.16.05     0160.03.006

CLIENTS\EPA\KC051730.doc

12.16.05     0160.03.006

1- PAGE   5 

CLIENTS\EPA\KC051730.doc

12.16.05     0160.03.006

CLIENTS\EPA\KC051730.doc

12.16.05     0160.03.006

1- PAGE   7 

CLIENTS\EPA\KC051730.doc

12.16.05     0160.03.006

1- PAGE   12 

CLIENTS\EPA\KC051730.doc

12.16.05     0160.03.006

CLIENTS\EPA\KC051730.doc

12.16.05     0160.03.006

2- PAGE   22 

CLIENTS\EPA\KC051730.doc

12.16.05     0160.03.006

CLIENTS\EPA\KC051730.doc

12.16.05     0160.03.006

3- PAGE   8 

CLIENTS\EPA\KC051730.doc

12.16.05     0160.03.006

CLIENTS\EPA\KC051730.doc

12.16.05     0160.03.006

4- PAGE   3 

CLIENTS\EPA\KC051730.doc

12.16.05     0160.03.006

CLIENTS\EPA\KC051730.doc

12.16.05     0160.03.006

A- PAGE   8 

CLIENTS\EPA\KC051730.doc

12.16.05     0160.03.006

 PAGE   1 

A- PAGE   9 

CLIENTS\EPA\KC051730.doc

12.16.05     0160.03.006

A- PAGE   10 

CLIENTS\EPA\KC051730.doc

12.16.05     0160.03.006

A- PAGE   15 

CLIENTS\EPA\KC051730.doc

12.16.05     0160.03.006

A- PAGE   16 

CLIENTS\EPA\KC051730.doc

12.16.05     0160.03.006

A- PAGE   17 

CLIENTS\EPA\KC051730.doc

12.16.05     0160.03.006

 PAGE   17 

CLIENTS\EPA\KC051730.doc

12.16.05     0160.03.006

B- PAGE   2 

CLIENTS\EPA\KC051730.doc

12.16.05     0160.03.006

Figure 1. C& D Debris in perspective

Construction & demolition debris

(1) Building related waste 

      Construction 

      Demolition 

      Renovation 

(2) Roadway related waste 

(3) Bridge related waste 

(4) Landclearing & inert 

     debris waste

Universe of Non-Hazardous Wastes Subject 

to Regulation under Subtitle D of RCRA  

  Municipal solid waste   

Municipal sludge

Industrial nonhaz. process waste

Construction & demolition debris

Agricultural waste

Oil and gas waste

Mining waste

Auto bodies

Trees & brush

