Waste reduction final report -4 - Test Input

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2. Total waste generated in 2000 Population of U.S. in 2000 – 281,421,906 Total C&D Waste generated in 2000 = 109.90 MMT 3. Total waste generated in 2003 Population of U.S. in 2004 – 294,043,000 Total C&D Waste generated in 2004 = 114.84 MMT 4. Total waste generated in 2010 Population of U.S. in 2010 – 308,400,408 Total C&D Waste generated in 2008 = 120.45 MMT Estimated total C&D waste generation in 1996, 2000, and 2003 using per capita method above are between 15 to 25% less than C&D waste calculated based on annual volume of building construction used by Franklin and Associates. It is important to note that the per capita method is not directly influenced by volume of construction in any year. Table 4 Waste generated per capita per day based on collected landfill data REGION C&D Waste (excl. recycled) C&D WASTE (MMT) POPULATION YEAR Massachusetts 1,977,000 6,467,915 2007 0.84 Vermont 192,750 621,270 2008 0.85 Wisconsin 1,364,053 5,364,000 2001 0.70 Delaware 453,946 853,476 2006 1.46 California 8,732,074 35,484,453 2003 0.67 AVERAGE 12,719,823 48,791,114 0.90 C&D Waste (incl. recycled) Florida 3,750,000 16,047,246 2000 0.64 King County, WA 774,000 1,750,000 2001 1.21 New Hampshire 388,073 1,314,895 2006 0.81 Chicago 1,484,610 2,853,114 2007 1.43 AVERAGE 6,396,683 21,965,255 1.02 C&D Waste (30% of MSW) New York 9,000,000 18,755,900 1998 1.31 Pennsylvania 2,820,000 12,245,672 1998 0.63 New Jersey 2,340,000 8,287,419 1998 0.77 Ohio 3,600,000 11,311,536 1998 0.87 New Hampshire 390,000 1,205,940 1998 0.89 Maryland 1,950,000 5,204,464 1998 1.03 Virginia 3,600,000 6,900,918 1998 1.43 AVERAGE 23,700,000 63,911,849 0.99 PER CAPITA (Kg) 135
2. Benchmark Based on the data from various sources throughout U.S. summarized in previous section one can establish benchmarks for better, good and current practices for waste generation on a site for residential or non-residential buildings. Again, two approaches have been recommended, one based on waste per unit area of building under construction or demolition and the other based on weight per capita per year. The Franklin and Associates data of 21.5 Kg/m 2 of waste generation for residential and 19.5 Kg/m 2 for non-residential construction were used as current practice waste per unit area of building. Similarly for demolitions waste the Franklin and Associates estimate of 550 Kg/m 2 for residential and 850 Kg/m 2 for non-residential buildings were adopted as current practices. Reducing the current practice numbers by 25% is considered to be a good practice and any waste reduction beyond that is a better practice. Benchmark for the second approach is based on weight per capita per year. The average per capita rate of 1.07 Kg per day or 390 Kg per year is used as the current practice. Reducing the current practice rate by 25% is considered to be a good practice and any waste reduction beyond 25% is a good practice. Tables 5 and 6 show these benchmarks. The second approach will give large communities such as counties and local municipalities a more practical number to compare with as it applies to the total population of a particular county or state. Table 5 Benchmarks of Kg/m 2 for current, good and better practices BETTER GOOD CURRENT PRACTICE PRACTICE PRACTICE RESIDENTIAL Construction < 16 16-21 22 Demolition < 410 410-540 550 PRACTICECE NON- RESIDENTIAL Construction < 15 15-19 20 Demolition < 640 640-840 850 Table 6 Benchmarks of Kg per Capita per year for current, good and better practices BETTER GOOD CURRENT PRACTICE PRACTICE PRACTICE C&D WASTE PER CAPITA PER YEAR < 290 290 - 380 390 3. Policies, Strategies and Legislation Policies Although the federal government has largely avoided any effort to set construction and demolition waste recycling rate targets, many states and smaller jurisdictions have active programs that encourage construction and demolition waste recycling. 1. In Portland, Oregon the city requires job-site recycling of rubble (concrete/asphalt), landclearing debris, corrugated cardboard, metals and wood on all construction and demolition projects with a permit value exceeding $50,000. This is accomplished by requiring a complete site plan prior to permit issuance. 136
Page 1 and 2:
Publication 364 W115 - Construction
Page 3 and 4:
Table of Contents Foreword 3 Introd
Page 6 and 7:
Introduction This report has been p
Page 8 and 9:
• Benchmarks for waste production
Page 10 and 11:
Canada (with a focus on Ontario) Co
Page 12 and 13:
Canada 8,961,583 9,238,376 16,265,1
Page 14 and 15:
Table 5: Projected tonnage of CRD w
Page 16 and 17:
• conduct an audit of the waste t
Page 18 and 19:
Standard that is now a requirement
Page 20 and 21:
while reducing the amount of useful
Page 22 and 23:
components. However, recycling of s
Page 24 and 25:
170409 170503 170504 170505 170506
Page 26 and 27:
Organic waste Since the Disposal Ac
Page 28 and 29:
Israel Contributed by: Gil Peled -
Page 30 and 31:
includes: • Stopping the illegal
Page 32 and 33:
4. Guidance documents/ reports link
Page 34 and 35:
The Plan includes: • Prevention b
Page 36 and 37:
The Jaffa Slope was a landfill on t
Page 38 and 39:
One of the first community gardens
Page 40 and 41:
The amount of recycled and landfill
Page 42 and 43:
Roles and responsibilities Manufact
Page 44 and 45:
est outcome. This includes applying
Page 47 and 48:
(1) Resource consumption. Upper: Be
Page 49 and 50:
Norway Contributed by: Anne Sigrid
Page 51 and 52:
2. Policies, strategies and legisla
Page 53 and 54:
Singapore Contributed by: Dr Edward
Page 55 and 56:
Figure 2 - Composition of Demolitio
Page 57 and 58:
Figure 4 - Concrete Usage Index (CU
Page 59 and 60:
Figure 5: Use of Incineration Botto
Page 61 and 62:
STRATEGIC THRUST 5: Setting minimum
Page 63 and 64:
Table 2(a) - Framework and Point Al
Page 65 and 66:
4. Guidance documents/ reports link
Page 67 and 68:
GREEN PRACTICES (50%) GREEN PRACTIC
Page 69 and 70:
vehicles and machinery to reduce em
Page 71 and 72:
Practices methods/ machines to addr
Page 73 and 74:
5. Exemplars, case studies The foll
Page 75 and 76:
installation of photocell sensors a
Page 77 and 78:
Figure 2: Treatment of waste collec
Page 79 and 80:
• registration of buildings with
Page 81 and 82:
The GDP (PPP) 22 of Switzerland is
Page 83 and 84:
are chosen according to the buildin
Page 85 and 86: Asphalt 0.3 Wood 0.5 Plastics 0.5 C
Page 87 and 88: Even if other materials than the ab
Page 89 and 90: In this chapter, an overview on Swi
Page 91 and 92: engineering, the aim of the revisio
Page 93 and 94: Discussion Many legal texts and imp
Page 95 and 96: Figure 7: Annual outputs of waste m
Page 97 and 98: Table 3: Construction waste materia
Page 99: All plants in Switzerland currently
Page 102 and 103: Table 6: Sales volumes of recycling
Page 104 and 105: study mentioned before claims that
Page 106 and 107: view, avoidance of landfill fees br
Page 108 and 109: viewpoint of sustainable developmen
Page 110 and 111: The Association of Operators of Swi
Page 112 and 113: - www.bauteilnetz.ch, which is run
Page 114 and 115: Discussion Treatment of the main co
Page 116 and 117: References Internet: accessed 06/12
Page 118 and 119: 43) KIWE-Ca 2009. Düngkalkprodukte
Page 120 and 121: Turkey Contributed by: Soofia Tahir
Page 122 and 123: 5. Exemplars, case studies Not avai
Page 124 and 125: Figure 2 illustrates this shift tow
Page 126 and 127: Table 1: Waste Benchmark Data by Pr
Page 128 and 129: 3. Policies, strategies and legisla
Page 130 and 131: Sustainable Construction Task Group
Page 132 and 133: BeAware The Technology Strategy Boa
Page 134 and 135: Percent 43% 57% 100% Table 3 Estima
Page 138 and 139: (SOURCE: http://www.portlandonline.
Page 140 and 141: 7. The Sustainable Development Poli
Page 142 and 143: of waste materials. The 2003 final
Page 144 and 145: Recycling Economic Worksheet sample
Page 146 and 147: Wood/ Green Waste Asphaltic Concret
Page 148 and 149: FY 2001 / 2002 FY 2002 / 2003 Dispo
Page 150 and 151: Discussion Contributed by: Gilli Ho
Page 152 and 153: essentially links concrete use to f
Page 154 and 155: Appendices 153
Page 156 and 157: . the surplus to be used to cover l
Page 158 and 159: Regulation on encumbrances on the s
Page 160 and 161: Standard Title (Year) (2001) constr
Page 162 and 163: Standards on use of construction bu
Page 164 and 165: CIB Mission we focus on: Constructi
Page 166 and 167: DISCLAIMER All rights reserved. No
show all

Waste reduction final report -4 - Test Input

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?