Residential Construction Waste Management Demonstration and ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

over 300 per cent. 4 Tipping fees in certain areas of the United States exceed $100 per ton. Federal waste regulations affect construction waste disposal by restricting disposal options and setting forth landfill design and operation requirements. Environmental Protection Agency rules implement the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) 5 by addressing the treatment and disposal of solid and hazardous waste6. Under RCRA, construction and demolition waste is classified as a Subtitle D waste. The Subtitle D Program covers non-hazardous solid waste and establishes requirements for the handling of MSW, including MSW landfill design and operation, but does not set any standards for either the handling of C&D waste or the design and operation of C&D landfills Therefore, at the federal level, there are neither any apparent specific restrictions or any inducements affecting construction waste management practices. State legislation, rules, and regulations have the greatest impact on C&D waste disposal practices. This has led to wide variation in not only the definition of construction waste but also in the design and siting requirements for landfills accepting construction waste and in penalties for the illegal disposal of construction waste. In some states, for example, jobsite burial of site-generated construction waste is acceptable, while in others it is not. Further, some states define and distinguish between MSW and C&D waste even though others do not. Consequently, the EPA rules that apply to MSW have an indirect effect on the disposal of construction waste. Differences in terms, treatment, landfill design requirements, and penalties are important because of their impact on both disposal costs and builder practices. Even though federal, state, and local governments are devoting considerable effort to developing markets for recyclable MSW, little comparable time and money is focused on recovering, recycling, and improving markets for C&D waste materials. Many states have adopted solid waste recycling goals; others have set a cap on the portion of the 4 Dixon, Byron L. A Predictive Model for the Determination of the Economic Feasibility of Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling in the Air Force. Unpublished master's thesis. Air Force Institute of Technology, September 1993, AFIT/GEE/ENV/93s-05. 5 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901-6992k (1982, Suppl. III 1985). The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or "Superfund") deals specifically with hazardous waste materials and may be relevant to a small number of specific materials generated by some residential and other light-frame construction. This element of waste management is not addressed in this study. 6 40 C.F.R. 260-272 (7/1/92). 'A recent court ruling (Sierra Club v. Carol M. Browner, Administrator - United States Environmental Protection Agency - Civ. No. 93-2167: Richey, J. CRR) is requiring that the EPA write rules to address smallquantity hazardous waste generation, pursuant to the Resource Recovery and Conservation Act (RCRA), section 4010(c), 42 U.S.C. 6949a(c). In response, EPA will propose rules by May 15, 1995 that require minimum C&D landfill design, siting, and operation requirements and identify hazardous materials that are unacceptable for disposal in C&D landfills.
stated goal that can be absorbed by C&D waste reduction and recycling. Nonetheless, states have provided builders and remodelers with little guidance on alternatives to traditional landfilling. e The construction of an average single-family home typically yields more than four tons of debris, although information on the types and quantities of waste materials is limited. Relatively little work has been conducted to assess light-frame construction waste, and comparison among the available studies is complicated by variation in measurement units (volume or mass) and methodology. While waste volumes are important because the capacity of landfills is based on available space, weight is likewise important in that it determines the costs of handling and transporting construction waste. The lack of standard units of measure makes extrapolation for regional or national estimates difficult. In addition, the development of new waste recovery industries and channels of distribution will depend on accurate assessments of construction waste. e In the recent past, the low cost of many common construction materials relative to labor costs for their installation have combined with relatively low disposal costs to reduce the incentive for waste reduction. However, sharp increases in both construction material costs and disposal costs have increased the likelihood that builders will be interested in employing construction waste reduction techniques. Product manufacturers are developing processing technologies that make the use of waste wood fiber, gypsum board, and some plastics more cost-competitive with virgin raw materials. For many of these manufacturers, the potential substitution of a recycled material for a virgin raw material depends on the quality (low contamination) and ease of separating the material. Well-developed markets for certain metals (copper, brass, and lead) have resulted in significant recovery of these metals from construction job sites. Opportunities for the recovery of metals such as iron and aluminum, however, remain. e The cost-effectiveness of recovering construction waste materials depends on the quantity of material generated, disposal costs, the extent of reuse and recycling opportunities, and local, state, and federal solid waste policies and regulations. The relationships among these factors and how they affect builders, waste haulers, manufacturers, and solid waste officials form the basis for developing alternatives to the disposal of construction waste. These relationships are, naturally, unique to each community or region.
Page 1: RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION WASTE MANA
Page 4 and 5: Acknowledgments This report was pre
Page 6 and 7: APPENDIX B-WASTE ASSESSMENT METHODO
Page 9 and 10: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document sum
Page 11: acceptability of waste gypsum wallb
Page 15: BACKGROUND PAPER The Research Cente
Page 20 and 21: Level of cooperation among governme
Page 22 and 23: Prince George’s County Maryland P
Page 24 and 25: associated with landfill closures a
Page 26 and 27: Corrugated cardboard. The market va
Page 29 and 30: CHARACTERIZATION OF CONSTRUCTION WA
Page 31: Table 2. Construction Waste: Total
Page 34 and 35: Many manufacturers remain uncertain
Page 36 and 37: Establish a "take-back" policy. "Ta
Page 39 and 40: DISSEMINATION ACTIVITIES Several ef
Page 41 and 42: CONCLUSIONS The construction waste
Page 43 and 44: PROPOSED TASK 2 ACTIVITIES In the s
Page 45: APPENDIX A--WORKSHOP SUMMARY
Page 48 and 49: production, and as bedding material
Page 51: APPENDIX B--WASTE ASSESSMENT METHOD
Page 54 and 55: Conducting the waste assessment. Co
Page 57: APPENDIX C--WASTE ASSESSMENTS
Page 67:
APPENDIX D--PACKAGING WASTE REDUCTI
Page 70 and 71:
Recycling Reminder - Prominently la
Page 73 and 74:
RESULTS TO INFORMAL QUESTIONNAIRE:
Page 75 and 76:
window manufacturer stated that the
Page 77 and 78:
industries, recycled content is an
Page 81:
APPENDIX F--" CONSTRUCTION WASTE: F
Page 84 and 85:
Response Compensation, and Liabilit
Page 86 and 87:
sponsoring such research for repres
Page 89 and 90:
NEWS FOR NATIONAL REPS from the NAH
Page 91 and 92:
Workshops The Research Center condu
show all

Residential Construction Waste Management Demonstration and ...

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

Delete template?

Save as template?