THE FEDERAL DUMP

THE

FEDERAL DUMP

Kurt West

Thesis Research

Fall 2013

THE

FEDERAL DUMP Kurt West

MArch - Path 1 Advisors: Charlie Menefee & John Quale

Overview Waste 4 Waste Recovery 27 Case Study: Gypsum 79 Gypsum Recovery 111 Material Practices 125 Projections 155

Appendix 211 Construction & Demolition Debris (CDD) 13-14, 22, 29, 36-38, 42, 56, 113-117 Demolition 13, 22-23, 30, 42-61, 119 Drywall 37, 57, 85-123, 142, 209 Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 3-10, 21, 30-33, 45-48, 5455, 116 Flooding 174-177, 183, 208 Ft. Totten Transfer Station 167, 170, 209 Hydrogen Sulphate 61, 113, 116, 122 Landfill, Landfilling 12, 29, 32-39, 42, 50-52, 58, 113-118, 122, 208 Mining 81-88, 92

Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) 5-6, 14, 32-33, 36 New Construction 20, 22, 30, 61, 107, 122-123 Protagonists 162-166, 168-178, 208-209 Recycling 35, 42-64, 67-68 Renovation 3, 7, 20-23, 57, 59, 119, 143 Washington, D.C. 159-196, 208-209 Waste 1, 4-16, 29-37, 42-77, 116119, 208

Research Summary This research explores the phenomenon of construction and demolition debris (CDD) generation and management in the United States. Estimated to be 30-40% of waste generated annually, CDD originates from demolition, renovation and new construction projects and its three largest components are concrete, wood and drywall waste.

Material waste recovery is complex and has many barriers, including the lack of national CDD recycling data. Other barriers include: misperceptions of recycling benefits, many building materials are not designed to be reused or recycled, the lack of regional markets for reclaimed material, and the lack of federal or state-based waste management plans. In lieu of the barriers, cities such as San Francisco, Chicago and Los Angeles have recently implemented aggressive CDD management policies. Massachusetts is the first state to ban the landfilling of drywall in addition to five other building materials.

In an attempt to better understand the scale and complexities of the overall CDD waste generation and recovery process, the research examined the emerging markets of drywall production and use applications, and the unique problems of drywall waste recovery. Drywall (also known as gypsum) comprises 5-15% of the overall CDD waste stream and is 100% recyclable, but poses recovery and environmental problems when landfilled.

When gypsum drywall is disposed with other waste, hydrogen sulfide dissolves and can contaminate groundwater supplies.

Biological conversion also creates a foul-smell similar to rotten eggs. Other gypsum contamination issues include the presence of lead paint, wallpaper, asbestos, and screws, thus the

current markets for recycled gypsum are limited. More material research is needed to better understand the nature of drywall waste and possible future uses.

As a way to understand how an exploration into material reuse could possibly take shape, the research examined case studies that utilized ubiquitous materials such as dirt, plaster and discarded shipping pallets.

This research established the groundwork for the current research investigation into the unique political, economic and environmental influences on construction waste management in Washington, DC, - a city without landfills and annual waste exports of over 99%. As a starting point and critique, the preliminary design research is framed within the District’s Sustainability Plan 2032, a government-led plan to make DC the healthiest and most livable city in the country. The design inquiry for the Spring semester will consider dual objectives: 1.

To establish a new waste management infrastructure that can support the city’s ability to have zero construction waste exports, and 2. This new management infrastructure can provide the framework to protect the city from rising water levels, storm surges and other security problems unique to the city through the construction of CDD-based earthworks and structures.

Americans generate an estimated 2,560 pounds of waste per year, per person.

1.28 tons

2.89 tons / 5,780 lbs.

Residents of Hawaii, Minnesota, and the District of Columbia are the 3 highest producers per capita.

1.98 tons / 3,960 lbs.

1.74 tons / 3,480 lbs.

2.20 tons / person average

Source: October 2010 issue of BioCycle

Washington, D.C. spends overs $80 million/yr in “tipping� fees to landfill 99.5% of their waste. This does not include the cost of transport, management, facilities and labor force.

99% of that waste is landfilled in Virginia.

The remaining 1% is landfilled in Maryland and S. Carolina.

There are no comprehensive state or federal waste management plans.

RCRA only controls hazardous waste

Nearly 30% of all waste generated in the U.S. origniates from the Construction and Demolition Industry.

The top 3 largest components of the Construction & Demolition waste stream are Concrete, Wood & Drywall 50%

10%

10% Other Asphalt, cardboard, metals, masonry, plastics and misc.

30%

Gypsum wallboard, otherwise known as Drywall, is 100% recyclable, yet in the anaerobic conditions of landfills, bacteria converts gypsum into hydrogen sulfide, a poisonous gas.

94% Gypsum / 6% Paper

Calcium Sulfate Dihydrate

1

Waste

Categories of Waste 004 Waste Definitions: An Introduction 012 A Closer Look at Construction & Demolition Debris (CDD) 014 Where Does CDD Come From? 020 C&D Waste Composition 021 Estimated Amount of Building-Related C&D Materials Generated in the U.S. (2003) 022 Contributions to the CDD MaterialsStream by EachBuilding Sector (2003) 023

Chapter Summary

003

1. Solid waste is divided into two categories: non-hazardous and hazardous. Non hazardous waste is any solid waste not classified as hazardous, biomedical waste, or low level radioactive waste. The two non-hazardous types are Municipal Solid Waste, which is commonly known as trash or garbage, and Industrial Waste, which is made up of a wide variety of materials that result from the production of goods and products, including buildings.

2. According to an EPA study nearly 35% of all solid waste generated originates from the construction and demolition industry (EPA, New England).

3. Construction and demolition debris, or “CDD�, consists of waste that is generated during new construction, renovation, and demolition of buildings, roads, and bridges. CDD consists of concrete, wood, and asphalt; gypsum, metals, bricks, glass, and plastics. Salvaged building components, such as doors, windows, and plumbing fixtures are also referred to as C&D waste.

4. The three largest components of the C&D waste stream are concrete rubble (40-50%), wood (20-30%) and drywall (5-15%) (EPA, 2003).

5. 49% of construction waste is generated from demolition. Renovation and new construction account for 42% and 9% of the waste stream respectively.

004

NON-HAZARDOUS & HAZARDOUS WASTES

Hazardous waste is waste that is dangerous or potentially harmful to our health or the environment. Hazardous wastes can be liquids, solids, gases, or sludges. They can be discarded commercial products, like cleaning fluids or pesticides, or the by-products of manufacturing processes.

Non-hazardous waste is any solid waste, special waste, or septage that is not otherwise classified as a hazardous waste, biomedical waste, or low level radioactive waste.

Solid waste includes garbage, rubbish, refuse, construction and demolition debris, special waste, and tires. Municipal solid waste means solid waste generated from domestic and normal commercial sources.

By way of example, municipal solid waste includes household and office trash, garbage, rubbish, and refuse.

Special waste means in general terms solid waste generated from industrial sources which has been identified by the legislature and the Board of Environmental Protection in statute and regulation and requires special handling, transportation, and disposal procedures. By example, special wastes may include boiler and incinerator ash, paper mill sludge, medical waste, petroleum contaminated soils, and sandblast grit.

Septage includes waste, refuse, effluent, sludge, and any other materials from septic tanks, cesspools, or other similar facilities.

The following pages contain the categories of solid waste as defined by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Municipal Solid Waste Municipal solid waste, or “MSW�, commonly known as trash or garbage, includes all everyday thrown away items from households, commercial and institutional entities, horticulture, and road sweeping. This includes items such as packaging, paper, cardboard, food scraps, plastic bags & containers, glass bottles, grass clippings, furniture, tires, electrical & electronic items, and metals. In 2009, United States residents generated 243 million tons of trash, down from 255 million tons in 2007. In the same period, the per capita generation of MSW lowered to 4.34 lbs/person/day from 4.63 lbs/person/ day.

Agricultural and Animal Waste Agricultural wastes include primary crop residues that remain in fields after harvest and secondary processing residues generated from the harvested portions of crops during food, feed, and fiber production. This is generated during the production and distribution through decomposition of food, vegetables, or meat, removal of non-usable parts, removal of substandard products, and spoiling due to substandard packaging. Thus agricultural waste is generated at all stages of food system including farming, storage, processing, and wholesaling. The food scraps generated by retailers and consumers are not included in this category as these scraps enter the waste stream as municipal solid waste that is described in the previous section.[7] Animal wastes are wastes generated from farms and feedlots, also known as Animal Feed-

ing Operations (AFOs) or Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs), consisting of leftover feeds, manure and urine, wastewater, dead animals, and production operation wastes. They produce large amounts of waste in small areas. For example, EPA reports that a single dairy cow produces approximately 120 pounds of wet manure per day equaling to that of 20-40 people. The main problems of animal waste mismanagement are environmental, especially water pollution.

Industrial Waste Industrial waste consists of a significant amount of solid waste. EPA reported that each year United States industrial facilities generate and dispose of approximately 7.6 billion tons of industrial solid waste based on 1980s figures.[9] This figure includes waste generated from 17 industrial manufacturers of organic chemicals, inorganic chemicals, iron and steel, plastics and resins, stone, clay, glass, concrete, pulp and paper, food, and kindred products.[10] Industrial waste does not go into the municipal solid waste stream and therefore is landfilled or processed separately. As per EPA guidelines industrial waste management units have to consider waste characterization and minimization methods, waste constituent information fact sheets, risk assessment tools, institutional mechanism/stakeholder partnership principles, safe and proper design guidelines, water (surface and ground) and air monitoring procedures, and facility pre and post-closure recommendations.

SOLID WASTE NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE (MSW)

AGRICULTURAL WASTE

INDUSTRIAL WASTE

HAZARDOUS WASTE HOUSEHOLD WASTE

INDUSTRIAL

CONSTRUCTION & DEMOLITION

LISTED

MEDICAL

UNIVERSAL

SPECIAL

CHARACTERISTIC

TREATMENT

MIXED

Construction and Demolition Waste C&D waste includes debris generated during the construction, renovation, and demolition of buildings, roads, and bridges. This can be often bulky and heavy building materials consisting of concrete, building wood waste, asphalt from roads and roof shingles, drywall gypsum, metals, bricks, blocks, glass, plastics, building components like doors, windows, and fixtures, and trees, stumps, earth, and rock from construction and clearing sites. Since this often consists of bulky and heavy materials, proper waste management can improve resources. The EPA estimated that 136 million tons of building-related C&D waste was generated in the United States in 1996.

Medical Waste Medical waste and biomedical waste consist of all waste materials generated at health care facilities including hospitals, clinics, offices of physicians, dentists, and veterinarians, blood banks, home health care facilities, funeral homes, medical research facilities, and laboratories. Medical waste and by-products cover a diverse range of materials, as the following list illustrates (percentages are approximate values): Infectious waste: waste contaminated with blood and its by-products, cultures and stocks of infectious agents, waste from patients in isolation wards, discarded diagnostic samples containing blood and body fluids, infected animals from laboratories, and contaminated materials (swabs, bandages)

and equipment (such as disposable medical devices); Pathological waste: recognizable body parts and contaminated animal carcasses; Sharps: syringes, needles, disposable scalpels and blades, etc.; Chemicals: for example mercury, solvents and disinfectants; Pharmaceuticals: expired, unused, and contaminated drugs; vaccines and sera; Genotoxic waste: highly hazardous, mutagenic, teratogenic1 or carcinogenic, such as cytotoxic drugs used in cancer treatment and their metabolites; Radioactive waste: such as glassware contaminated with radioactive diagnostic material or radiotherapeutic materials; Heavy metals waste: such as broken mercury thermometers.

Infectious and anatomic wastes together represent the majority of the hazardous waste, up to 15% of the total waste from health-care activities. Sharps represent about 1% of the total waste but they are a major source of disease transmission if not properly managed. Chemicals and pharmaceuticals account for about 3% of waste from health-care activities while genotoxic waste, radioactive matter and heavy metal content account for around 1% of the total health-care waste.

The major sources of health-care waste are hospitals and other healthcare establishments; laboratories and research centers; mortuary and autopsy centers; animal research and testing laboratories;blood banks and collection services; nursing homes for the elderly.

High-income countries generate on average up to 0.5 kg of hazardous waste per bed per day; while low-income countries generate on average 0.2 kg of hazardous waste per hospital bed per day. However, health-care waste is often not separated into hazardous or non-hazardous wastes in low-income countries making the real quantity of hazardous waste much higher.

Special Waste Six categories of waste were given deferral from hazardous waste requirements by EPA under proposed hazardous waste management regulations.

This special category of wastes was maintained until further human health and environmental risk assessments could be completed. As per this deferral, the six categories of special waste are 1) Cement kiln dust, 2) Mining waste, 3) oil and gas drilling muds and oil production brines, 4) Beneficiation and processing waste from phosphate rock mining, 5) uranium waste, and 6) utility or fossil fuel combustion waste.

The difference between special wastes and other wastes is the large volume of generation of special waste at a time leading to less human and environmental risk.

Treatment Waste Treatment waste consists of sludge, byproducts, co-products, or metal scraps resulting from a facility or plant.

Sludge is any solid, semisolid, or liquid waste generated from a municipal, commercial, or industrial wastewater treatment plant, water supply treatment plant, or air pollution control facility exclusive of the treated effluent from a wastewater treatment plant.

This includes electric arc furnace dust and bag-house dusts. A byproduct is a material that is not a primary product which is not solely or separately produced in a production process whereas co-products are intentionally produced. Byproducts need further processing to be useful whereas co-products are highly processed and can be sold as a commodity without further processing. Examples of byproducts include slag, fly ash, heavy ends, distillation column bottoms, etc. and co-products include metals such as lead produced during the copper refining process. Scrap metal wastes include sheet metal, wire, metal tanks and containers, scrap automobiles, and machine shop turnings that are generally nonhazardous in nature.

Household Hazardous Waste This includes used and leftover household products that contain, corrosive, toxic, ignitable, or reactive constituents.

Examples are medical waste, used oil, paints, cleaners, batteries, pesticides, and light bulbs/lamps. Since these contain potentially hazardous ingredients, improper disposal can lead to human health risks and environmental

pollution. Proper and safe management of hazardous wastes is important in the collection, reuse, recycling, and disposal stages which are mostly facilitated by the municipalities or local governments and specified by EPA in household hazardous waste regulations.

Industrial Hazardous Waste The primary generators of hazardous wastes in any region are industrial facilities, manufacturing and processing units, workshops and maintenance units, nuclear facilities, chemical units, etc. The following section briefly describes the four main types of industrial hazardous wastes.

Listed Wastes By definition, EPA determined that some specific wastes are hazardous.

These wastes are incorporated into lists published by the Agency. These lists are organized into three categories The F-list (non-specific source wastes): This list identifies wastes from common manufacturing and industrial processes, such as solvents that have been used in cleaning or degreasing operations. Because the processes producing these wastes can occur in different sectors of industry, the F-listed wastes are known as wastes from non-specific sources.

The K-list (source-specific wastes): This list includes certain wastes from specific industries, such as petroleum refining or pesticide manufacturing.

Certain sludges and waste waters from treatment and production processes in these industries are examples of source-specific wastes.

The P-list and the U-list (discarded commercial chemical products): These lists include specific commercial chemical products in an unused form.

Some pesticides and some pharmaceutical products become hazardous waste when discarded.

Universal Waste Federal regulations have designated hazardous wastes such as batteries, pesticides, mercury-containing equipment, and light bulbs/lamps as universal wastes. This is a way to streamline them separately and control and facilitate proper collection, storage, recovery or treatment, and disposal that encourages reducing the quantity of such wastes going to landfills and incinerators and thereby increases recovery and recycling rates.

Characteristic Waste These are wastes that are defined based on their specific characteristics of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity. Federal statute 40CFR§261 regulates these wastes. Ignitable wastes are defined by their combustion capacity under conditions when they consist of waste oils and solvents.

Corrosive wastes like battery acids are characterized by their pH value – acids (pH ≤ 2) and bases (pH ≥ 12.5). Reactive wastes include lithium-sulfur batteries and explosives that can cause

explosions, toxic fumes, or gases and toxic wastes that are harmful to human health or environment when inhaled or ingested or disposed. Examples of toxic wastes include mercury and lead.

Mixed Waste These are wastes that contain both radioactive and hazardous waste components making them complicated to regulate.

Mixed wastes are regulated by the RCRA and the Atomic Energy Act (AEA). In general, the requirements of RCRA and AEA are consistent and compatible. However, in cases where requirements of the two acts are found to be inconsistent, the AEA takes precedence.

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the US Department of Energy regulate the radioactive portion of mixed waste under AEA authority, while EPA regulates the hazardous waste portion of mixed waste under RCRA authority.

Most commercially-generated (i.e., non-DOE) mixed waste is classified as low-level mixed waste (LLMW).

LLMW is waste that contains low-level radioactive waste (LLRW) and hazardous waste. LLRW is defined as any radioactive waste that is not high-level radioactive waste, spent nuclear fuel, or byproduct material. LLMW is generated commercially in all 50 states at industrial, hospital, and nuclear power plant facilities in a number of processes such as medical diagnostic testing

and research, pharmaceutical and biotechnology development, pesticide research, and nuclear power plant operations.

The US DOE produces three types of mixed waste: Low-level mixed waste (LLMW) - results from research, development, and production of nuclear weapons. An estimated 226,000 cubic meters (m3) of DOE LLMW will require management over the next 20 years.

High-level mixed waste (HLW) - results from reprocessing spent nuclear fuel and irradiated targets from reactors.

These wastes often contain highly-corrosive components, organics, or heavy metals that are regulated under RCRA. DOE has about 399,000 m3 of HLW stored in large tanks at four locations across the U.S. Mixed transuranic waste (MTRU) contains radioactive elements heavier than uranium and a hazardous waste component. MTRU is primarily generated from nuclear weapons fabrication, plutonium bearing reactor fuel fabrication, and spent fuel reprocessing.

The US DOE is currently self-regulating and its orders apply to DOE sites and contractors. As mandated by the Federal Facilities Compliance Act (FFCA), which was signed into law in October 6, 1992, DOE has developed Site Treatment Plans to handle its mixed wastes under the review of EPA and authorized states.

012

Waste Definitions: An Introduction

Commingle: A term referring to the practice of placing unrelated materials together in a single container, usually for benefits of convenience and speed, but presenting challenges for subsequent recovery and diversion.

Disposal: Depositing waste in a solid waste disposal facility, usually a managed landfill, regulated in the US under RCRA Subtitle D, or in the case of hazardous waste, under Subtitle C, 40 CFR. Diversion: The practice of diverting waste from disposal in a landfill, by means of eliminating or minimizing waste, or reuse of materials.

Diversion Report: A written assertion by a material recovery facility operator identifying constituent materials diverted from disposal, usually including summary tabulations of materials, weight in short-ton units (NIST), and percentages.

Industrial Waste Stabilizer (IWS): Material having no value in reuse, although employed for beneficial use in stabilization of industrial waste in landfills.

Land-clearing Debris: Waste generated from the process of clearing land, including preparing building sites for construction, generally consisting of vegetation, soil, rocks, and constituent matter.

Organics: Vegetation, soils, and constituent matter excluding rocks, and being both carbon- and nitrogen-rich, and completely biodegradable to carbon dioxide, water and biomass through the action of micro-organisms under normal environmental conditions.

Recycling: Introducing a material into some process for re-manufacture into a new product, which may be the same or similar product or a completely different type of product.

Reuse: The subsequent use of a material, product, or component upon salvage.

Salvage: Recovery of components, products, or materials for the purpose of reusing them for the same or similar purposes as their original use.

Sortline (or Pickline): An item of industrial recycling equipment featuring a conveyor belt and several stations for workers to rapidly sort and segregate waste, usually part of a material recovery facility.

Source Separation: A term referring to the practice of administering and implementing a management strategy to identify and segregate unrelated waste at the first opportunity, thus simplifying subsequent processes for recovery of materials and diversion, but presenting challenges for management of space on the job-site, training and supervision, and inefficiencies associated with hauling.

Construction and Demolition Debris

Construction and Demolition

CDD

C&D

014

A Closer Look at Construction & Demolition Debris (CDD)

SOLID WASTE NON-HAZARDOUS WASTE MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE (MSW)

AGRICULTURAL WASTE

INDUSTRIAL WASTE

HAZARDOUS WASTE HOUSEHOLD WASTE

INDUSTRIAL

CONSTRUCTION & DEMOLITION

LISTED

MEDICAL

UNIVERSAL

SPECIAL

CHARACTERISTIC

TREATMENT

MIXED

The total C&D waste of 2003 was estimated to be 325 million tons, nearly 30% of the overall waste generated in the United States.

Construction and demolition (C&D) debris refers to materials produced in the process of construction, renovation and/or demolition of structures, where structures include buildings (residential, commercial, institutional), roads, and bridges. Depending on the state definition, C&D debris typically include concrete, asphalt, wood, gypsum wallboard, paper, glass, rubble, and roofing materials. Land clearing debris, such as stumps, rocks, and dirt are also included in some state definitions. Finally, disaster debris is also included in the waste stream. In most cases C&D debris is nonhazardous and is regulated by states and local governments rather than by EPA. An exception would be where C&D debris contains hazardous waste, such as removed asbestos insulation.

C&D debris is a significant issue in the U.S. because of the enormous volume of C&D debris generated. A large fraction of C&D debris ends up in municipal solid waste landfills or in special C&D landfills, which may have the potential to contaminate groundwater. Also, each year, there is less land available for waste disposal. As a result, many state and local governments are seeking ways to divert C&D debris from land disposal, including the promotion of recycling. Also, Green Building programs exist where the focus is on minimizing the generation of wastes.

State and local regulations may limit where you can dispose of C&D debris. For example some local governments do not permit C&D debris to be disposed of in their municipal landfill.

Also, some local governments, particularly in California, require construction companies to recycle a minimum percentage of the C&D debris generated.

C&D debris is not federally regulated, except to the extent that solid waste landfills must fol­low a few basic standards. States, therefore, have the primary role in defining and regulating the management of C&D debris. Depending on each state’s specific definition, C&D debris can include the following discarded materials:

Concrete: Foundations, driveways, sidewalks, floors, walls, road surfaces (all concrete containing portland cement) Wood: Forming and framing lumber, stumps/ trees, engineered wood, sawdust, stumps Drywall: Sheetrock (wallboard), gypsum, plaster Metals: Steel, pipes, stainless steel rebar, flashing, wiring, framing, aluminum, copper, and brass, residential and commercial steel framing, structural steel, steel utility poles Plastics: Vinyl siding, doors, windows, flooring, pipes, packaging

Roofing: Asphalt, wood, slate, and tile shingles, roofing felt Masonry: Cinder blocks, brick, masonry cement Glass: Windows, mirrors, lights Miscellaneous: Carpeting, plumbing and light fixtures, insulation, ceramic tile, non-asbestos insulation, electric wiring Cardboard: From newly installed items such as appliances and tile Asphalt pavement: Sidewalks and road structures made with asphalt binder

Many states exclude certain materials from the legal definition of C&D debris, using terms such as “hazardous,” “unacceptable,” “potential­ly toxic,” or “illegal”. These wastes might or might not meet the federal definition of haz­ardous waste. Those that do meet the legal definition of hazardous waste are required to be treated and/or disposed of in a manner consistent with the federal or state requirements for hazardous waste. Examples of these wastes can include: waste paints, varnish, solvents, sealers, thin­ners, resins, roofing cement, adhesives, machinery lubricants, and caulk. Also, drums and containers that once contained the items listed above.

Other examples are treated lumber, posts, ties, or decks, and utility poles, asbestos-containing items, such as older types of floor tile, insulation, or other materials containing asbestos. Finally, lead-based paint, lead flashing or solder and products containing mercury.

House in Panama built with discarded building elements

FEMA demolishing a home in Keansburg, New Jersey after Hurricane Samdy in 2013.

Aftermath of a controlled demolition explosion.

020

Where Does CDD Come From?

Construction Debris: Waste generated by construction activities, such as scrap, damaged or spoiled materials, temporary and expendable construction materials, and aids that are not included in the finished project, packaging materials, and waste generated by the workforce.

Renovation Debris: Shares characteristics of both new construction and demolition waste. It is a diverse waste stream though, owing to the many different types of remodeling, e.g. alterations and replacements to driveways, roofs, kitchens, heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment, etc.

Demolition Debris: Waste generated from the process of intentional dismantling all or portions of a building, and clearing of buildings and contents destroyed or damaged as a result of natural or anthropogenic hazards. Demolition debris often contains constituents regulated in the US as hazardous waste under the RCRA.

C&D Waste Composition

021

Estimated C&D Generated Annually (%)

Material

Concrete and mixed rubble

40-50

Wood

20-30

Drywall

5-15

Asphalt Roofing

1-10

Metals

1-5

Bricks

1-5

Plastics

1-5 From the 2009 EPA report Estimating 2003 Building Related Construction and Demolition Material Amounts

022

Estimated Amount of Building-Related CDD Materials Generated in the U.S. (2003)

42%

71M Tons 84M Tons

49%

14M Tons

9%

49% Demolition 42% Renovation 9% New Construction

Contribution to the CDD Materials Stream by Each Buidling Sector (2003)

023

22%

39%

19%

6% 3% 39% 22% 19% 11% 6% 3%

11%

Nonresidential Demolition Residential Renovation Nonresidential Renovation Residential Demolition Residential Construction Nonresidential Construction

DEBRIS TRANSFER - ROCKAWAY, QUEENS

POST-HURRICANE SANDY

2

Waste Recovery

C&D Materials Recovery 030 Ratio of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) to MSW Landfilled (2008) 032 Amount of C&D Material Disposed and Recovered (2008) 034 Solid Waste Managed in Virginia (2012) 036 Building-Related CDD Generation: Estimated Percentages by Material 037 Virginia CDD Landfills 038 Barriers to CDD Recovery 042 Recent CDD Management & Policy Changes 056 Recent Waste Management News Headlines 066

Chapter Summary

029

1. C&D materials recovery includes efforts to reuse, recycle, or otherwise beneficially use C&D materials in various applications, including use in energy recovery applications.

2. The 3 most active landfilling states are Alaska (95.4%), Mississippi (94.5), and Tennessee (93).

3. The EPA does not require states to report the amount of C&D waste that they manage. Of the 8 states that reported in 2003, New Jersey recovers the highest ratio of construction waste.

4. Virginia received 20.2 million tons of waste in 2012. 62% of that waste was landfilled. Only 5 percent of the debris was recycled.

5. Several barriers exist to recycling of C&D debris. Some of these barriers include: Excessive fees for permits to operate a C&D recycling facility; many buildings and building materials are not designed to be reused or recycled; over-regulation of procedures used at C&D recycling facilities; In some areas of the country, markets for CDD don’t exist, though recycling has been successfully implemented elsewhere; people are naturally resistant to change, often unaware of the negative consequences associated with landfill effects on the environment; misconceptions about costs and benefits of CDD recovery; and tipping fees in C&D debris processing facilities often exceed the cost of disposing C&D debris in landfills 6. Recently, there have been policy changes regarding C&D waste management, most of which are occurring at the city level. For example, San Francisco has adopted the most ambitious goal in the country of 100 percent waste diversion by 2020. Massachusetts is the first state to ban the landfilling of gypsum wallboard, in addition to 5 other building materials. Los Angeles and Chicago have implemented aggressive construction debris regulation.

030

C&D Material Recovery

C&D waste materials are generated during new construction, renovation, and demolition of buildings, roads, and other structures. C&D materials include brick, concrete, masonry, soil, rocks, lumber, paving materials, shingles, glass, plastics, aluminum (including siding) steel, drywall, insulation, asphalt roofing materials, electrical materials, plumbing fixtures, vinyl siding, corrugated cardboard, and tree stumps. Many of these materials can be salvaged from demolition and renovation sites and sold, donated, stored for later use, or reused on the current project.

C&D materials recovery includes efforts to reuse, recycle, or otherwise beneficially use C&D materials in various applications, including use in energy recovery applications (incineration for example).

There are many drivers for C&D materials recovery. Historically, economics has been the primary driver for recovery. In locations where disposal fees are high (such as Massachusetts and New York), recovery is an economically preferable option. Materials that have traditionally retained a high value when recovered, such as metals, are recovered even in areas that have low disposal fees. An additional factor is affecting the economics of recycling today that did not exist in the past are green building programs such as LEED. Specifically, green building rating systems typically give credits for the reuse or

recycling of C&D materials. Since the creation of the U.S. Green Building Council in 1993 the demand for reuse or recycling opportunities has increased in areas where such opportunities had not existed (EPA).

Barriers to materials recovery still exist, however.

Many buildings and building materials are not designed to be reused or recycled.

There are other barriers that exist to C&D materials recovery, although if properly planned, a vast majority of C&D materials can be recovered through reuse and recycling. In some locations, recovery facilities do not exist. Even where facilities do exist, markets have not been found for some materials for a variety of reasons. There could be a lack of demand for a material, an unwillingness to use recycled materials in place of virgin resources, or a regulatory prevention of its use. Many markets view recycled materials as inferior simply because they are viewed as wastes, yet they often have the same chemical or physical properties as comparable virgin materials, and provide comparable performance; in some cases, they provide superior performance than do virgin materials at a lower cost (Myths). EPA aims to expand recognition of the value of C&D materials so that they are more widely viewed as locally available resources, rather than un-usable discards. See the “Barriers� section for more information.

“Few states report the amount of C&D materials recovered, disposed, and/or generated....Additional data on construction materials recovery would increase the confidence in this estimate.�

Estimating 2003 Building-Related Construction and Demolition Material Amounts (EPA)

Ratio of Municpal Solid Waste (MSW) to MSW Landfilled (2008)

032

CA AL

AK

AZ

AR

CA

CO

CT

DE

FL

GA

HI

ID

IL

IN

IA

OK

KS

KY

LA

MA

MD

SD

ME

MI

MN

MO

MS

VA

Green - Estimated amount of MSW

MT

NB

NC

ND

NH

NJ

NV

NY

OH

OR

PA

RI

SC

These numbers exclude C&D and non-MSW where possible. As of 2009, the availability of C&D debris is limited to the 8 states that have reported C&D debris to the EPA. And that data has discrepancies. Refer to the next graph for that information.

TN

UT

TX

VT

WA

WI

WV

WY

The 2 states that recover the most waste are Connecticut and Maine, with recycling rates of 90% and 82% respectively.

The worst performing states by percentages of waste being sent to landfills vs. recycling rates are Alaska (4.6%), Mississippi (5.5), and Tennessee (7.0). The District of Columbia does not have landfills within the city limits to send waste. Only 3.3% of the city’s debris was recycled by the city and the remainder of the waste is sent to South Carolina, Maryland and with the majority of the waste (99%) being exported to nearby Virginia.

Yellow - Estimated amount of that MSW placed in landfills

Amount of C&D Material Disposed and Recovered (2008)

034

AL

AK

AR

AZ

CA

MT

CO

CT

DE

FL

GA

HI

HI

ID

IL

IN

IA

OK

KS

KY

LA

MA

MD

SD

ME

MI

MN

MS

MO

VA

Dark Purple - Estimated amount of C&D materials

NB

NC

ND

NH

NJ

NV

NY

OH

OR

PA

RI

SC

Unfortunately, looking overall at state data does not provide a breakdown of the recovery amounts for specific materials within the C&D recycling stream, so it is not possible to determine which sectors or which materials have the largest influence on the recovery rate.

TN

UT

TX

VT

WA

WI

WV

WY

Additionally, it is not possible to estimate a material composition. If, through continued work with state environmental agencies and industry, such estimates are able to be derived, they may be included in future C&D materials estimations.

The weighted average recovery rate for the eight states for 2003 was 48%. While this number may not be fully representative of the entire country, it does provide an indicator of C&D materials recovery in the U.S. However, it is, at best, an approximation.

Light Purple- Estimated amount of recovered C&D material

Solid Waste Managed in Virginia (2012)

036

Total Waste Received: 20,255,767 tons Total Waste Landfilled: 12,463,562 tons Total Waste Recycled: 1,124,000 tons

10.4 % 126,0 5 Recy 0 Tons cled

39% OTHER 19%

70%

IND

60%

CDD

ns To % 38 led 1 7,5 c 8 ecy R

MSW

LANDFILLED Municipal CDD Debris 7,210,000 Tons (60%) 2,825,509 Tons (70%) Industrial Other 992,927 Tons (82%) 1,430,114 Tons (79%)

44

7, 00 1 Re 0 T 1 % cy on cl s ed

Building-Related CDD Generation: Estimated Percentages by Material

037

Estimated CDD Generated Annually (%)

Material

Concrete and mixed rubble

40-50

Wood

20-30

Drywall

5-15

Asphalt Roofing

1-10

Metals

1-5

Bricks

1-5

Plastics

1-5

Based on the 2009 EPA report “Estimating 2003 Building Related Construction and Demolition Material Amounts� (above), we can apply those estimated percentages to the 4,019,220 tons of CDD that was reported to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) in 2011 to better understand the nature of the construction debris generated in Virginia:

Estimated CDD Generated Annually (tons)

Material

Concrete and mixed rubble

1.6m-2.0m

Wood

800k-1.2m

Drywall

200k-600k

Asphalt Roofing

40k-400k

Metals

40k-200k

Bricks

40k-200k

Plastics

40k-200k

Comparing the above data to the recycled CDD figures to the left, we can estimate that only 50,000 tons of wallboard waste was diverted away from landfills. The implications of this data shows that upwards of 550,000 tons of potentially toxic and dangerous drywall waste was placed in Virginia landfills in 2012.

CDD Landfill

Location

CDD 2012 (tons)

1 623 Landfill 2 Ashcake Road Landfill, Inc. 3 Centerville Turnpike Landfill 4 Country South LLC 5 East End Landfill 6 Frederick County 7 Higgerson Buchanan Inc. 8 Hilltop Sand and Gravel Co. 9 Lorton CDD Landfill 10 Portsmouth City - Craney 11 Potomac CDD Landfill 12 Rainwater Landfill 13 Taylor Road Landfill

Rockville Ashland Virginia Beach Boones Mill Richmond Winchester Chesapeake Alexandria Lorton Portsmouth Dumfries Lorton Chesterfield

274,000 44,000 109,600 4,000 0 30,600 7,500 68,000 844,000 45,100 69,800 23,800 24,800

4

6

8

9 12

11

1 2 13 5

10

7 3

2 Ashland, VA

3 Virginia Beach, VA

4 Boones Mil, VA

5 Richmond, VA

6 Winchester, VA

9 Lorton, VA

042

Barriers to CDD Recovery

Government Policies for Increasing the Recycling of Construction and Demolition Debris (Excerpt)

Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida - September 2007 Several barriers exist to recycling of C&D debris. Economic issues are major barriers to C&D debris recycling. In many US states, including Florida, C&D debris may be disposed of in unlined landfills (Clark et al., 2006). Many states that do require liners only require natural clay liners and do not require landfill leachate to be collected. Thus, disposal in these areas can be relatively cheap compared to the cost associated with recycling.

For effective recycling, the debris components must first be separated from one another. This practice can occur at the construction site, but the waste handling and collection process is more expensive than simply hauling all of the waste to a landfill. In some areas, mixed C&D debris processing facilities can receive the entire waste stream from a C&D job, and separate the materials into commodities. These facilities charge a tipping fee; they are generally only economically viable where landfill tipping fees are high enough to warrant the effort spent in separating and processing the materials. Thus for many areas of the US, it is more cost effective to the contractor to collect and process the massive amount of concrete from the demolition of a large building, but it is more cost effective for them to dispose of mixed construction debris in a landfill.

Political barriers can occur when policies that are currently in place inhibit recycling programs. Waste collection franchises can be a good example of this if recycling is not stipulated in a franchise contract. Since the

waste hauler is being paid to collect the waste, they often do not have any incentive to recycle it. Many waste haulers own the landfills that they take their waste to and recycling the debris would mean a loss of revenue.

Psychological barriers to C&D debris recycling persist as it is difficult to change the current mindset towards disposal. People are comfortable with the current system and are resistant to change, especially when they perceive no reason to change. They often do not understand how their actions can impact the environment.

Markets are often cited as a problem, and this is true in some parts of Florida. In many cases, markets do not currently exist but have the potential for development. Gypsum drywall, for example, has been demonstrated in previous Innovative Recycling Grants to be recyclable from a market and processing standpoint, yet other barriers have resulted in no prolonged drywall recycling activities. Additional barriers, most notably economic barriers, have continued to make C&D debris recycling difficult in much of the state. Although these barriers do exist, it is important to acknowledge that recycling of these materials has been successfully implemented in some areas of the country. In some cases, recycling becomes feasible because of regional economic differences, but in other cases specific actions by government officials

Psychological Barriers -People are comfortable with the current system, are naturally resistant to change, often unaware of the negative consequences associated with landfill effects on the environment

Economic Barriers -Tipping fees in C&D debris processing facilities often exceed the cost of disposing C&D debris in landfills -Excessive fees for permits to operate a C&D recycling facility

-Misperceptions about costs and benefits of CDD recovery.

- Entering the C&D recycling business can be daunting if a full understanding of processing, marketing and permitting is not in place

-Recycled materials are viewed as “waste� and thus inferior to virgin materials despite having comparable properties

B Market Barriers -In some areas of the country, markets for CDD don’t exist, though recycling has been successfully implemented elsewhere.

B

A

A

R R

R

I I

E

E

R Political Barriers -Waste collection franchises often times own landfills and thus would lose revenue by recycling C&D debris

R

Regulatory Barriers -Over-regulation of procedures used at C&D recycling facilities

Material Barriers -Many buildings and building materials are not designed to be reused or recycled

-Attempts to limit areas where C&D material can be collected

-The use of asbestos, led based paint, and polychlorinated biphenyls can affect the recyclability of some materials . Testing for these hazardous materials can result in time delays and high costs which further deters recyling

-Overly strict regulations governing the use of mobile C&D recycling plants -Unrealistic C&D recycling goals tied to regional or statewide mandates.

and policy‐makers have made C&D debris recycling becoming more attractive.

The Federal Government Needs to Develop a National C&D Recycling Policy (Excerpt) The National Demolition Association January 2004 Construction waste and demolition debris are solid waste and therefore governed under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that C&D debris enjoys the same protections as other elements of the nation’s waste stream. Therefore, attempts to limit its movement across state boundaries or institute flow control to limit the importation of debris from one state to another are prohibited.

This is important as it shows the need for a national policy. While the transportation of construction waste and demolition debris over long distances can have a significant impact on its disposal costs and marketability, increasingly C&D material from the nation’s large urban centers is being transported to sites further and further from its generation points thereby increasing pollution and costs incurred in this transporting of the material.

In order to control the importation of this material, without the imposition of prohibited flow control, many states have developed their own regulations. Many of these regulations have elements that dramatically impact the cost and practicality of C&D recycling.

Demolition contractors work in an extremely competitive environment. They know the value of every commodity on every job they perform.

The profit margins on recycled material can

be very low, subject to changing local market conditions. For a demolition company to make the sizable capital investment in equipment, land, time, labor, and all the other cost points to set up a recycling program, it must be a profit-making venture.

Any barriers established by state governments to limit or control material flow, generate revenue, or over-regulate the recycling process, significantly impact the desirability of recycling. If recycling of C&D material is not economically attractive, the Demolition Industry, which is extremely entrepreneurial, will not invest the time or money in the effort.

Recently, several large states, areas that generate significant amounts of C&D material, have established regulations that make it impractical and economically unattractive to participate in C&D recycling efforts.

These institutional barriers include: • Excessive fees for permits to operate a C&D recycling facility; • Over-regulation of procedures used at C&D recycling facilities; • Attempts to limit areas where C&D material can be collected; • Overly strict regulations governing the use of mobile C&D recycling plants; • Limited opportunities in state purchasing procedures for the reuse of C&D recycled material; • Unrealistic C&D recycling goals tied to regional or statewide mandates.

These are but a few of the barriers currently established by state governments which are having a marked impact on the total volume of C&D material being recycled and the number of contractors entering the recycling marketplace.

In order to successfully implement a viable C&D recycling system in this country, the Federal Government, through its Environmental Protection Agency, must develop a National C&D Recycling Policy.

This policy would promote the growth of C&D recycling, make the process more economically attractive, and help develop markets for the commodities that are generated. By establishing a National Policy, the Federal Government would be stating that the recycling and reuse of C&D material are a beneficial societal goal, one that is good for our environment, good for our economy, and good for the country.

The European Union, in order to promote the recycling and reuse of C&D debris in Western Europe has established mandates for the amount of material to be recycled and a time-line to eliminate the land disposal of the material throughout its member states.

The elements of this National C&D Recycling Policy would include: • National guidelines dealing with the movement of C&D material; • Standards for material quality, thereby increasing commodity marketability; • Reasonable regulations for mobile and stationary recycling facilities;

• Promotion of recycled C&D materials in the marketplace; • Reasonable permitting fees for facilities with the revenue generated used to promote C&D recycling; • National inspection standards for C&D recycling facilities.

The National Demolition Association believes that it is essential for the EPA to develop this National C&D Recycling Policy if the Demolition Industry is going to be able to continue to increase the volume of material being recycled.

If each of the fifty states develop its own regulations, often establishing barriers to the economic viability of recycling facilities, the progress the industry and the government has made in this important area will wither on the vine. The success of this C&D recycling effort thus far has been highly dependent upon the economic opportunities presented to the individual entrepreneurs who invest the time, money, and labor to establish these programs.

Over-regulation, whether it is excessive permit fees to enter the marketplace or complex procedures to manage a facility, will limit entry and mean a decrease in the amount of C&D material ultimately being recycled.

The National Demolition Association believes that the EPA must begin the development of a National C&D Recycling Policy to protect the progress made thus far and promote its continued growth.

Any National C&D Recycling Policy must expand markets for the commodities generated.

The success of any recycling effort is tied to the marketability of the products that are recycled.

The National Demolition Association believes that there are numerous opportunities available

to the EPA to promote the recycling and reuse of components generated by the Demolition Industry.

When President Clinton ordered the Federal Government, the largest single buyer of paper in the world, to move towards increased use of recycled paper, the pulp and paper industry responded immediately to develop recycling facilities to meet this new demand. This increased use of recycled paper rippled across the economy as other large entities followed the Federal Government’s lead and insisted upon recycled paper in their purchasing.

The National Demolition Association believes that the Federal Government could produce a substantial increase in the recycling and reuse of C&D material by establishing purchasing guidelines and specifications for this material.

The guidelines could certainly contain quality assurance components that would allow specifying agencies to feel comfortable with the use of these materials.

It is currently estimated that over 100 million tons of concrete is recycled in the United States. If the EPA, working with the Federal Highway Administration and the state transportation agencies, would develop model specifications for the quality of recycled material, this total recycling number would increase dramatically. The use of recycled concrete and other aggregates from demolition projects as sub base, rip-rap, or drainage material has been a long established process. Standardization of the specifications for the reuse, on a national level, could produce a boom comparable to President Clinton’s paper recycling directive.

Similarly, establishing criteria for the reuse of wood products generated on demolition sites as a fuel additive for commercial/industrial boilers, for use in the manufacturing of plywood

and other pulp products, as berm material from storm water pollution prevention, and as an appropriate landfill cover material could significantly increase the recycling of this component of the demolition waste stream.

While the Demolition Industry currently recycles the bulk of the metal components of the structures it works on, programs that promote the use of products generated by the nation’s scrap industry can increase the value of this material and assure its reuse.

Other components of the demolition waste stream are being researched to see if they can be economically recycled. Recent studies on the recycling and reuse of the constituents of asphalt roofing shingles are being evaluated with an eye toward recycling this ubiquitous construction material.

Other materials in the demolition waste stream including carpet, drywall, glass, ceiling tiles, plastics, and other construction products are being studied to see if they too can be recycled or reused in an economically viable manner.

The National Demolition Association believes it is essential for the U.S. EPA to develop a program that analyzes the marketability of the components of the various elements of the nation’s demolition waste stream and promotes the reuse of these materials.

MYTH 2:

RECYCLING WILL SLOW DOWN THE JOB

THERE’S NO ROOM ON SITE TO RECYCLE

MYTH 3: WITH ALL THESE CONTAINERS AND MATERIALS, RECYCLING IS WAY TOO COMPLICATED MYTH 5: WE DON’T HAVE CONTRACT LANGUAGE FOR RECYCLING MYTH 7: I’LL NEVER GET SUBCONTRACTORS TO GO ALONG

C &D RECOVERY MYTHS

MYTH 1:

MYTH 4: SERVICE PROVIDERS ARE NOT RELIABLE MYTH 6: RECYCLING COSTS TOO MUCH

MYTH 8: THIS IS A UNION JOB. THE UNION WON’T COOPERATE, AND THE LABOR COST WILL BE TOO HIGH

Misperceived Barriers to Construction & Demolition Recovery

MYTH 1: RECYCLING WILL SLOW DOWN THE JOB

Prepared by Construction & Demolition Materials Toolkit: A Waste Research & Education Project for the St. Louis Region - Date Unknown

The perception that recycling will slow down the job is almost never true. Recycling asks workers to work a little bit smarter, not any harder or longer. Recycling containers are matched to the specific wastes being generated during different phases of the project, and they should be clearly labeled, so there’s not a question of having to choose which container to use for which waste. Because they’re often smaller than the big roll-off boxes used for mixed debris, many recycling containers can be placed closer to the work locations where wastes are generated. Far from slowing down the job, recycling often saves time and effort.

Barriers to materials recovery still exist, however. Many buildings and building materials are not designed to be reused or recycled.

EPA’s Lifecycle Building Challenge is a design competition that challenges professionals and students to design building materials and assemblies for reuse and recycling. More formation can be found at www.lifecyclebuilding.org.

If C&D materials will be generated at construction sites, C&D materials management should be included in the construction plan.

Successful planning teams include the owner of the building, the architect, and the contractor.

There are other barriers that exist to C&D materials recovery. In some locations, recovery facilities do not exist. Even where facilities do exist, markets have not been found for some materials for a variety of reasons. There could be a lack of demand for a material, an unwillingness to use recycled materials in place of virgin resources, or a regulatory prevention of its use. Many markets view recycled materials as inferior simply because they are viewed as wastes, yet they often have the same chemical or physical properties as comparable virgin materials, and provide comparable performance; in some cases, they provide superior performance than do virgin materials at a lower cost.

EPA aims to expand recognition of the value of C&D materials so that they are more widely viewed as locally available resources, rather than un-usable discards.

(There’s also a safety connection. Because recyclable wastes are usually put into containers as soon as they’re generated – not left on the ground to be picked up as mixed debris – recycling generally makes for a cleaner and safer job site.)

In addition, recycling is a morale booster.

Recycling gets strong support from contractor and subcontractor work crews. This means that they give extra effort to make recycling work, and enhances the overall tone on the work site, which makes the work go smoother and quicker.

Logistics and service are other reasons which suggest that recycling might slow down the job.

Again, this is not true. The key is to integrate recycling with other job site activities, so that the right containers are on site for each phase of the job, and containers flow smoothly onto and away from the site as wastes are generated.

If this is done, there’s no reason that recycling a half dozen different materials will take any more time than throwing everything away into a single dumpster.

MYTH 2: THERE’S NO ROOM ON SITE TO RECYCLE This, too, is almost never true. A key to successful recycling is to match containers to wastes, both in time and size. So it’s not necessary to have five or six containers on site.

Instead, containers are matched to each phase of the job, and are swapped in or out so that only one to three containers are on location at any time, matched to specific wastes being generated.

Also, because recycling containers are often smaller than mixed debris containers, there can be more flexibility in setting them out on the site, so that a recycling container can often be shoe-horned in where a larger mixed debris container would not fit.

If site constraints absolutely preclude source separation, sorting wastes off site is an option, although one that will add labor and other expense. And mixed debris recycling, with recycling rates of 75+% should be possible on any job-site.

MYTH 3: WITH ALL THESE CONTAINERS AND MATERIALS, RECYCLING IS WAY TOO COMPLICATED More complicated than having one big container for all job site wastes, yes. But really complicated? Hardly.

What recycling requires is intelligent up-front planning, most of which is already done as part of overall project management. The waste management plan tracks the flow of the project, matching the work that’s being done as the project moves from phase to phase. When the framers are working, it’s time for a wood box.

When the wiring, plumbing, and HVAC are being installed, it’s time for a metal box. When

gypsum wallboard is being installed, it’s time for a wallboard box. If you’ve planned the job well from the construction side, you’ve already done most of the work required to recycle.

MYTH 4: SERVICE PROVIDERS ARE NOT RELIABLE Until the mid-1990s, this was a good question.

There were many fewer recycling markets, and only a few haulers who made C&D recycling a priority.

But this situation has changed rapidly, thanks to the basic laws of supply and demand. As more owners, architects, and contractors have begun to ask for recycling services, more service providers have entered the market, and to survive they’ve had to offer efficient and reliable service.

Now, it’s no different than choosing any other subcontractor. Confirm references from past work; look for size, flexibility and stability; do a basic background check; and make sure you have a dedicated contact who’s accountable for each job. If you do this, reliability shouldn’t be a question.

MYTH 5: WE HAVE NO RFP OR CONTRACT LANGUAGE FOR RECYCLING C&D recycling starts with a good specification that clearly states recycling goals, materials to be recycled, and planning, reporting, and recordkeeping requirements. As with every other job-site activity, a good specification provides the foundation for a smooth work flow, without confusion or misunderstanding. Recycling shouldn’t be an afterthought or add-on.

Just a couple of years ago, a lot of C&D recycling specs had to be written from scratch; there just weren’t many examples to go by. But

now there are a lot of good samples to choose from, that fit just about every recycling situation and specification format.

MYTH 6: RECYCLING COSTS TOO MUCH After everything is said and done, this is the biggest reservation that owners, architects, and contractors express about recycling.

This is one that can be difficult to disprove given the current alternatives. Throughout the region, the cost to landfill C&D wastes tops $40.00 per ton. Transportation charges generally add another $5 to $10 per ton, so that total cost to dispose of C&D waste in most of the St. Louis region ranges from $45 to $50 per ton.

The difference between this cost and the cost of recycling, for almost every recyclable material,

is dramatic. Although exact pricing varies with markets and transportation lanes, the financial information is clear and compelling: ton for ton, for almost every material in the C&D waste stream, recycling is much less expensive than disposal. And for the highest volume materials in C&D, recycling is less expensive by a factor of two, three, or four. By reducing the volume and weight the cost is reduced but currently there are limited options for landfill diversion of C&D waste.

In a worst case scenario – a tough site, a tight schedule, a waste stream that has to be recycled largely as mixed debris – it’s safe to state that recycling will cost no more than disposal. In almost all other cases, recycling will be much less costly, with savings that often run into tens of thousands of dollars, even after all costs for planning, training, record keeping, and reporting are factored in.

MYTH 7: I’LL NEVER GET SUBCONTRACTORS TO GO ALONG Subs respond to the same cues as anyone else: clear priorities, clear instruction, clear procedures, financial penalties and incentives.

Two things are most important: 1. Management-level interaction: Make sure that subs’ managers and supervisors understand that recycling is important and that deviation from specified procedures will be penalized.

Again, clear up-front specifications and unambiguous contract language are critical.

2. Training: Recycling training should be provided at every crew shift, and should cover materials to be recycled, recycling procedures, recycling containers (location, identification, etc.), and where to go with questions. It’s particularly important to reach subcontractor supervisors, so that they can provide instruction to individual workers as they come onto the site from day to day.

Subs and their workers understand the environmental importance of recycling, and tend to be supportive. Their concerns are predictable: “It will slow us down.” “It will cost us.” “It’s complicated.” As long as procedures are clear and these concerns are answered, compliance with recycling requirements should not be an issue.

MYTH 8: THIS IS A UNION JOB. THE UNION WON’T COOPERATE, AND THE LABOR COST WILL BE TOO HIGH In almost all cases, the reverse will be true.

Unions and their workers understand the environmental benefits of job-site recycling, and see a commitment to recycling as a commitment to caring by the owner and contractor. Union employees are often the most enthusiastic supporters of recycling.

As noted elsewhere, there’s no reason to expect that recycling will add significant labor time or cost into the job, and in many cases recycling can save some time in waste management. Recycling also promotes a neater, safer, and more productive job-site. Again, these are factors that will encourage union support, not the reverse.

It is important to bring union reps into the planning process and solicit their input and comment on waste management and recycling.

After all, the workers on the job-site are where the rubber meets the road, and they more than anyone else have to integrate recycling into the job flow. Getting their early involvement and support is an important step.

Construction and Demolition Waste Manual: An Overview Prepared by the NYC Department of Design and Construction, 2003.

Solid waste management is undergoing dramatic change throughout the United States. It has become one of the largest budget costs for local governments. Landfills are reaching capacity, with thousands scheduled to close within the next few years. The construction of new facilities for either recycling or disposal is enormously contentious, fueling ongoing battles between

waste exporting and waste importing states.

This is a particular issue for New York City, which no longer has any disposal facilities and must export all the waste it does not recycle.

The closure of Fresh Kills Landfill, New York City’s last remaining landfill, has resulted in a $400 million annual increase in the NYC Department of Sanitation’s budget since 1996, and the City’s shift to waste export no doubt provided added impetus for the $4 per ton tax that Pennsylvania recently imposed on waste disposed of in its landfills. Opposition to the construction of new rail-and-barge-served transfer facilities in NYC has resulted in a waste export system that is almost entirely dependent on trucks, aggravating local air quality and congestion problems with hundreds of thousands of additional trucks each year. In the 1990s, tipping fees for disposal at transfer stations in NYC were in the $50’s per ton range. Currently they are in the mid-$60’s to $80 per ton range, and are expected to continue to rise.

The Hickory Ridge landfill outside of Atlanta contains over 9 million cubic yards of trash.

Barriers to C&D Materials Recovery The following is an excerpt from the EPA’s Estimating 2003 Building-Related Construction and Demolition Materials Amounts Barriers to materials recovery still exist, however. Many buildings and building materials are not designed to be reused or recycled. EPA’s Lifecycle Building Challenge is a design competition that challenges professionals and students to design building materials and assemblies for reuse and recycling.

If C&D materials will be generated at construction sites, C&D materials management should be included in the construction plan.

Successful planning teams include the owner of the building, the architect, and the contractor.

There are other barriers that exist to C&D materials recovery. In some locations, recovery facilities do not exist. Even where facilities do exist, markets have not been found for some materials for a variety of reasons. There could be a lack of demand for a material, an unwillingness to use recycled materials in place of virgin resources, or a regulatory prevention of its use. Many markets view recycled materials as inferior simply because they are viewed as wastes, yet they often have the same chemical or physical properties as comparable virgin materials, and provide comparable performance; in some cases, they provide superior performance than do virgin materials at a lower cost. EPA aims to expand recognition of the value of C&D materials so that they are more widely viewed as locally available resources, rather than un-usable discards.

Potentially harmful materials, such as asbestos, lead-based paint (LBP), and polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), have historically been used

in the construction and maintenance of many buildings. These materials can greatly affect the recyclability of some materials, especially those derived from older buildings. In some instances, concerns about the possibility of these materials entering the recycling stream have prevented entire segments of the C&D materials stream from being recycled. The specific percentage of C&D materials that contain asbestos, lead, or PCBs is unknown.

As a result, it is very difficult to determine the impact the presence of these compounds in C&D materials has on C&D materials recovery. Some data are available on the use and prevalence of these harmful materials in buildings. It was recently reported that, as of 2000, 38 million homes in the U.S. still contained LBP somewhere in the building, either on interior or exterior surfaces (Clickner et al. 2001). According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), asbestos use in all applications (including construction) declined from approximately 7,600 tons in 2002 to approximately 5,100 tons in 2003. In fact, the consumption of asbestos in 2003 represented less than 0.6% than that of the consumption in 1973, the peak year for U.S. asbestos consumption. According to the USGS, the current primary use of asbestos in construction is in some roof coatings, not in asphalt shingles (2003). In fact, recent testing of old asphalt shingles from re-roofing activities collected at

recycling centers indicates that the presence of asbestos is relatively rare and should continue to be come even more rare as these shingles are removed an replaced with non-asbestos-containing shingles (CMRA 2007). Unfortunately, asbestos testing costs and time delays can be a disincentive to recycling and, as a result, recycling rates for asphalt shingles continue to be low. LBP was banned in 1978, some uses of asbestos in buildings were banned by 1978, and PCBs were banned in 1979.

The non-enforcement of the ‘State Plan’ provisions of The Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1976 The following is an excerpt from www.zerowasteamerica.org, a website that is devoted to educating visitors on the state of waste management in the U.S The Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1976 (also known as Resource Conservation and Recovery Act-RCRA), Title II, Subtitle D - requires all states to implement ‘Solid Waste Plans’ that maximize waste reduction and recycling. These plans should have been in effect by 1980, according to the time-line as stated in the Act. It appears that the EPA stopped enforcing the ‘state plan’ requirements of the Act sometime during the Reagan Administration. Since 1987, there has been no oversight of state plans by the EPA.

EPA takes the position that, compliance with Subtitle D is not required as non-hazardous, solid waste management is a state matter. In addition, the EPA says that since the Reagan Administration pulled the funding for Subtitle D, therefore, EPA does have to enforce it. The EPA is incorrect.

Congress gave the Federal government the final authority in state waste management issues and took that position is the following provision: U.S.C. TITLE 42 - The Public Health and Welfare / Chapter 82 - Solid Waste Disposal / Subchapter 1 - General Provisions / Sec. 6901.

Congressional findings (4) that while the collection and disposal of solid wastes should continue to be primarily the function of State, regional, and local agencies, the problems of waste disposal as set forth above have become a matter national in scope and in concern and necessitate Federal action through financial and technical assistance and leadership in the development, demonstration, and application of new and improved methods and processes to reduce the amount of waste and unsalvageable materials and to provide for proper and economical solid waste disposal practices.

On the issue of unfunded mandates, the EPA has no basis in law for not enforcing the ‘state plan’ requirements of the Solid Waste Disposal Act of 1976. In fact, funding was available from 1976-1980, the years in which the plans were required to be approved and implemented.

056

Recent CDD Management & Policy Changes

Massachusetts Bans Five C&D Materials The following is an article from the American Recycler Volume 13, published in 2011 In 2006, Massachusetts began to ban C&D materials, specifically five components – asphalt pavement, brick, concrete, cardboard, metal and wood. “Since then, working with the C&D Subcommittee, we have focused on clean gypsum wallboard. We went through public hearings last year and that process resulted in banning clean gypsum wallboard beginning July 1, 2011,” said McQuade. “We are currently working with clean gypsum wallboard recyclers and the external community to explore how we

can invigorate a recycling infrastructure around renovation and demolition wallboard scrap. In tandem with the discussions on clean gypsum, the subcommittee is looking at other materials, specifically carpet and ceiling tiles.”

California is developing regulations for recycling facilities that would require mixed C&D debris recycling facilities that accept more than 175 tons per day (recycling at least 60% of that) in order to obtain a solid waste permit. Increased regulation can cause C&D tipping fees to rise, which can result in increased C&D recycling.

“Now we are paying less to recyclers than we would to ship out of state,” said Costello. “Landfill disposal is generally close to $100 dollars per ton, but the disposal fees at the processing plants are in the $60 to $70 dollar per ton range. It’s certainly a lot more than other parts of the country pay for landfill, but around here there’s some economic advantage. The only other option is trucking out of state, or shipping by rail. There are landfills in New Hampshire and some material goes to Ohio, but that’s generally more expensive than going to a recycler. Rail disposal is often a competitive option, but it depends on where your project is located and the relative costs to get to each landfill.”

Dan Costello of Costello Dismantling - Middleborough, Massachusetts

Overview of State Policies (See the Appendix Section for current information on all 50 states) Recycling policies within states have generally consisted of recycling goals, recycling requirements, recycling grants, and disposal restrictions (bans). New legislation has been enacted in Massachusetts to ban unprocessed C&D debris from disposal to specifically encourage C&D debris recycling. Ohio recently enacted stricter regulations on their C&D debris landfills that may make recycling more appealing.

As shown in the previous section, the state with the most local government activity with respect to C&D debris recycling initiative is California. It should be noted that the local government interest is very much a result of statewide recycling policies. Every jurisdiction recognized by the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) must meet a 50% recycling goal by a specified time. Failure to meet this goal can results in fines by the CIWMB of up to $10,000 per day. Since C&D debris is such a large component of the waste stream and one that is relatively easy to recycle, many municipalities have aggressively targeted C&D debris.

The highest recycling rates for C&D debris exist in New York and Massachusetts. These regions typically have high tipping fees and recycling becomes a more viable option. In fact, the disposal ban in Massachusetts is estimated to only increase the C&D debris recycling rate from 80% to 89%, increasing the total recycled tonnage by 1,000,000 tons (Tellus Institute, 2003). Much waste from New York and Massachusetts is exported from these states to Ohio, which is why Ohio is becoming more concerned about the effects C&D debris landfills have on the environment and public

health (OEPA, 2004). California has a mandated diversion amount, but the contribution of C&D debris to this diversion is unknown.

Toward Zero Waste This excerpt is from an article that appeared in the February 2010 issue of The Urbanist.

Much of our local success began with the State of California's leadership. In 1989, the Integrated Waste Management Act, Assembly bill 939, set goals to reverse our state's resource conservation patterns. At the time, 90 percent of our waste went straight into landfills. The act required cities and counties to divert 25 percent of waste by 1995 and 50 percent by 2000, allowing the materials in glass bottles, food waste, used tires, electronics, construction debris and more to be put to better use. The most aggressive waste diversion law in the country, the law motivated public and private investment in California's waste management infrastructure. The state helped develop new markets for recycled products by establishing environmentally preferable purchasing rules for state agencies and creating Recycling Market Development Zones, which provide loans, marketing and other assistance to businesses in specified areas that use waste materials to manufacture their products. It also required certain products such as newspapers and plastic bags to contain some post-consumer recycled content.

By 2007, California was diverting 58 percent of all waste, while San Francisco had more than doubled its 1990 rate to 72 percent, the highest diversion rate in the nation. The City began to make its greatest strides after 2000, following the adoption of a series of waste-related policies and programs. In 2002,

the Board of Supervisors set a very high bar by adopting the goals of 75 percent waste diversion by 2010, and zero waste—or 100 percent diversion—by 2020. Curbside collection of food scraps for composting was pilot tested in 1996, and was approved for citywide roll-out in 2001. A series of subsequent ordinances targeted specific waste streams, where a relatively simple change in purchasing or disposal practices could make a big difference. For example, the Construction and Demolition Debris Recovery Ordinance of 2006 required construction debris recycling, and the Food Service Waste Reduction Ordinance of 2007 required restaurants to use compostable or recyclable take-out containers. The City's Green SAN FRANCISCO WASTE DIVERSION, 1989-2007

Source: SPUR analysis of data provided by San Francisco Department of the Environment, California Natural Resources Agency and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Building Ordinance of 2007 required most new buildings and major renovations to be designed with equally convenient access to and adequate space for sorted waste streams. Because it looked likely that the 2010 goal would

not be achieved through voluntary programs alone, in 2009, the City enacted the Universal Recycling Ordinance, requiring all properties to separate trash, recyclable materials and compostable waste in accordance with San Francisco's three-cart collection program.

Chicago implements new recycling rules for C&D debris In December of 2004, Chicago announced that, effective January 2006, contractors will be required to recycle 25% of all construction and demolition (C&D) debris generated in the city. That number will jump to 50% by 2007.

Chicago defines C&D debris as “non-hazardous, non-contaminated solid waste resulting from construction, renovation, and demolition projects”.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency estimates that in 1996, 136 million tons of C&D waste was generated. In addition, C&D debris accounts for almost 30% of all solid waste produced in the U.S., most of which is disposed of in landfills. With large numbers like this, it’s easy to see how these regulations could have major economic and environmental impacts. Economically speaking, the recycling of this debris could be used to avoid hefty tipping fees. It may also be a source of additional revenue for contractors. Environmentally, it means that fewer virgin resources are consumed, and the need for landfill space could be reduced.

Chicago is the first to formally recognize the growing trend of C&D debris recycling in the U.S. Depending on local factors like tipping fees and market value of the recovered materials, recycling may be cheaper than disposal.

In fact, not only is recycling cheaper, it could

potentially generate revenue that could be put back into a project. C&D Debris Recycling magazine estimates that currently there are around 3,500 facilities nationwide that recycle C&D debris, and that this number is growing quickly.

However, some barriers to C&D recycling do exist. The cost of collection, sorting, and processing material, and the material’s relatively low value sometimes deter contractors from recycling. Not only that, but the recovery of the recyclable debris is very time consuming.

Yet, the costs of incineration and dumping are increasing because of the need for control technologies to prevent pollution.

Incineration has become quite the controversial issue over the past several years. Studies have shown that people in the areas surrounding waste to energy plants have unacceptably high levels of dioxins and other related toxins in their blood. These toxins appear in the local food, air, and wildlife, amongst other things.

All of this has led to the need for more and more expensive controls to both prevent the escape of these toxins into the environment, and to dispose of the toxic ash in a safe and ethical way. The need to control and contain dioxins, nitric oxide, mercury, and other toxic metals means that the costs of incineration is rising, and soon it may cease to be an economically sound choice for contractors looking to dispose of their C & D debris.

Landfills have also become more expensive for those looking to dispose of their C&D debris. Many landfills don’t want C&D debris because it tends to be bulky and it takes up more space than most household waste. Also, many landfills recognize that C&D debris could be recycled, and raise their tipping fees accordingly.

In addition to not wanting C&D debris, landfills now are being required to implement expensive air pollution and ground water controls to prevent environmental damage. Some landfills have managed to make a business out of recycling the emitted gases for energy, but they are relatively few. Most merely burn the gases in an external flare. Sites are raising their tipping fees in order to cover the costs for these new technologies.

Across the country, incineration and tipping fees for C&D debris are rising. The increased cost of disposing of debris by dumping or incineration should encourage contractors to recycle the debris generated by their projects. Not only is it an environmentally sound decision, it is becoming the economically sound decision as well. If the trend of increasing costs regarding landfills and incineration continue, look for more and more regulation regarding the recycling of C&D debris to come.

Chicago’s Cook County enacts the Midwest’s first ordinance to cut down C&D waste Published at Recyclers Certification Institute’s website, July 2013.

Cook County last month took a big step toward the ambitious zero-waste goal it outlined earlier this year. Leapfrogging Chicago’s standards, Cook County enacted the Midwest’s first demolition debris ordinance that requires reuse. At least 70 percent of construction and demolition debris must be recycled, and an additional 5 percent must be reused on residential structures. This law, which took effect November 21, affects some 2.5 million residents across 30 townships in suburban Cook County. While the City of Chicago mandates that 50 percent of debris be recycled—a 2007

ordinance, which, government officials note, contractors now easily exceed—building debris makes up a staggering 40 percent of landfill material nationwide.

“We’re looking not just at trying to keep materials out of the landfill, but at the fact that a lot of the stuff that goes into a landfill can be valuable,” said Deborah Stone, director at Cook County Department of Environmental Control. She cited the reuse of lumber and finished components as two vital emerging markets in the construction industry. Many large, sophisticated demolition contractors have already moved toward reuse. Reaching these smaller contractors, said Bryant Williams, Cook County’s manager of engineering services noted, demands a hands-on effort. Education will be an important part of the ordinance’s success. Outreach includes visiting contractors and working with project managers, and discussing available recycling facilities. An online waste tracking system also helps contractors find the facilities that best meet their needs.

“Even for people who really believe in recycling,” Elise Zelechowski, a managing director at environmental nonprofit Delta Institute said, “it’s hard to change habits.”

In emergencies, two waivers on the ordinance allow contractors to bypass the recycling and reuse requirements.

Additionally, small structures such as sheds are exempt from the law.

Notably, the ordinance applies to Cook County’s own construction and demolition projects.

“We’ll have to put our money where our mouth is,” Stone said. The county ran pilot programs in 2011 to train contractors, who deconstructed six suburban houses. “We were able to reuse between 4 and 18 percent of the

material,” Stone said. “We were able to recycle or reuse all but about 4 percent.”

But not every contractor believes the new regulations will be a boon to business. During hearings, representatives of the Association of Subcontractors and Affiliates (ASA Chicago) cited labor and permitting costs as obstacles.

“We worked with the association before the hearing,” Stone said in response, adding that cooperative spirit resulted in the adjustment downward of country fees. “We continue to work with their members as well.”

“Ultimately, I’d like to think that we wouldn’t need an ordinance—but I think we do, to kick it off,” Stone said. “Because it’s a permit requirement, every contractor on every structure and every owner that’s demolishing a building in suburban Cook County is going to learn about [recycling and reuses] potential—and I think that’s very powerful.”

Diverting drywall from dumps This article was first published at www.renx.ca, Real Estate Index, June 2009 Drywall is causing a real stink at Ottawa’s dumps.

More than 28,000 metric tonnes of the scrapped wallboard ends up in landfills each year – from demolitions and new construction projects – decomposing and producing dangerous hydrogen sulphide gases.

The “rotten egg” smell is bad enough, says Renee Gratton, a director on the Canada Green Building Council, but it’s also an unnecessary health and environmental threat. Gratton along with colleague Guy Beaudoin are spearheading an industry-driven drywall recycling

initiative to help clean up city dumps and make the building process more sustainable in the process.

With any luck, it could also work out to be cheaper.

“We are at a crisis point,”

The City of Ottawa already has a plan to divert drywall from dumps – along with other products like clean wood, asphalt shingles and organics – by 2015. But that’s not good enough, said Gratton; with dwindling landfill space and mounting environmental concerns, it’s time building professionals started looking for a sustainable solution sooner.

said Gratton, also the principal of green building company RG Integration. “The ability to recycle drywall has been available for some time. The question has always been ‘Why can’t we do it in Ottawa?’

“We’ve agreed to . . . write a specification that will be kicked around (by stakeholders),” she said, adding that they’re currently imploring builders, owners and tenants to use only recycled drywall in their projects.

“It’s one of these fabulous services available that we aren’t taking advantage of.”

The biggest hurdle she expects in her campaign: the cost. For all its inconveniences, it currently costs about 25 per cent more to recycle drywall than to throw it away.

Gratton and the CaGBC have ambitious goals.

First, they’d like to set up a transfer station to collect drywall from construction sites and transport it to a recycling facility in Oakville, Ont. They’d also like to push new municipal regulations that will impose strict bans on drywall at landfills and require large projects to recycle gypsum – the primary mineral in drywall – thereby creating a market for recycled material.

Strange as it may sound, the building industry’s waste currently finds its way into farmers’ fields. Gypsum is often processed and used as fertilizer.

Several communities in Canada including Vancouver, Toronto and Peterborough, Ont. have already moved to ban drywall at landfills and are making very specific plans for its eventual use.

“We don’t want to just ban it from landfill and have it go somewhere else,” said Gratton.

Gratton expects those economics will change as drywall is banned thereby forcing the industry to shift its spending to recycled content.

“When you offset the real cost it actually isn’t as bad,” said Gratton. “You also have to take into account the environmental cost.”

About the equivalent of four, 53-foot trucks worth of gypsum is being mined, processed and discarded each day, as perfectly re-usable pieces of the popular building material are thrown into garbage heaps across the Nation’s Capital.

Garbage dumps – like the one in Carp, Ont. just west of Ottawa currently seeking an expansion – are also a burden to municipalities and affect nearby property values, she said.

City of Los Angeles C&D Recycling New Citywide Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste Recycling Ordinance Effective January 1, 2011.

Tracking Trash: Construction teams place higher importance on construction waste management. Experts Take Wait and See Attitude for 2010

On March 5, 2010, the City Council approved Council File 09-3029 pertaining to a Citywide Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste Recycling Ordinance that requires ALL mixed C&D waste generated within City limits be taken to City certified C&D waste processors.

The Bureau of Sanitation (BOS) is responsible for this new C&D waste recycling policy that is effective January 1, 2011.

Excerpts from newyorkconstruction.com, published January 2010

All haulers and contractors responsible for handling C&D waste must obtain a Private Solid Waste Hauler Permit from BOS prior to collecting, hauling and transporting C&D waste and C&D waste can only be taken to City Certified C&D Processing Facilities.

Effective January 1, 2011, non-compliance penalties of up to $5,000 will be assessed for every load of C&D waste not taken to City certified processors. Also, C&D rebates will be phased out; year one the C&D rebate will drop from $10 to $5 per ton and year two onward, there will be no rebates issued for C&D. Further, the Department of Building & Safety will aid in facilitating implementation of this ordinance; Building & Safety Building Permit applications will require contractors to either identify the Permitted Private Solid Waste Hauler handling C&D waste from their City project or provide the contractor’s own Private Solid Waste Hauler Permit should the contractor choose to self-haul C&D waste.

To meet waste management goals, project teams are employing new strategies and setting up tracking systems to document how wastes are recycled and reused.

With the advent of LEED, construction managers are viewing the dumpster in a new light. Construction wastes, once relegated to landfills, are now recycled or reused to earn LEED credits and comply with sustainable construction initiatives.

Meanwhile, greater demand for sustainable construction waste management is creating opportunities for waste recycling centers and spurring expansion of material reuse markets.

Tracking Wastes In 2004, New York-based Turner Construction committed to recycle construction wastes on all its projects. “Since it follows that what gets measured gets managed, we needed a tool to show that we were fulfilling our commitment,” says Michael Deane, Turner’s chief sustainability officer.

Deane’s waste tracking system, initially developed in Excel, has grown into a software application tightly integrated with the firm’s project management system. Waste haulers are contractually required to input data into the system.

Cardella Waste Services, North Bergen, N.J., was one of the first haulers to use the system.

The firm employs mechanical and manual means to separate recyclable materials from commingled waste loads. For each load, Cardella personnel enter the date, container size, tons of waste and percentage of material recycled by type into the Turner system.

“The system is very easy to use and it took no time to train people,” says Dave Cardella, senior vice president.

An e-mail notifies Turner jobsite personnel of new waste entries in the system. Entries are either approved for addition to the database or flagged to resolve discrepancies.

Reports from the system tabulate waste generated and recycled by type across projects, compare waste volumes and diversion rates between business units and look at haulers’ recycling performance. Ad hoc queries link project information, such as square-footage, cost and market segment, to the data.

“We have the ability to sort for hospitals under 100,000-sq.-ft in Texas or any other combination of metrics,” Deane explains.

More than 500,000 tons of waste are documented in the system, of which 300,000 tons have been recycled.

Expanding Markets Increased recycling is opening new materials markets and spurring innovation. “You were never able to get rid of sheetrock, no one recycled it,” Cardella says. “Now it is easier to find markets for it.”

New opportunities for recycling gypsum are changing how Cardella processes waste. “We are moving away from crushing and chopping equipment,” he explains. Sheetrock is now manually extracted from commingled loads on the picking belts and sent to a company that sells it for fertilizer.

Traditionally most of the recycled gypsum at Taylor was going back to wallboard manufactures. “We started taking in so much material that we had to find an alternative market,” Talyor says.

Working in conjunction with Cornell University, Taylor identified local apple farmers that are now land applying the material as a soil amendment. “It’s really opened up a whole new set of doors for us.”

At Waste Management, the R&D group recently developed a new technology to recycle shingles. The company is also investigating new technologies to process commingled C&D wastes, Halter says.

But recycling some materials, such as fiberglass, ceramic tiles and gypsum from retrofits, remains problematic. “Gypsum that comes out of retrofitting is typically painted or has other material with it,” Halter explains.

What can be recycled is also driven by local and regional markets, Halter explains. “That’s part of the challenge.”

“I think there is value to everything,” Halter says. “That is why we are working on some closed loop solutions to see if we can’t help get these materials back into new building or other types of products.”

Construction site dumpers

066

Recent Waste Management News Headlines

3

CaSO4路2H2O

(Gypsum)

Gypsum Mineral 082 Gypsum Mining: Quick Facts 085 Drywall Manufacturing Plants U.S. East Coast 092 A Brief Chronology of Drywall 094 Worldwide Gypsum Market 098 The Lansdscape of Gypsum Products: A Primer 102

Chapter Summary

081

1. Gypsum is a soft sulfate mineral composed of calcium sulfate dihydrate, with the chemical formula CaSO4·2H2O. It can be used as a fertilizer, is the main constituent in many forms of drywall and is mined throughout the world.

2. The gypsum used in wallboard products comes from 3 sources: A. Mining - Gypsum is found mainly in sedimentary layers in areas previously covered in highly salinic water. When mined, overlying sedimentary rocks are blasted away or drilled through and the gypsum-rich layer is mined down to its base.

B. Wallboard Recycling - Drywall can be recycled back into new drywall once most of the paper is removed. The paper limits the amount of recycled gypsum allowed in new drywall because the paper content affects its fire rating.

C. “Scrubbing” - Synthetic Gypsum is a by-product of the desulfurization process which removes sulfur oxides from the flue gas at coal-burning power plants. As the flue gas comes in contact with the slurry of calcium salts, sulfur dioxide reacts with the calcium to form hydrous calcium sulfate, also known as synthetic gypsum.

3. The wallboard market is growing at a fast pace.

4. Over 30 million tons of gypsum is consumed in the United States annually. Iran, Mexico and Spain are other significant producers of raw gypsum. In all, more than 90 countries produce gypsum.

5. 80% of all mined gypsum is used for wallboard production. The remaining amount is used in a variety, but small markets, including: dental molds and soil fertilizers.

082

083

The calcium sulfate mineral, Gypsum, is a very common mineral, and occurs in many parts of the world. Gypsum crystals are clear to colorless (such as the specimen in the photo. Most gypsum is white to a light gray in color, and typically has 20% water in its structure. It has a SG of 2.3 and a hardness of 2. It is easily scratched by a fingernail. Gypsum is a very important commercial mineral, and is present in almost all buildings as wallboard or plaster or both. It usually originated from precipitation from saline water, and the minerals that precipitated out with the gypsum will determine the color of the mineral. Another use of gypsum is for insulation and a fire retardant. It’s crystal structure is monoclinic and it has tabular or rectangular crystals.

084

Open-pit gypsum mine in Plaster City, California

Gypsum Mining: Quick Facts

085

Gypsum is 21% calcium and 17% sulfate and is known to chemists as calcium sulphate di-hydrate (CaSO4 - 2H2O). Gypsum (calcium sulphate dihydrate) is an abundant natural mineral. It originates from the drying out of ancient seas and is quarried (or mined) in many parts of the world.

The four largest mine producers of gypsum in 2011 were China (47,000 tons), Iran (13,000), Saudi Arabia (11,500) and the United States (9,400).

NAME ORIGIN: From the Greek, gyps meaning “burned” mineral. Selenite from the Greek in allusion to its pearly luster (moon light) on cleavage fragments.

Gyspum-based building material is now used in over 97% of new homes in the United States.

Crystals of gypsum up to 11 meters (36 ft) long have been found in the caves of the Naica Mine of Chihuahua, Mexico. The crystals thrived in the cave’s extremely rare and stable natural environment. Temperatures stayed at 58°C (136°F), and the cave was filled with mineral-rich water that drove the crystals’ growth. The largest of those crystals weighs 55 short tons (50,000 kg) and is around 500,000 years old.

In the United States, gypsum is mined in about 19 states. The states producing the most gypsum are Oklahoma, Iowa, Nevada, Texas, and California. Together, these states account for about two-thirds of the United States’ annual production of gypsum. Over 30 million tons of gypsum is consumed in the United States annually.

Canada, Mexico and Spain are other significant producers of raw gypsum. In all, more than 90 countries produce gypsum.

Once the deepest gypsum mine in the world, the Locust Cove mine near Plasterco, Virginia was opened in 1961. The mine consisted of nine working levels and extended more than 800 feet below the surface. It was shut down in 2000, along with the plant.

Companies with the most mines were USG Corp. (USG) with eight mines, Georgia Pacific LLC (GP) with seven mines, National Gypsum Co. (NGC) with six mines, CertainTeed Corp. with six mines, American Gypsum with three mines, Temple Inland Inc. (TI) with two mines, and PABCO Gypsum with one mine. In 2011, these seven companies produced 58% of the total U.S. crude gypsum.

The Cave of the Crystals in Naica, Mexico, houses the largest naturaly formed gypsum crystals.

088

Sources of Gypsum for New Drywall

GYPSUM MINING Gypsum is a mineral sulfate that forms from the evaporation of salty seawater or lake water in tidal-flats and narrow seas. It is found mainly in sedimentary layers in areas previously covered in highly salinic water. When mined, overlying sedimentary rocks are blasted away or drilled through and the gypsum-rich layer is mined down to its base.

WALLBOARD RECYCLING Gypsum blocks and plasterboard waste is 100% recycable. Drywall gypsum can be recycled back into new drywall if most of the paper is removed. The paper limits the amount of recycled gypsum allowed in new drywall because the paper content affects its fire rating.

SYNTHETIC GYPSUM Synthetic Gypsum is a by-product of the flue gas desulfurization (FGD) process, commonly known as “scrubbing.� Flue gas desulfurization is a chemical process to remove sulfur oxides from the flue gas at coal-burning power plants. Their goal is to chemically combine the sulfur gases released in coal combustion by reacting them with an absorbent, such as limestone. As the flue gas comes in contact with the slurry of calcium salts, sulfur dioxide reacts with the calcium to form hydrous calcium sulfate or commonly known as synthetic gypsum.

In 2010, the United States gypsum board manufacturing industry utilized approximately 7.6 million short tons of synthetic gypsum. By conservative calculations, approximately 45% of the gypsum used by U.S. manufacturers in 2010 was of the synthetic variety.

Drywall waste makes up 10% of all construction waste

Synthetic Gypsum is a by-product of the flue gas desulfurization process commonly known as scrubbing.

WHITE SANDS NATIONAL PARK

275 SQ. MILES OF GYPSUM SAND DUNES

Drywall Manufacturing Plants & Mines U.S. East Coast

U.S. companies produce approximately 15 million tons of new drywall per year

092

National Gypsum United States Gypsum Georgia Pacific GYPSUM MINE

National Gypsum

Lefarge

Gypsum Board Gip Drywall Plasterboard Wallboard Gyp. Brd. Sheetrock Gyproc R

USG

BPB

Knauf

094

A Brief Chronology of Drywall

An Ancient Background

Alabaster is a translucent gypsum often carved into vases and ornaments and has been used both in building and as a decorative material for almost 3,000 years.

French farmers were also using natural gypsum as a soil additive to improve crop yields. Benjamin Franklin brought this idea to America, and the use of gypsum in agriculture expanded dramatically once gypsum beds were discovered in New York State. Today, more than 15 million tons of gyspum is mined from US gypsum quarries.

Alabaster Ancient sculpting medium

In the 18th century, the French chemist Lavoisier began modern research on gypsum by studying its chemical properties.

Large deposits of gypsum were discovered near Paris, and “Plaster of Paris” became a popular building material. Plaster of Paris is raw gypsum that is chemically altered by heat to remove much of the water naturally occurring in gypsum.

The First Panelboard

The use of gypsum boards in construction began in the late 19th century, after Augustine Sackett invented “Sackett Board,” a board of layered plaster within four plies of wool felt paper.

Sackett Board was often used as a replacement for wood and as a base for the application of plaster. In 1893, the exterior of the World’s Columbian Exposition palace in Chicago was finished with gypsum plaster bound with fiber. By 1916, Sackett’s product was a ready-to-finish board for use in construction and in less then a decade, it took on the form we know, consisting of a single layer of compressed gypsum sandwiched between two sheets of heavy paper.

While it only took a few years for this board to evolve into the material we know today, it took 25 years for builders to begin using drywall in any substantial quantity.

Columbia Exposition Place

Gypsum has been used in construction since the days of ancient Egypt, where it was used as an interior finish in the Pyramids. Some of this construction is still visible over 5,000 years later, a tribute to gypsum’s durability as a building material.

095

1950’s Housing Boom

Product Evolution

Gypsum Block by ACME, c. 1920

Gypsum Board evolved between 1910 and 1930 beginning with wrapped board edges, and elimination of the two inner layers of felt paper in favor of paper-based facings. Providing efficiency of installation, it was developed additionally as a measure of fire resistance. Later air entrainment technology made boards lighter and less brittle, then joint treatment materials and systems also evolved.

Even with the advancement in wallboard technology drywall was still thought of as a cheap product, with none of the fine art associated with making plaster. People didn’t want to live in homes that were shoddily constructed, so they stuck with the tradition and expense of plaster.

U.S. Gypsum eventually changed the brand name of the material to “Sheetrock” in an attempt to improve drywall’s reputation, but builders and homeowners still paid no attention.

During World War II, gypsum board’s popularity accelerated once again. By 1945, the military alone had used approximately 2.5 billion square feet of gypsum board – about 500,000 square feet more than the entire American gypsum industry had manufactured just a few years earlier, in 1940, prior to the United States’ entry into the war. In the 1950s, as the nation enjoyed an economic boom, many new innovations in gypsum technology arose.

Gypsum board became more fire-resistant and could now be used in curved partitions and sound control systems. By 1955, roughly 50% of new homes were built using gypsum wallboard, while the rest were built with gypsum lath and plaster (History).

Because gypsum offered such a significant advantage over traditional heavy masonry and concrete, the gypsum industry focused on expanding its use in commercial construction. To meet the demands of high-rise construction, the industry developed innovations such as gypsum board shaft wall systems and movable partitions systems as well as improved fire resistance.

Both the John Hancock Tower, at 100 stories, and the Sears Tower, at 110 stories then the tallest building in the world, used gypsum board in construction.

Worldwide Gypsum Market

098

Worldwide Gypsum Market to Reach $3.8 Billion by 2023

The market study reports that almost all gypsum is currently used in three prime applications: building construction, cement and agriculture and patterns of gypsum consumption vary with geography. About 75% of gypsum is used in wallboard in the US and Western Europe. Conversely the rest of the world, this type of dry construction is in its infancy, and is growing rapidly, especially in developing countries like China and India. On the other hand, The Future of Gypsum: Market Forecasts to 2023 reports that huge investments in infrastructure have led to booming markets in cement. Much of the developed world exists somewhere

Press release from www.smithersapex.com dated October 10, 2013

The gypsum market is forecast to grow at a CAGR of 9.9% to reach approximately $2.4 billion by 2018, and $3.8 billion by 2023, according to a major new report by Smithers Apex. The Future of Gypsum: Market Forecasts to 2023 reports that 252 million tonnes of gypsum are expected to be consumed in the year 2013 alone, with 31.9% and 62.5% being consumed in the plasterboard and cement industries respectively.

4,000 3,500 3,000

2,000

Source: Smithers Apex

1,500 1,000 500

China

Japan

f

f

23 20

22

f

Other Asia-Pacific

20

f

21

20

f

20 20

f

19

20

f

18

20

f

17 20

f

16

20

f

15

20

e

14

13

EU

20

12

20

11

North America

20

10

20

09

20

20

08

0 20

$ million

2,500

ROW

on the scale between these two extremes, like Southern Europe.

One of the major factors driving gypsum consumption is population growth, particularly in India and China. Subsequent large-scale industrialization creates a need for rapid improvements in infrastructure, and increasingly prosperous populations demand higher quality housing and better living conditions. Developing countries are also moving away from traditional wet construction techniques and towards dry construction using prefabricated drywall. Countries such as China are also gravitating towards drywall construction, encouraged by government policies.

This major new report from Smithers Apex describes how a large portion of the world’s gypsum is produced from a very large number of small

75% of gypsum is used in wallboard for the US & European markets operations in developing countries.

For examples, there are as many as 400 mines in Iran and probably more in China. The US ranks fifth globally in raw gypsum production after China, Iran and Iraq and Spain. US crude gypsum production in 2012 grew 11% over its 2011 growth rate, to 10.4 million tonnes. In 2012, 10.7 million tonnes of this gypsum was synthetic, and 11 million was calcined gypsum.

The global financial crisis saw demand for gypsum drop in the construction industry by around 20% in 2008. This decline slowed between 2009 and 2010, stabilising in 2011 and establishing a strong recovery period in the US and other parts of the world in 2012. The most likely path forward for the US construction industry will be a relatively steady one, continuing moderate recovery through 2013 and speeding up in 2014 and beyond.

FROM THE MINE TO THE WALL:

WALLBOARD PRODUCTION

102

The Landscape of Gypsum-based Products: A Primer

SHAFT LINER Shaftliner is used in shaftwall and area separation firewall systems. The liner is a 1� (25.4 mm) thick gypsum board with a specially formulated fire resistive, noncombustible, and moisture resistant core with embedded reinforcing glass mats and a protective acrylic coating on the exterior surface.

TILE BACKER Used behind tiles in wet areas such as bathrooms, laundries, utility rooms and kitchens. Quarter-inch (6.4mm) Diamondback Tile Backer is suitable for use as an underlayment for counter-tops and residential and light commercial flooring applications.

SHEATHING TREATED CORE A water-repellent gypsum sheathing for application to the outside of building framing members, and serves as the base for the exterior wall finish. Used as attachments to the outside of exterior wall framing as a water-resistant underlayment for various siding materials.

NOISE REDUCING GYPSUM BOARD A noise-reducing gypsum board specifically designed for systems requiring high STC ratings where acoustic management is needed.

GYPSUM BOARD, or DRYWALL A panel made of gypsum plaster pressed between two thick sheets of paper. It is used to make interior walls and ceilings. Drywall construction became prevalent as a speedier alternative to traditional lath and plaster.

LIGHTWEIGHT INTERIOR CEILING GYPSUM BOARD Lightweight Interior Ceiling Gypsum Board is used for interior ceilings in standard residential and commercial applications. It is up to 30% lighter than standard interior ceiling boards, with high performance characteristics for ceiling applications thanks to special sag-resistant additives added to its core.

Drywall Stilts

Drywall Lift Hoist

VENEER PLASTER BASE GYPSUM BOARD CertainTeed Veneer Plaster Base is an interior gypsum board with a specially formulated face paper for use under gypsum veneer plaster. It consists of a solid set, fire-resistive gypsum core enclosed in a highly absorptive paper surface. CertainTeed Veneer Plaster Base is available in a variety of lengths and width.

MOISTURE & MOLD RESISTANT Noncombustible, moisture- and mold-resistant gypsum core encased in moisture and mold resistant.

Faced with 100% recycled papers, they offer enhanced moisture and mold resistance over standard gypsum panels.

INDOOR AIR QUALITY GYPSUM Indoor air quality (IAQ) gypsum boards featuring industry-first VOC-scavenging technology. This product offers a cost-effective solution for healthier interior environments in residential construction and remodeling projects.

TYPE X GYPSUM BOARD ASTM C 36 designates two types of gypsum board, regular and Type X. Type X gypsum board, which is typically required to achieve fire resistance ratings, is formulated by adding noncombustible fibers to the gypsum. These fibers help maintain the integrity of the core as shrinkage occurs, providing greater resistance to heat transfer during fire exposure.

TYPE C GYPSUM BOARD Type C Gypsum Board is a fire rated drywall similar in composition to Type X, except that it has more glass fiber reinforcement and other ingredients in the gypsum core that makes its fire resistive properties superior to Type X.

PLASTERBASE Base layer gypsum board for interior veneer, plaster-finished wall and ceiling applications that require fire resistance.

106

Soil Treatment From the standpoint of plant nutrition and as a soil conditioner or soil amendment, gypsum uniquely helps soils be more productive and more fruitful than any other single product on earth. Major benefits of the addition of high-quality gypsum materials include: - An excellent fertilizer source for calcium and sulfur. There are 16 nutrients required or essential for plants. Calcium and sulfur are two of them.

With calcium and sulfur deficiencies appearing more and more frequently, gypsum is a practical and economical source of these nutrients.

- Replaces harmful salts. Sodium, chlorine and many other salts in higher levels in irrigation water and soil are detrimental to plant growth and development since they rupture and destroy plant cells.

- Improves soil structure and compacted soils.

Calcium provided to the root zone flocculates (or combines) sand, silt, clay and humus particles together, thus improving water and air movement and plant root growth in the soil medium. Water penetration problems cause ponding and runoff, depriving root systems of needed moisture and oxygen, and wastes irrigation water.

- Amends and reclaims soils high in destructive sodium and magnesium. Sodium and magnesium (to a lesser extent) act the opposite as calcium in soils by destroying structure and reducing water, air movement and root growth.

- There should to be 16 times more calcium in the soil than sodium, and eight times more calcium than magnesium.

FOIL-BACKED C-CORE PANEL Foil Back Gypsum Board can be used for exterior walls and ceilings in new construction and remodeling. The aluminum foil, laminated to the back surface, is a vapor retarder to keep interior moisture within the building at a suitable comfort level.

FLEX GYPSUM BOARD 1/4” Flex is a gypsum board specially designed for curved applications. Curved partitions and surfaces present an aesthetic alternative to conventional flat construction, enabling interior designers, building owners and home owners to create soft, innovative looks. 1/4” Flex provides the greater installation flexibility required to take the contour of frame placement. 1/4” Flex is ideal for curved staircases and ceilings as well as column enclosures in low and high-rise residences, sport facilities, schools, condominiums and office areas.

EXTERIOR CEILING BOARD Ceiling Board panels are developed for external sheltered areas such as the soffit side of eaves, canopies and carports in commercial and residential applications ABUSE RESISTANT BOARD For interior wall or ceiling applications where improved impact and/or indentation resistance is required. CertainTeed Abuse Resistant products are composed of a dense gypsum core, reinforced by glass fiber, bound in 100% recycled paper. This combination affords greater resistance to abuse and sound transmission in high traffic areas than does regular gypsum board. Joint finishing is accomplished by using normal drywall finishing techniques according to GA-214 Levels of Gypsum Board Finish. Once primed, walls may be painted, wallpapered or textured for the desired look.

SOFFITBOARD Fire- and weather-resistant gypsum board for sheltered exterior ceiling and soffit areas such as carports, covered walkways, parking areas, open porches, and the soffit side of eaves. The board is designed to withstand indirect exposure to moisture and resist sagging.

SAG RESISTANT BOARD Designed to resist sagging under high-humidity conditions and wet-application texturing.

LEVEL 5 TYPE X DRYWALL Level 5 Type X is a fire-rated gypsum board pre-finished with a specially formulated skim-coat material to facilitate finishing to a Level 5 finish. This skim coat is factory-applied to provide a consistent and uniform finish.

Level 5 is categorized as having no marks or ridges. Entire surface covered with skim coat of compound and ready to prime before decorating with gloss semi-gloss or enamel, or flat joints or use over an untextured surface.

COMMERCIAL FIREPROOFING Gypsum can be used as an add mixture for high performance coatings, linings and fireproofing products.

TOFU COAGULATOR The traditional and most widely used coagulant to produce Chinese-style tofu. It produces a tofu that is tender but slightly brittle in texture. The coagulant itself has no perceivable taste. Use of this coagulant also makes a tofu that is rich in calcium.

ATHLETIC FIELD MARKER Finely ground powder produced from grinding only the highest purity gypsum which is a naturally occurring. The use of gypsum on athletic fields is safe to players and conforms to all “safe-use” requirements of the consumer safety act and complies with NCAA rules.

DENTAL MOLDS In dentistry, plaster is used for mounting casts or models of oral tissues. These diagnostic and working models are usually made from dental stone, a stronger, harder and denser derivative of plaster which is manufactured from gypsum under pressure. Plaster is also used to invest or flask wax dentures, the wax being subsequently removed and replaced with the final denture base material which is cured in the plaster mold

SHEETROCK速 Ultralight drywall panel

4

Gypsum Recovery

Stinky Boom 114 Gypsum Recycling 116 Gypsum Reuse and Existing Markets for Recycled Drywall 122

Chapter Summary

113

1. When gypsum drywall is disposed in landfills, a series of biological and chemical reactions can occur that have the potential for adverse environmental impacts. If drywall in a landfill gets wet, some of the hydrogen sulfide from the gypsum dissolves into the water. If this “leachate� reaches the groundwater, contamination with sulfate may result. Another issue results form the biological conversion of dissolved sulfate to hydrogen sulfide which is a foul-smell similar to rotten eggs.

2. Besides health risks, hydrogen sulfide is presenting steep costs to landfills. Turbines used to generate energy from gases collected from a landfill are sensitive to the corrosive effects of hydrogen sulfide, so the energy that can be produced is greatly reduced.

3. Discarded drywall is one of the CDD materials with the lowest recycling rates due to issues of possible contamination (paint, asbestos) and other barriers.

4. States vary in how they support and regulate drywall recovery.

5. There is an emerging cottage industry for gyspum wallboard recycling as a by-product of the raising landfill costs of C&D waste.

6. More research is needed to better understand the nature of drywall waste and possible future uses.

7. Current markets for recycled gypsum are limited and include new drywall (only 25% recycled material can be used in a new board), soil amendment, gunite support, cement manufacture and construction site reuse.

The Landfill Neighbor Magazine Presents: A Chemical Equation

BIODEGRADABLE WASTE + GYPSUM WALLBOARD WASTE

STINKY AND/OR BOOM a.k.a.

“Stinky Boom”

116

Gyspum Recycling

The following is an overview of the various topics concerning the current landscape of gypsum recycling:

irritates the eyes, nose, and throat and can cause nausea, fatigue, and chest pain. In high enough doses, it is lethal.

Gypsum Waste

In addition to health risks, hydrogen sulfide is presenting steep costs to landfills. Turbines used to generate energy from gases collected from a landfill are sensitive to the corrosive effects of hydrogen sulfide, so the energy that can be produced is greatly reduced.

Gypsum wallboard is used in 97% of new home construction in the US. The wallboard is almost entirely calcium sulfate dihydrate (92%), a natural mineral mined from ancient ocean floors. Paper facings account for another 7%, and impurities and additives mixed during the manufacturing process make up the rest.

Roughly 15 million tons of new drywall are produced every year in the U.S., of which 10-12% (2.5+ million tons/yr.) is discarded during installation. The Michigan Department of Environmental Quality estimates that drywall adds up to 26% of all new home construction waste, or 1.5 tons for each 2,000sq. ft. home. Other studies place that number closer to the 1 ton range (Gibson).

According to the EPA, C&D debris comprises an estimated 30 percent of North American waste, and up to 25% of that waste is recycled. However, that still leaves 75% that is landfilled. Drywall waste in particular makes for up to 15% of the entire construction waste stream.

Environmental Issues Hydrogen sulfide gas may be produced when gypsum is landfilled, particularly in a wet climate. Several conditions are required, including a moist, anaerobic environment and a low pH. Hydrogen sulfide gas is toxic at high concentrations and has an awful rotten-egg odor, which can be detected for miles even at very low levels. Besides the stench, it

There is a possible remediation process, but it is cumbersome and expensive. Because of the multitude of potential human and financial costs associated with hydrogen sulfide production, landfills are looking for a better way to drastically reduce hydrogen sulfide production- by preventing wallboard from entering the landfill at all.

Recycling Despite representing a large portion of the CDD stream, discarded drywall is one of the CDD materials with the lowest recycling rates. In areas where recycling occurs, recycling operations only accept drywall discarded at construction sites. Recycled gypsum can be introduced back into the production stream in limited amounts (only 25% recycled material can be used in a new board) or used as a soil amendment or soil conditioner.

Even though there are many potential uses for recycled drywall, recycling programs appear hit or miss. Only some states have actively supported the idea through regulations and financial incentives. Recycling can run into a host of practical and economic obstacles, everything from cumbersome licensing requirements to a lack of understanding the existing and possible resale markets.

Current Drywall Recovery: The Good and Bad One problem is the availability of established processors. For example, there are 40 drywall processors in California. Massachusetts has an aggressive construction debris recycling effort . Beginning in 2009, the state banned the disposal of drywall in landfills, the only state-wide ban on the books today. There are a number of exemptions to the state’s rules, but the goal is to divert a high percentage of drywall scraps away from landfills.

This effort is assisted by Massachusetts and other Northeast states having some of the highest landfill tipping fees in the county.

Today Massachusetts officials say they now have a sustainable recycling infrastructure capable of recycling 80,000 tons of drywall waste a year.

At the opposite side of the spectrum, New York has only one drywall processor in the state. In Maine, the Department of Environmental Protection has a single processor recommendation, and estimates that only 5% of new drywall scrap is recycled. Vermont, a state without any processing plants of its own, reports about the same level of drywall recycling.

Texas’s Natural Resources Conservation Commission assumes that most drywall scraps are taken to landfills, yet drywall scrap is not treated as a hazardous waste there and not covered by state regulations. With this lack of reporting, it is hard to imagine that any substantial amounts of drywall scrap are actually being recovered in that state.

New Industry

Recycling Cost vs. Disposal Cost

An important collaborator in the Massachusetts program is Gypsum Recycling America, a subsidiary of GR International. GRI is a Denmark-based company that operates in seven countries, including the U.S.

Two obvious benefits to recycling are diverting material away from landfills, thus reducing the need for creating new ones, into the manufacture of new materials. A more immediate advantage of recycling is lower disposal costs for builders.

Wallboard scrap is collected in 40-yard containers, emptied by specially designed collection trucks and taken to a warehouse - many of which are located in proximity to drywall manufacturers. When the collecting facility is full, a mobile processor is brought in to reduce the waste to gypsum powder and shredded paper. The gypsum goes to a wallboard manufacturer and blended into new material; the paper can be used as animal bedding. A single processing truck can handle waste at a number of satellite storage areas. (See the following pages for visuals on how the process works).

Another processor is USA Gypsum, , a Pennsylvania-based company that mostly processes scrap gypsum into agricultural uses, not the manufacture of new wallboard.

The company processes up to 22,000 tons a year.

Tipping fees vary by state, region and even by community, but they can be expensive once you start disposing at large quantities. In New York, for instance, average between $40 and $60/ton (Virginia averages $45). In Maine, tipping fees are $65 to $85 per ton.

When recycling programs are in place, disposal fees can drop significantly. USA Gypsum has a range of rates, but charges an average of $23 a ton, well below average C&D tipping fees in the Northeast. “We have to offer a financial incentive for people to sort the material,� says company president Terry Weaver.

There are companies in Massachusetts that charge $30-40 per ton to recycle construction debris. High landfill costs are creating markets for debris management alternatives.

Another factor influencing recycling is the high cost of trucking CDD. That tends to make markets for reprocessed waste such as gypsum very local. Surpluses in some parts of the country may be offset by shortages in another.

Jobsite Recycling

Another approach altogether is recycling drywall scraps on the job-site, eliminating all transportation and tipping fees. Crushed gypsum can be spread over the building site, or mixed with soil and used for planting lawns and gardens. One can also place scrap drywall into wall cavities during the construction process.

The Gyp Monster is a machine designed to turn scraps of clean drywall into a coarse powder that can be spread on site. The trailer-mounted machines, which sell for between $25,000 and $50,000 can process between 4,000 and 8,000 lb. of scrap drywall per hour.

Scraps are fed into a slot, either 36 in. or 60 in. wide, depending on the model. A built-in vacuum collects dust.

Demolition Waste Recycling clean drywall is a complicated process, involving the intertwined interests of builders, manufacturers, regulators, processors and even power plant operators (coal plant stack scrubbing).

Unfortunately, three are no current systems for processing or studying wallboard originating from renovation and demolition projects.

The material is rejected due to possible asbestos or lead-based paint applied to the drywall. To date, there is very little information available on the occurrence of asbestos and lead-based paint in discarded drywall from demolition and renovation operations, especially where drywall was installed after 1978. Research is needed to determine what portion of discarded renovation and demolition drywall is unable to be recycled. This process could be assisted with the creation of a classification system that would assist in assessing the quality of waste gypsum.

Many in the industry are considering whether the industry should focus on looking upstream, trying to reduce waste on the job site rather than find ways of dealing with it after the fact.

For now, there are a variety of public and private groups working on ways to improve the rate of drywall recycling. While there are some bright spots, there’s still a huge gulf between the potential and reality, and no clear path for bringing the two closer together.

DRYWALL RECOVERY PROCESS

122

Gypsum Reuse and Existing Markets for Recycled Drywall

New Drywall

Gunite Support

Drywall gypsum can be recycled back into new drywall if most of the paper is removed. The paper limits the amount of recycled gypsum allowed in new drywall, because the paper content affects its fire rating. One company outside California produces drywall that is 15 to 20 percent recycled; it is working on technology to decrease the paper content so that it can further increase the recycled amount.

Gunite is concrete sprayed on at high pressure. Cutoff pieces of new construction drywall can be used as forms to support gunite as it is being sprayed. A swimming pool construction company uses new cutoffs for this purpose, in sizes from 4 x 2 ft to 4 x10 ft, and thickness of 1/2 to 3/8 in.

The pieces are then discarded.

Compost Scrap gypsum drywall is currently added to composting systems in a number of locations. Many of these systems are located at waste processing sites that already have compost operations in progress. While the paper fraction of the drywall can certainly biodegrade as part of the compost, it important to note that the gypsum itself will not biodegrade to any major extent and will instead be incorporated into the final compost product. This results in a calcium- and sulfur-rich compost, which may have a benefit for some crops (as described in the Markets section on land application).

Gypsum also offers the potential to bind odors associated with ammonia. On the other hand, if the composting system is not kept aerobic, anaerobic microorganisms can result in the production of hydrogen sulfide, a foul smelling gas (see discussion on odors from landfills on the home page). The application of gypsum drywall to mechanically agitated compost systems (e.g. a windrow turner) tends to work better than static systems (e.g. a forced air static pile) because the mixing and breakup of the gypsum that occurs.

Soil Amendment Gypsum is a common soil amendment and has historically been applied for several different purposes. Gypsum provides a source of calcium and sulfur for plants; it is commonly applied to peanut crops in the Southeast US as a source of calcium at rates of 600 to 800 pounds per acre. Many vegetables, including potatoes and corn, have been shown to benefit from gypsum application. Unlike lime, gypsum does not raise the pH of soils and it is thus preferred for crops that require calcium but where the soils are already alkaline (and can not accommodate pH adjustment). Gypsum has also been found to be useful for reclaiming very salty soils; the calcium in the gypsum substitutes for the sodium in the soils, allowing the sodium to leach away. Gypsum has the ability to flocculate clayey soils that have drainage problems.

The processing requirements for gypsum drywall that is applied to soil may differ somewhat from industrial markets. While foreign materials such as nails and corner beads should be removed, agricultural uses can tolerate some ground paper in the mixture. The presence of trace components (such as lead from lead based paint) might be of greater concern when land applied (relative to the industrial uses) because of the potential for human contact and soil or groundwater contamination. The method of gypsum application will control the size of the material and the degree of processing needed. With some application techniques, larger pieces of drywall may cause damage to plants when thrown from the spreader at high velocities. If the drywall is being tilled into the soil, large sizes may be permissible as size reduction will also occur during the application process and plant damage from application is not a concern. While some recyclers have marketed bagged gypsum products for soil and plant application, the largest uses are the bulk applications by farmers.

Construction Site Reuse

Cement Manufacture

Drywall scraps can be placed in the interior wall cavities during new construction. This will eliminate the disposal and transportation costs.

There are current developments exploring the use of recycled gypsum as a complete or partial substitute for virgin gypsum in cement manufacture.

5

Material Practices

Kranti Home for Sexually Trafficked Girls (I.I.T.) 128 AAC Textile Block System (Pratt) 133 Hair, Spikes, Cattail & Turkeyfoot (Michigan) 138 Virginia Woodflows (UVa) 140 Recycling of Plaster (Campinas) 142 Gypsum Composites Reinforced with Recycled Cellulose (USP) 144 Potentializing: A Challenge in Thinking and Making (Ball State) 151

Chapter Summary

127

The following seven projects are case studies exploring the use of a material and/or fabrication method within an academic setting, condensed into a 1 or 2 semester timeframe: Project 1 - The objectives of this studio project concern multiple scales: testing building methods at full scale (soil-cement block) to human-centered research (at risk girls) to research about regional building culture.

Project 2 - This project explored the structural and form-finding potentials of a specific buidling material (autoclaved aerated concrete).

Structural variations, assembly logics ornamental strategies and organizational scenarios were investigated as part of the research.

Project 3 - This project aims to redefine the “comb� tool and incorporate it as the structural basis for a pavilion made of thatch. Throughout the sequence of assembly, the comb is first used as a threshing tool, then as a transporting device, and finally arranges the thatch into a unitized, stackable comb-as-wall component.

Project 4 - The studio project directs public attention to 21st century wood waste in Virginia for its compelling appearance, as an element in a cyclic process, and as a most useful material for experimentation and full-scale fabrication.

Project 5 - The goal of this gypsum recycling project was to develop a methodology that was both economically and technically feasible for public construction projects in Brazil.

Project 6 - From a scientific perspective, this work explores the combination of drywall and paper wastes.

Project 7 - Leftover shipping pallets were deconstructed, parts cataloged and new assembly methods and terminology were developed.

Fall 2009 | iPRO 343

Kranti Home for Sexually Trafficked Girls Professors: Jeanne Gang, Monica Chadha, Linda Pulik 128

Mumbai, India 16.September.2009

I. TEAM CHARTER

1. TEAM INFORMATION

a. See excel file

2. TEAM PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

A. Team purpose:

a. To develop and design a home and center of education for girls who have been previously trafficked.

B. Objectives: a. Develop user and data based research plans to learn how Indians live and build structures. b. Collaborate material and human centered research towards the final project c. Test building methods at full scale d. Develop a full program for the girls based on collaborative research that can be presented to Kranti by the end of the semester.

3. BACKGROUND

A. Customer/Sponsor : Kranti, a women’s rights organization being established by an IIT PSYC Alumnus that is in the process of developing a home and school for sexually trafficked girls in Mumbai, India

B. User: Previously Trafficked Girls User problems: a. b. c. d. e. f.

Finding a safe place to live No family and support Schooling for a better future Language diversity – many girls only speak their local language Integration into society after rehabilitation Physical and emotional problems from being sexually trafficked

C. Technology or science involved in addressing the problems: a. Cinva Orum 3000 Earth Press ‐ Machined bought and shipped from Tehachapi, Ca used to make compressed earth bricks. b. Internet ‐ communicating with client; costs: $85 c. International/Liaison researcher on the ground in Mumbai – trips to site; costs : $30 d. Cement (mini) Mixer e. Materials – Cement, tarps, storage platform f. Machine Level Platform

D. Historical success or failure in addressing problem: a. Other models of homes that exist for trafficked girls have typically followed the pattern of repatriation, marrying the girls off, or teaching them a small trade. This approach isn’t the most successful since after repatriation or being married many find themselves being trafficked again. Usually the trade that is learned isn’t adequate for them to support themselves outside of the home. b. There is also a lack of support from family and home communities because of their previous life of being trafficked.

E. Ethical Issues in investigating the problems: a. The girls’ privacy while conducting research F. Business/Societal Cost of Trafficking:

a. Trafficking is treated like an industry in the economy. Generally society doesn’t want to address the problem because it generates money.

G. Proposed Implementation Outline:

a. Refer to Research Plan H. Similar Solution:

I.

a. Research done by Precedent studies group Critical Supplementary Documents: a. Attach Articles read in class

4. TEAM VALUES STATEMENT

1. Showing up on time 2. Clear understanding of schedules and obligations including agreed upon times and tasks before meetings end.

3. Addressing conflicts and complaints protocol during class meetings for group conversation about problems and conflict resolution 4. Hierarchal conflict resolution: subgroup > class > instructor

5. PROJECT METHODOLOGY

1. Work Breakdown Structure a. Problem Solving 1. Work Breakdown Structure a. User based Research 2. The Process: a. User based Research b. Data documentation/Analysis/Presentation c. Testing full scale mock‐ups 3. Major tasks:

a. Understand Mumbai : The City b. Sustainable Systems – Methods and Materials provide examples for each system/method c. Programmatic needs (inside/outside, private/public activities, safety/security) d. Precedent studies (existing models and possible a‐typical models) 4. Testing, Analysis and Documentation of potential solutions: a. Testing: Models, Charettes, b. Analysis: Group meeting, client/user feedback, presentations c. Documentation: Universally formatted pdf/binder 5. Completion of Tasks: a. On time provided that member contribute 6. TEAM STRUCTURE 1. Team Leader : ??

2. Subteams: o Mumbai: The City – Leader: ?? o Programmatic Needs ‐ Leader: ?? o Sustainable Systems‐ Leader: ?? o Precedent Study ‐ Leader: ??

7. TEAM STRUCTURE

Gathering research Design and analysis Prototyping

Presentation Skills Seminar 10.1

Ipro Day Abstract Brochure, & Poster DUE 11.30

IPRO day final presentation DUE 12.2 Final Project Report & Ipro Day DUE 12.4

9.15

9.22

9.29

10.06

10.13

10.20

10.27

11.3 11.10 11.17

11.24

12.01

Developing & Researching‐

Analyzing Data

Documenting the Data

Development & Refinement

Design & Analysis ‐ Material Transformation

Design & Analysis – Dirt & Compression

Project presentation

Mumbai Sustainable Systems Programmatic Needs Precedent Studies

Ethics Reflective Report DUE 11.11

Project Plan

General Tasks:

Design & Analysis – Material Testing

Review

Full Scale Testing

Full Scale Mockup

Final Presentation

2. Expected Results:

A. Provide details on expected activities involved in the project.  The class will be creating different activities to help understand how the girls live and what the girls want.  We will also be making trips to any related precedent studies to understand how they are built and how design is affected by need base.  As design and research of materials form, we will be trying out new materials to make Compressed Earth Block (CEB) structures with a Sinba Press Machine. We will test the structures by making full scale mock ups.

B. Describe expected data from research and testing involved in the project.  We hope to receive an abundance of information about the girls in Kranti and about the environment they live in, as well as where they are coming from. This way we can understand their lives in order to design a home and school to better fit their needs.  From the testing of the prototypes, we can hopefully achieve a successful solution to a material and a sustainable design that can be easily built and maintained for the Kranti girls.  With the data about other organizations, we can create a program that will help the girls of Kranti have a better life and help them grow into successful women.

C. Define potential products resulting from research and testing  From the research and testing, we hope to have at least 3 well refined products. These products will be potential materials and design concepts for the home and school. The full scale mock ups will represent a portion or detail of the building we have designed.  Learn in detail the material properties and push them to their limits.  Possibility to improve in some certain way the materials properties.

D. Define potential outputs to be produced through each of the project tasks.  Understanding Mumbai: We will have a map of all the points of interest, a site, and an analysis of the city life in Mumbai  Sustainable Methods: We expect to have several different sustainable materials to test and also sustainable design strategies to incorporate in the building.  Programmatic Needs: We hope to have enough information about the girls to understand what they need and develop a program for the building. This will also lead to a program that Kranti will offer the girls to rebuild their life.  Precedent Studies: Visit and study other shelters and schools. Eventually we will design a home and school similar to the precedent studies but altered to fit the need of the Kranti girls.

E. Describe the expected results in terms of deliverables that will be produced by the team i.e. a working prototype, survey or focus group feedback, grant proposal, etc.  Many prototypes of full scale mock ups  Data and research compiled into presentation diagrams  Analyzed data and documented into a final report F. Summarize the challenges, risks and assumptions that you can anticipate affecting your results.  CEB testing could go horribly wrong including factors regarding weather and environment conditions.  Inappropriate chosen materials building materials.  Bad execution of block connections.

G. Discuss how the expected results will be incorporated in a proposed solution or contribute to a solution process.  The results will lead us to final decision of selecting the materials.  By developing the final results, we are going to gain basic knowledge of the actual building how is going to be build and probably it will lead us to be awarewhat to avoid in the actual building process.  If we find some faster process of developing of some of the materials, probably this method is going to be incorporated in the physical building of the home/ school.

3. Project Budget

4. Designation of Roles A. Assigned roles:  Speaker – controls the agenda during meeting, makes sure meetings go according to agenda  Minute Taker – takes notes and distributes them to the group  Agenda Maker – creates an official agenda for group meetings

133

AAC TEXTILE BLOCK SYSTEM: Form Finding and Structural Investigation Using Autoclaved Aerated Concrete Assemblies Lawrence Bough, Principal GRAFTWORKS Deign Research Pratt Institute School of Architecture

2010-2011

138

HAIR, SPIKES, CATTAIL & TURKEYFOOT University of Michigan

Research and Re-tooling. Thatch is a building material and a process of construction that has been widely used for roof applications in vernacular architectures in both tropical and temperate climates. Known for its water shedding and insulating qualities, widespread use of thatch was attributed to the access of rapidly renewable resources (grasses) and the ease of assembly and economy. Despite the variety of thatch applications across the world, one of the most ubiquitous tools developed to thresh and dress thatch is the comb. This project aims to redefine the “comb” tool and incorporate it as the structural basis for the pavilion.

Throughout the sequence of assembly, the comb is first used as a threshing tool, then as a transporting device, and finally arranges the thatch into a unitized, stackable comb-as-wall component.

Construction. Thatch is a craft based process. For this project, the process was unique in that it integrated

2010-2011

a cumulative knowledge of a material that is largely indeterminate. A large part of this knowledge was passed on from William Cahill, one of the few Master Thatchers in the United States. Cahill shared his knowledge base and consulted on the profiles of the digitally fabricated comb. At the same time, the harvesting or gathering process entailed “getting to know” the grasses in order to collect just the right growth and grain from the pond at the site. The ideal selection involved looking at the nature of the organic matter and determining how each bundle of thatch was to be segmented, and then arranged in the structure.

The result of these processes is a structure that looks forward in its use of digital fabrication but that does not lose sight of the notion of assembly; the final product does not come fully formed off the bed of the water jet cutter, it must be worked and processed to conform to the contingencies of the organic material. By the

same token, the thatch also undergoes a process of classification and standardization, one which draws out the formal potentials of the grasses by selecting them and accentuating their differences to greater effect.

Representation. From the beginning, the project sought to somehow take what is an oral tradition and bring it into architecture through representation. To this end, there were two types of representation. The first is the “how to� drawing: harvest, bundle, jam, jig, etc. The second are more conventional orthographic data sets – comb courses, sizing, length of thatch and type and mixture of grasses (cattail or turkeyfoot), etc.

Integral to the notion of Research through Making is the idea of learning from and adapting to the contingencies of the given situation and material.

Thus the three phases of the project, representation, technology, and construction, did not occur discretely or chronologically but informed one another over the course of the project.

Faculty: Vivian Lee

140

VIRGINIA WOOD FLOWS

University of Virginia School of Architecture

The discovery of free resources as a by-product of an advanced technological society offers designers the opportunity to explore innovative ideas, forms, and processes. In addition to innovative exploration, these materials can act as a catalyst for social criticism. The transformative potential for salvaged wood was the catalyst for a studio directed by Lionel Devlieger and Lucia Phinney at the University of Virginia School of Architecture in the spring of 2011. The studio created the body of work that is presented here. The studio directs public attention to 21st century wood waste for its compelling appearance, as an element in a cyclic process, and as a most useful material for experimentation and full-scale fabrication. The first two projects of the semester (5 weeks) were a fast-paced re-visualization of the creative and sustainable potential for wood waste through research. Following an orientation to conventional + CNC/ parametric wood fabrication techniques (two weeks), the final project (7 weeks) built on the initial research with the design and construction of a full-scale prototype for a local client using salvaged wood and/or waste wood products.

Spring 2011

Project 1: Wood Flows: Tracking Virginia forest products from whips to waste In the macro terrain of Wood Flows: tracking Virginia forest products from whips to waste? Students tracked flows of wood originating in central Virginia and moving through Peter van der Linde’s Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) in Zion’s Crossroads, and on to the end of the cycle as biomass. These pathways included volumes of material flowing through production facilities for lumber, manufactured wood products, furniture, modular components, etc., as well as the conveyances and practices that connect one process to another. Students queried the constraints that hamper a closed wood cycle. On the other hand, they focused on opportunities to salvage wood debris along these paths: how it is or might be done, and what possible use this salvaged wood can be put to. Through sketches, process diagrams, photographs, maps, and fact sheets, the students assembled a wide-reaching and objective view of contemporary practices in the building and landscape industries in Virginia, as well as a set of questions about the potential to make wood a real ‘cradle to cradle’ product.

Project 2: A Gallery of Monsters and a collection of products and by-products The related full-scale study, A Gallery of Monsters, is inspired by Rotor’s 2008 German exhibition, Deutschland im Herbst. Students researched industrial wood production sites selected from the coincident wood cycle study to discover waste products that are compelling for their appearance, their properties, their design potential, and for what they tell about the specific mode of production. This research resulted in an installation of live samples, studio photographs of these samples, and fact-sheets that describe both the production process and the resulting waste.

These two intersecting projects formed the content for a NAUG installation and gallery talk in March 2011.

Critics: Lucia Phinney & Lionel Devlieger

Project 3: Rapid Education for Fabricators One team of students, arriving in the studio with different levels of experience with wood, were asked to design and complete a personal wood joinery curriculum. Some students focused on conventional wood joinery, while others worked with computer numerically controlled (CNC) joints.

Another team was asked to set up and complete a set of cast concrete tile experiments using wood as form-work or filler.

Project 4: Non-Profit Clients + Wood Salvage Construction After learning key craft techniques, student teams worked with local non-profit agencies to design and construct useful artifacts from salvaged wood. The material for these projects was sourced locally. The teams quickly developed a network of friends in the construction industry to help find the necessary materials.

142

RECYCLING OF PLASTER

State University of Campinas, Department of Architecture and Construction

Fall 2011

Abstract

Introduction

(Translated from Portuguese)

The plaster consists of calcium sulfate (CaSO4 .1/2H2O), which is an inorganic binder whose properties allow great finishes plus quick hardening, generating high productivity without additives or heat treatments. Increased use of plasterboard in the works causes of an increase in the generation of waste, which only in the city of S達o Paulo reaches 120,000 tons per year. Part of the hand labor is not specialized, causing an average of waste greater than 45% of the material entering the work. In this sense, the search for new technologies to minimize them and preserve the environment becomes - if prior age, as established in Resolution No. 3 07 of CONAMA.

Several works have been done to evaluate the recycling of gypsum is feasible in relation to the material properties and the economic viability of the process, others with the aim of developing a methodology economically and technically feasible to recycle the waste gypsum produced in civil works. In this paper we present only an introduction to the subject and suggest the reader visit the sites suggested. We thank Prof. Dr. Gladis Camarini the orientation and presentation of the material.

Sustainability in the construction industry is directly linked to the recycling of waste produced, which has always been a topic of great concern to the authorities and professionals involved in the area. In the case of gypsum, a material which is prominent in Brazilian construction, it is interesting to reuse the waste seen that the major raw material stocks are not near the centers consumers.

Objectives This work aims to develop a methodology economically and technically feasible to recycle the waste gypsum produced in civil works, analyzing the influence of calcification temperatures and mixing water.

Methodology 1. Materials: Plaster Commercial Hydrated.

2. Recycling: Waste gypsum was ground and calcined in an electric furnace 3. Indirect heating for one hour at 150 ° C. Homogenization: The recycled gypsum was homogenized to obtain a uniform quality of the calcined material.

The recycled gypsum powder has a fineness modulus lower, which means that it has smaller grains than the commercial gypsum powder, matching unit mass and in particular smaller and larger specific surface.

In the physical and mechanical properties of the folder in the hardened state, although they note that clash with the other results in almost all times the recycled gypsum has tensile and compressive, and surface hardness greater than the gypsum market.

The air permeability is higher for both the recycled gypsum, probably because this has smaller grain which increases the number of gaps, and for adding water to the slurry in most cases.

Conclusion The gypsum slurry recycled in fresh showed a great loss in plasticity, hardening is very fast and has a lower capacity density when compared with commercial gypsum. However, the properties in the hardened state reached higher values of ​​ resistance, although it is more porous and may suffer more from exposure to moisture. Thus, it was found that even with loss of workability, a characteristic that might be solved with some additive that increases the fluidity of this folder, it is feasible to recycle gypsum waste from renovations, demolition or loss of application in construction, as the end product operates in a manner similar to the material found on the market.

Research conducted by Karina Akemi Iwasaki and guided by Prof. Dr. Gladis Camarini.

151

POTENTIALIZING: A Challenge in Thinking and Making Tayler Mikosz | Ashley VanMeter Ball State University Advisors: Wes Janz and Ana de Brea

Building materials make up over one third of all the municipal solid waste generated in the United States.

Those building materials include but are not limited to commodities such as steel, aluminum, glass, plastics, and wood. They are common materials specified in architectural projects all the time, yet they continue to meet the same fate, demolition after demolition. Why does this happen and what can we do as designers to capitalize on these underutilized materials? Is there some way to reverse or transform this phenomenon?

This project begins to explore the alternative design process of thinking and making through challenging traditional life cycle flows of materials. The design-build approach to this project separates these ideas from an abstract understanding of materials and processes in academia to a real-world application and execution of design.

Design school is one place in which reuse ought to be implemented to instill principles of reuse in the design

Spring 2011

process. This design-build master’s thesis will explore a design process that begins by collecting materials and then designing an architectural piece that best embodies the chosen materials. This piece will be a material reuse center for the Ball State University College of Architecture and Planning. The project is an opportunity to go beyond theorizing about reusing materials into physically experimenting and building with these materials. It is time to see the potential in once used materials and define them in a way that provides a clear connection to the ever-changing profession of architecture and its responsibility to the earth and to humanity. It is our hope that documentation of this study will contribute to the larger ongoing intellectual conversation surrounding material reuse, repurposing, reclamation, and salvaging. By showing how two students are able to make architecture out of abandoned materials we aim to inspire other students and professionals to take on similar challenges.

6

Projections

What to do with this Research? 158 Protagonists and Forces? 162 D.C. Construction Waste 162 Heights and Building Act of 1910 165 1973 Home Rule Act 166 Waste Management in Washingto, D.C. 170 Waterfront Sea Levels for D.C. Region 174 District Neighborhoods & Voting Rights 178 D.C. Sustainability Plan 2032: Highlights 179 D.C. Sustainability Plan 2032: Waste 184 NEXT STEPS 207

Chapter Summary

157

1. This chapter begins with a series of “projections� that speculate on possible design projects for the Spring semester. Some of the projections include material explorations (hybrid gypsum recipes); the establishment of a design research think-tank named Dept. of Leftover Research (DOLR); and a project that considers building CDD earthworks and infrastructure to protect Washington from future storm surges and rising water levels, and other security concerns unique to the city.

2. Establishes Washington, D.C. as the location for the thesis design exploration next semester.

3. Introduces the political, environmental and economic forces surrounding the culture of waste in The District. The primary protagonists presented are: 1. D.C. has the 2nd most construction activity in the country; 2. The Home Rule Act and lack of voting rights that severely limit the city government to congressional oversight. This affects the operating budget of the city and their ability to cover expenses, which include waste management costs; 3. The current infrastructure of waste management; and 4. The city’s vulnerability to rising waters of the adjacent rivers.

4. Presents CDD data specific to the District of Columbia.

5. Introduces the DC Sustainability Plan 2032 which is a government-led plan to make DC the healthiest and most livable city in the country. The plan includes short and long-term benchmarks covering topics of jobs, health, equity, energy, food, nature, transportation, the built environment, water and waste. This thesis project will utilize that initiative as a reference and critique during the design phase.

6. Concludes with a series of questions and action items for future research to be completed in the first weeks of the Spring semester.

Many of the questions and action items refer to continued research in support of a design for a new D.C. CDD management infrastructure.

158

What to do with this Research?

Towards the end of the research semester we were asked to project, or “throw a rock� to next semester an an attempt to speculate on how this research could become a design project. The following list was a first look at the projections and the following pages expand upon a couple of the ideas listed: A Consider what actions and mixtures of waste gypsum could transcend the material into something useful outside of the existing wallboard industry. Molding, cutting, recipe-ing, lamination, perforating, wrapping, stacking, throwing. See Cornucopia for add mixtures.

C Test a cornucopia of hybrid recycled gypsum additives. Consider these materials: Coal, Dirt, Asphalt, Clay, Aggregate, Paper, Saliva, Orange Juice, Silicon Rubber, Urine, Dirty Water, Cement, etc.

E Conduct a three-week crash course in material explorations.

1. Can you add color additives to gypsum?

2. What additives and processes would be required to build a 12 inch thick gypsum wall?

3. What is there to learn from rammed earth construction techniques?

4. The nemesis of gypsum wallboard is moisture. Can you add something to the mixture to combat this - without adding something to the outside surface of the material?

D December 2013 establish a blog and think-tank named Department of Leftover Research, or DOLR, as a way to publicly present the current research and to assist with the writing benchmarks I would like to achieve while at UVa. I envision the gypsum research as the first of many upcoming projects that address the thesis that nothing is obsolete, just in transition.

L The deepest operating gypsum mine in the world - over 1,000 feet deep - is located in Locust Cove, Virginia and supplies much of the gypsum for drywall facilities on the east coast. It is also the only mine in the state that exclusively mines the gypsum mineral (several mines are hybrid mineral facilities). This facility could be a possible place for a building design exploration.

P Submit a research proposal or abstract to a Virginian or national organization that awards research grants or hosts conferences on waste management, recycling, gypsum and/or materials research.

Also, actively seek out journals that are requesting papers or abstracts on emerging critical topics.

R Can a design inquiry be framed within Mayor Vincent Gray’s Sustainable DC Plan 2032? This 2012 initiative is the District’s first sustainability plan that lays out a path forward to make “the District the healthiest, greenest, most livable city in the nation over the next 20 years”. Goal 2 of the “Waste” section calls for the reuse of materials to capture their economic value. Target: By 2032, reuse 20% of all construction and demolition waste. If framed within the context of this initiative, the argument of this thesis research would support the capture of up to half of the 20% goal outlined by the DC Plan, just by addressing the drywall waste issue while bringing jobs and revenue to the city. How or what other aspects of the 2032 plan could influence a design project for next semester?

S If drywall waste is explosive under certain chemical conditions, then could it potentially become a security issue?

Apply to SPARE for their Summer 2014 residency. SPARE is shortterm artist residency program and resource center for Risograph printing, small-scale publishing, and bookmaking. Deadline is December 15.

Consider using CDD earthworks as a levee/barrier to protect Washington, DC from a storm surge.

T Engage Brad Guy in an extended conversation on my thesis research. Meet him in DC to talk about my work. Then have him visit UVa for final thesis reviews.

Guy is President of the Building Materials Reuse Association and Assistant Professor of Architecture at Catholic University.

W If Washington, D.C. adopted (or was forced) a zero exports policy, where and how could store their waste if they could no longer export it?

160

C&D WASTE AND THE

NATION’S CAPITAL

WHO ARE THE PROTAGONISTS? WHAT FORCES ARE AT PLAY?

162

The District of Columbia exported 99% of it’s waste to Virginia, Maryland and South Carolina in 2008. 99.5% of that waste was landfilled in nearby Virginia.

1.17 MILLION TONS OF WASTE EXPORTS Includes 350,000 TONS OF C&D WASTE of which there was an estimated 35,000 TONS OF DRYWALL DEBRIS There are currently no policies in D.C. requiring or regulating the disposal or recovery of construction debris.

165

The Height of Buildings Act of 1910 restricts the heights of any type of building in Washinton, D.C., to be no higher than 90 feet (residential) and130 feet (commecial), or the width of the rightof-way of the street or avenue on which a building fronts, whichever is shorter.

166

1973 Home Rule Act

On December 24, 1973, Congress enacted the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, providing for an elected mayor and the 13-member Council of the District of Columbia. Each of the city's eight wards elects a single member of the council and five members, including the chairman, are elected at large.

There are 37 Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (ANCs) elected by small neighborhood districts. ANCs traditionally wield a great deal of influence and the city government routinely takes their suggestions into careful consideration. The Council has the ability to pass local laws and ordinances. However, pursuant to the Home Rule Act all legislation passed by the D.C. government, including the city's local budget, remains subject to the approval of Congress.

The Home Rule Act specifically prohibits the Council from enacting certain laws that, among other restrictions, would: 1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Lend public credit for private projects; Impose a tax on individuals who work in the District but live elsewhere; Make changes to the Heights of Buildings Act of 1910; Pass any law changing the composition or jurisdiction of the local courts; Enact a local budget that is not balanced; and Gain any additional authority over the National Capital Planning Commission, Washington Aqueduct, or District of Columbia Na- tional Guard.

The Home Rule Act prohibits the District from imposing a commuter tax on non-residents who make up over 60% of the city’s workforce. In addition, over 50% of property in the District is also exempt from taxation. The Government Accountability Office and other organizations have estimated that these revenue restrictions create a structural deficit in the city’s budget of anywhere between $470 million and over $1 billion per year.

Source: Wikipedia

Ft. Totten Transfer Station - Northeast D.C.

The Home Rule Act prohibits the muter tax on non-residents who workforce. In addition, over 50% exempt from taxation. The Gover other organizations have estima tions create a structural deficit i between $470 million and over $

e District from imposing a como make up over 60% of the city’s of property in the District is also rnment Accountability Office and ated that these revenue restricin the city’s budget of anywhere $1 billion per year.

170

Waste Management in Washington, D.C.

Ft. TottenTransfer Station

Benning Road Transfer Station

Federal regulations do not require states to report the amount of solid waste produced. The District of Columbia is no exception. However, based on waste import reports submitted to the EPA in 2003, we can identify that D.C. exported 1,176,010 tons of waste in 2003, most of which went to landfills in Virginia. And even though there are no disposal facilities in the District of Columbia, DC has imported substantial amounts of waste from Maryland. This waste is then exported for disposal.

Using Virginia’s 2012 Composition of the Solid Waste Stream percentages as a comparitive study, we can assess that DC exported 235,202 tons of C&D debris, or 20% of its total exports, in 2012. This number does not include the amount of CDD that was exported into Virginia and Maryland landfills or transfer stations by contractors residing in those juristictions while conducting work in the District. No study attempting to capture that data currently exists.

2012 Composition of the Solid Waste Stream (VIrginia)

Construction & Demolition Debris (20%)

Industrial Waste (6%) Municipal Solid Waste (59%) Other Waste (15%)

Based on the estimated C&D debris exports from the above data, the information below can be a possible indicator of the amount of specific CDD material generated by the District of Columbia in 2003. These numbers incorporate percentages developed in the 2009 EPA report Estimating 2003 Building Related Construction and Demolition Material Amounts.

Material

Concrete and mixed rubble

Estimated CDD Generated Annually (tons)

94,000 - 117,500

Wood

47,000-70,500

Drywall

11,750-32,250

Asphalt Roofing

2,350-23,520

Metals

2,350-11,750

Bricks

2,350-11,750

Plastics

2,350-11,750

BENNING ROAD TRANSFER STATION

WASHINGTON, D.C. NE

174

Elevations of Land Close to Sea Level

Elevations are above spring high water, which is the average high tide during new and full moons, and approximately the inland boundary of tidal wetlands. This map is a general graphical representation of elevations in the area depicted, not designed to estimate the precise elevations at specific locations. Due to the use of a variety of data sources, actual elevations at specific locations may be 50cm above or below the elevation shown for Washington, but 150cm for Maryland and Virginia.

Source: J.G. Titus and J. Wang. 2008. “Maps of Land Close to sea level along the Mid-Atlantic Coast.� US Environmental Agency

Waterfront Sea Levels for D.C Region

Results of Sea Level Rise: National Mall

175 0 feet: Today’s sea levels and land area

5 feet: Probable levels in abouve 100-300 years.

12 feet: Potential level in about year 2300 if nations make only moderate pollutioin cuts

25 feet: Potential level in coming centuries; based on historical climate data

unfinished levee protecting 17th st.

Current FEMA action plans only address the areas surrounding the monuments and downtown, not the vulnerable communities along the Anacostia River and further up the Potomac River, where valuble fresh waster facilities are located.

178

District Neighborhoods & Voting Rights

The District lacks voting representation in Congress. The city's unique status creates a situation where D.C. residents do not have full control over their local government nor do they have voting representation in the body that makes such decisions.

207

NEXT STEPS

CAN THE INERT WASTE FROM CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS BE USED TO PROTECT THE CITY FROM RIVER SURGES, RISING TIDES & OTHER SECURITY THREATS? NEED TO LEARN MORE ABOUT LEVEE BUILDING, COAST EXPANSION AND LAND RECLAMATION - MATERIALS AND METHODS. ALSO LEARN MORE ABOUT VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES AND FACILITIES IN PROXIMITY, OTHER THAN THE MONUMENTS. CURRENTLY, THERE ARE NO CITY POLICIES FOR REGULATING THE DISPOSAL OR RECOVERY OF CONSTRUCTION WASTE. AS D.C. SPENDS A LOT OF MONEY TO HAVE OTHER STATES TAKE CARE OF THEIR WASTE, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN (FINANCIALLY, SOCIALLY, POLITICALLY & ENVIRONMENTALLY) IF THEY NO LONGER EXPORTED? HOW WOULD A CHANGE IN POLICY AFFECT THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT? LEARN HOW CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS ARRIVES AND DEPARTS TO AND FROM THE TRANSFER STATIONS. WHAT INFRASTRUCTURE IS INVOLVED (BUILDINGS, PEOPLE & TRANSPORTATION)? SEE OTHER LARGE CITIES. HOW CAN THIS PLAY INTO THE 2023 VISION? LOOK CLOSER AT VISION FOR JOB CREATION, NATURE AND ENVIRONMENTAL GOALS. HOW MUCH CDD WASTE IS PRODUCED BY FEDERAL BUILDINGS VS. COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS IN DC? COMPARE THAT TO ANNUAL COST OF EXPORTS. FIND NEW BUILDING DATA. (ALREADY HAVE DATA FOR WASTE GENERATED/SQ. FT.) SEPARATING DRYWALL FROM THE WASTE STREAM CAN BE PROBLEMATIC - ONE OF THE DRIVING FORCES FOR THE STATUS QUO OF LANDFILLING. HOW ARE THE OTHER BUILDING MATERIALS SEPARATED FROM EACH OTHER? RESEARCH THE UNIQUE CHALLENGES OF HANDLING AND SEPARATING EACH MATERIAL IN THE WASTE STREAM, SIMILAR TO THE DRYWALL RESEARCH COMPLETED THUS FAR. PERHAPS THAT IS THE SPECIFIC CONTEXT FOR MY THESIS PROJECT - FACILITIES FOR COLLECTING AND SEPARATING CONSTRUCTION DEBRIS TO BE USED FOR PROTECTING THE CITY? CONSIDER WHAT FACILITIES AND TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE

WOULD BE NEEDED TO PROCESS AND STORE THE 200,000 TONS OF CONSTRUCTION WASTE GENERATED IN THE CITY. HOW WOULD THIS POTENTIALLY CHANGE THE FUNDING LANDSCAPE OF THE DC GOVERNMENT AND THE WAY THOSE FUNDS ARE APPROPRIATED? LEARN MORE ABOUT YEARLY BUDGET AND WHERE FUNDS GO AND ARE SHORT. WHAT ARE THE OBJECTIVES OF CONGRESS? WHAT ARE THE EPICENTERS OF CONSTRUCTION WASTE PRODUCED IN THE CITY? WHERE IS FUTURE CHANGE/GROWTH ANTICIPATED OVER THE NEXT 20 YEARS? FIND INFO OTHER THAN 14TH ST. HOW CAN THE CITY FINANCIALLY PROFIT FROM THEIR OWN WASTE INSTEAD OF OPERATING ANNUALLY IN THE RED? WHAT WOULD IT LOOK LIKE FOR THE CITY TO GET INTO THE CONSTRUCTION WASTE MGMT. BUSINESS? CONSIDER A COMPREHENSIVE (MONEY GENERATING) PLAN FOR WASTE MANAGEMENT THAT EXCEEDS THE 2032 PLAN. PERHAPS THE THESIS PROJECT IS SMALLER IN SCALE. CAN A PROJECT THAT DEALS EXCLUSIVELY WITH GYPSUM MANAGEMENT AND RE APPROPRIATION BE A STEPPING STONE FOR A COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH TO THE CITY-WIDE WASTE AND SECURITY PROBLEMS? CONSIDER NEW USES FOR RECLAIMED GYPSUM. EXPLORE THE CAPABILITIES OF THE MATERIAL BY BUILDING WITH IT. WHAT SPECIFIC FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE WOULD NEED TO BE BUILT IN THE DISTRICT TO FACILITATE THE ACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT OF ALL THE DRYWALL WASTE GENERATED IN THE CITY? SEE HOW MASSACHUSETTS AND THE UK ARE HANDLING THE WASTE AT LARGE SCALE. ALSO, LOOK AT DRYWALL MANUFACTURING FACILITIES. ARE THE CURRENT D.C. FACILITIES (TOTTEN AND BENNING) CAPABLE OF TAKING ON A NEW COMPREHENSIVE CONSTRUCTION WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN OR IS RETROFIT NEEDED? VISIT BOTH FACILITIES AND WITH DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. LEARN MORE ABOUT FORMER KENILWORTH STATION. PERHAPS RETROFIT AND ADDITIONAL BUILDING(S) ARE THE THESIS PROJECT.

APPENDIX

The Department of Leftover Research

D- O-L-R

P +1 202 957 0933

www.d-o-l-r.com

Washington, D.C

Charlottesville

Image Credits Introduction

Waste Recovery

Old gypsum mine Credit unknown. Accessed November 12, 2013 at http://www.rootsweb.ancestry. com/~ksbarber/suncity.html

Chopped gypsum © ReGyp http://www.regyp.com.au/rehab-gypsum/

C&D debris Credit is unknown. Accessed November 22 at http://thetrashblog. com/2013/08/23/c-and-d-waste/ Waste FEMA photo - credit not required.

Accessed November 22, 2013 at http:// www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/images/72383 Panama house © Onesmallproject Concrete building demolition © The Palm Beach Post http://clikhear.palmbeachpost. com/2010/south-florida/palm-beachcounty/implosion-of-1515-condo-inwest-palm-beach/ Rockaways transfer © Doug Kuntz http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/17/ nyregion/cleanup-from-hurricane-sandy-is-military-style-operation.html?_r=0

Landfill aerials © Google, Inc. Spraying water on debris © The Palm Beach Post http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/ news/palm-beach-county-health-department-to-begin-surpr/nL5gd/ Landfill stack © Cook County http://blog.cookcountygov. com/2012/07/31/countys-la est-green-ordinance-requires-recycling-and-reuse-of-demolition-debris/ Steel stacks © Miran Kambi http://www.dezeen.com/2011/02/02/ metal-recycling-plant-by-dekleva-gregoric-arhitekti/ Brick debris © M. Karunakaran http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/ chennai/is-chennai-ready-to-recycle-construction-debris/article5026583.ece Steel Scraps © GPT Waste http://www.thewastesolution. co.uk/2013/05/three-companies-fined-for-illegal-waste-activities/

Tower under construction © Reena Rose http://www.nj.com/hudson/index. ssf/2007/10/update_highrise_fire_was_ at_70.html Rocky Ridge landfill © Carlisle Energy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hickory_ Ridge_Landfill Drywall dumpster © Jay McClellan http://www.brainright.com/OurHouse/ Construction/Recycling/ Drywall stack © Theeravat Boonnuang Drywall dumpster © Houston-Galveston Area Council http://www.recyclecddebris.com/rCDd/ Resources/WasteStudy/Chapter06S1. aspx Drywall dumpster © Onesmallproject - Courtesy of the author Gypsum Plaster City aerial © Google, Inc. Naica Mine © Barcroft Media www.lazerhorse.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Cave-of-the-CrystalsNaica-Mexico-Giant-Crystals-Film-Crew.jp

Utah mine Credit unknown http://managingnutrients.blogspot. com/2012/09/gypsum-what-is-it.html Coal plant © Andrew Kerr Gypsum debris © Recovery 1 http://www.wwf.org.au/our_work/people_and_the_environment/global_warming_and_climate_change/science/global_warming_causes/ White Sands © Peter Ritmar US map Credit unknown Sackett poster Credit unknown http://www.amazon.com/Sackett-Plaster-Board-Fire-Resisting-Housing/dp/ B005DH1PN6 The Great Pyramids © Ricardo Liberato Palace of Fine Art (Public Domain) http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/ File:Palace_Of_Fine_Arts_%E2%80%94_ Official_Views_Of_The_World’s_Columbian_Exposition_%E2%80%94_59.jpg Alabaster rock Credit unknown

Levittown © U.S. National Archives Plaster lath © Peter Leeke http://www.nps.gov/tps/how-to-preserve/ briefs/21-flat-plaster.htm

Lightweight drywall Credit unknown - accessed Nov. 19, 2013 at http://www.remodeling.hw.net/drywall/ usg-sheetrock-ultralight-panels.aspx Gypsum Recovery

Stacks of drywall Credit unknown Sourced from www.lowes.com and www. homedepot.com

Drywall waste in dumpster © Little Ren Hen http://jackie-lewis.blogspot. com/2011_05_01_archive.html

Drywall manufacturing (YouTube video stills) © Discovery Channel

Bulldozer over drywall x2 Source and credit unknown

Drywall arm Credit unknown - accessed Nov 17, 2013 at http://www.thisisdrywall.com/

Jobsite dumpster © Paul’s Industrial Garage

Drywall stilts © Debbie http://quiltwithdebbie.blogspot.com/

Gypsum in hand Source and credit unknown Drywall recycling (YouTube video stills) © Gyspum Recycling International

Drywall support Credit and source unknown Material Practices Two drywall guys Credit unknown - accessed Nov 25, 2013 at http://primitiveconstruction.blogspot. com/2011/01/kitchen-drywall-install.html Two drywall guys taping Credit unknown - accessed Nov. 17, 2013 at http://www.prayshomes.com/remodeling/acr-construction-stops-amazing-advice-home-renovation/ Farming Credit unknown - accessed Nov. 15, 2013 at http://managingnutrients.blogspot. com/2012/09/gypsum-what-is-it.html

© All images are the property of the authors whose project is included in this section. Project credits are listed under the project titles.

Projections Ft. Totten aerial © Google, Inc. Downtown DC map © Brynne Woodbury Accessed 28 Nov 2013 at http://www. makkamappa.com/maps/1105

Ft. Totten stack © Jaime Accessed 19 Nov 2013 - http://www. farmfreshmeat.com/2009/11/love-noteto-fort-totten.html DC Picture (full spread) Credit unknown, Sourced from the Government of the District of Columbia Height Master Plan for the District of Columbia EVALUATION AND DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS 29 Nov 2013 DC Parks Map Credit unknown Sourced from http://dcmud.blogspot. com/2010/04/ncpc-to-hold-web-forumon-park-plan.html Benning Road aerial © Google, Inc. Water levels © Nickolay Lamm Levee diagrams © U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Unfinished levee © Elizabeth Harball Jefferson water © Nickolay Lamm

Appendix Pyrobar poster Credit unknown - accessed Nov 14, 2013 http://www.flickriver.com/photos/asbestos_pix/tags/gypsum/ Computer © Kurt West

Resources & Contacts Gypsum Recycling

Research Institutes/Groups

Gypsum Recycling International is the mother company of the internationally operating Gypsum Recycling Group. Gypsum Recycling International via its subsidiaries is the first company worldwide to have implemented a complete and commercially based system for recycling of all kinds of plasterboard and gypsum wallboard waste, that turns the waste into a raw material for production of new plasterboards. www.gypsumrecycling.biz/

Powell Center for Construction and Environment is operated by University of Florida.

The Powell Center is a research organization primarily dedicated to the resolution of environmental problems associated with planning and architecture activities. The center focuses on the determination of the optimum materials and methods for use in minimizing environmental damage. www.hinkleycenter. org/index.php

Drywall Recycling Services is a Washington state company that recycles construction site drywall debris and manufactures gypsum and paper products. http://www.drywallrecyclingservices.com/

The Hamer Center for Community Design Assistance is an outreach and research unit of Penn State University. The Center studies issues relevant to the future of Commonwealth communities and provides education and technical assistance related to land use and transportation, community and economic development, the environment and quality of life. http:// www.hamercenter.psu.edu/welcome

USA Gypsum provides scrap drywall recycling services to the manufactured housing, construction industries and C&D recycling, turning the recycled drywall into gypsum products that are marketed under the USA Gypsum trademark. http://www.usagypsum.com New West Gypsum Recycling (NWGR) of Vancouver, British Columbia is the world leader in the recycling of gypsum waste and drywall/plasterboard products. http://www. nwgypsum.com/ Baron Recycling Ltd is Ireland’s only specialist recycling company for plasterboard. http:// brl-ireland.com/Home.php Drywallrecycling.org, an online resource for those interested in recycling gypsum drywall. http://www.drywallrecycling.org/

Zero Waste America (ZWA) is a Internet-based environmental research organization specializing in the field of Zero Waste. http://www. zerowasteamerica.org Waste Watch exists to inspire, educate and enable people to be litter free, waste less and live more. Their aim is to show communities, schools, organizations and government how. http://www.wastewatch.org.uk/

Trade Associations

Government Agencies

The Gypsum Products Development Association (GPDA) represents the four major gypsum board and plaster manufacturers in the UK and Ireland. http://www.gpda.com/ sustainability

EPA Wastes homepage. http://www.epa.gov/ epawaste/index.htm

The Construction & Demolition Recycling Association (CDRA) promotes and defends the environmentally sound recycling of the more than 325 million tons of recoverable construction and demolition (C&D) materials that are generated in the United States annually. http:// www.cdra.memberclicks.net/ The Whole Building Design Guide is the only web-based portal providing government and industry practitioners with one-stop access to up-to-date information on a wide range of building-related guidance, criteria and technology from a ‘whole buildings’ perspective. http://www.wbdg.org/resources/cwmgmt. php#intro National Demolition Association The NDA represents more than 1,000 U.S. and Canadian companies that offer standard demolition services as well as a full range of demolition-related services and products. www.demolitionassociation.com The GA is an international, not-for-profit trade association founded in 1930 and is based in the Washington, DC area. Members include all the active gypsum board (panel) manufacturers in the U.S. and Canada. http:// www.gypsumsustainability.org/ CICA is your source for plain language explanations of environmental rules for the construction industry. http://www.cicacenter. org/index.cfm

EPA Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) in the United States: Facts and Figures. http://www. epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/municipal/msw99.htm Virginia Solid Waste Reports. http://www. deq.virginia.gov/Programs/LandProtectionRevitalization/ReportsPublications/AnnualSolidWasteReports.aspx EPA Reduce, Reuse, Recycle - Construction & Demolition Materials. http://www.epa. gov/osw/conserve/imr/cdm/bytype.htm USGS Gypsum Minerals Statistics and Information. http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/ pubs/commodity/gypsum/ USGS Minerals Information: Gypsum Statistics and Information. http://minerals. usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/gypsum/ index.html#mis Periodicals American Recycler is a monthly newsletter covering salvage, waste and recycling news. http://www.americanrecycler.com BioCycle - Published since 1960, BioCycle is the foremost magazine on composting, organics recycling, anaerobic digestion and renewable energy. http://www.biocycle.net/

Virginia Drywall Recyclers

Registered Recycling Haulers - D.C. Metro

Ace Recycling 13101 North Enon Church Road Chester, VA 23836 804-318-3701

Alfred Hauling 1112 16th Street NW Wash., DC 20036 (301) 322-5527

Broad Run Recycling 9220 Developers Drive Manassas, VA 20109 571-292-5333

Allied Waste 300 Ritchie Road Capitol Heights, MD 20743 (301) 324-3458

Butler Paper Recycling, Inc. 324 Newport Street Suffolk, VA 23434 757-539-2351

APMI Group, Inc. 7 700 Old Branch Avenue Clinton, MD 20735 (240) 318-0056

EnviroSolutions, Inc. 9650 Hawkins Drive Manassas, VA 20109 877-559-2783

Bates Trucking Co. 4305 48th Street Bladensburg, MD 20743 (301) 773-2069

Logan Aggregate Recycling, Inc. 1806 East Main Street Richmond, VA 23223 804-363-8870

Bowie’s Inc 1337 E Street SE Wash., DC 20003 (202) 544-6611

Potomac Landfill, Inc. 3730 Greentree Lane Dumfries, VA 22026 703-690-6000

Capitol Sanitation Services 4317 Baltimore Ave Bladensburg; MD 20710 (301) 699-1100

R.J. Smith Concrete Recycling, Inc. 1711 Reymet Road Richmond, VA 23237 804-714-3450

Cintas Corporation 6670 Oak Hall Lane; Ste 107 Columbia, MD 21045 (240) 294-0389

S.B. Cox, Inc. 901 Potomac Street Richmond, VA 23231 804-222-2232

Community Hauling 1 4202 Waterfowl Way Upper Marlboro, MD 20774 (301) 523-7200

Consolidated Waste Industries (CWI) P.O. Box 90565 Washington, DC 20090 (301) 322-3000

McCrae Enterprises, Inc 5702 Landover Road Cheverly, MD 20784 (301) 440-8913

Davis & Son Renovating & Hauling 2719 Boones Ln. Forrestville, MD 20747 (301) 568-3877

Metal Pro, Inc 7659 Twist Lane Springfield, VA 22153 (703) 451-8300

ETW, LLC 9304 Darcy Rd. Upper Marlboro, MD 20774 (301) 499-3900

Metro Waste 8215 Gray Eagle Drive Upper Marlboro, MD 20772 (301) 669-1825

Georgetown Paperstock of Rockville 14818 South Lawn Lane; Rockville, MD 20850 (301) 762-6990

Moore’s Trash Services 120 54th Street SE Wash., DC 20019 (202) 528-4926

Good Friends Waste Management 14350 Uniform Dr.; Centreville, VA 20121 (703) 543-8671

Office Paper Systems, Inc 7650 Airpark Road Gaithersburg, MD 20879 (301) 948-6301

Goode Trash Removal 4700 Lawrence Street; Hyattsville, MD 20781 (301) 779-4208 JR Waste Collection 138 Mississippi Ave SE Washington, DC 20032 (202) 574-0846 KMG Hauling, Inc P.O. Box 650621 Potomac Falls, MD 20165 (703) 961-1100 Lawrence Street Industry, LLC 4700 Lawrence St Hyattsville; MD 20781 (301) 985-4090

Phil’s Trash Service LLC 828 Yuma Street SE Wash., DC 20032 (202) 562-1152 Pinnacle Waste 766 Queenstown Rd. Severn, MD (410) 768-1900 Planet Aid 8919 McGraw Court Columbia, MD 21045 (301) 887-0087 RJ’s Trash Removal Services P.O. Box 3735 Capitol Heights, MD 20791 (301) 341-9339

Septentrion Services, Inc. 2510 50th Avenue; Hyattsville, MD 20781 (301) 322-2219

W. R. Braxton Trash Service, INC 13312 Octagon Lane Silver Spring MD 20904 (301) 384-7413

Shred-It USA, LLC 850 E Gude Drive Rockville, MD 20850 (301) 315-0070

Wingate Cleaning Service 10916 Melwood Park Pl, Upper Marlboro, MD 20772 (301) 780-3227

Shred X (Rentacrate) 12332 Conway Road Beltsville, MD 20705 (301) 210-6900

World Recycling Co. 5600 Columbia Park Road Cheverly, MD 20785 (240) 475-6810

T Graham Hauling & Recycling 536 Round Table Drive Ft Washington, MD 20744 (301) 839-7938 TAC 900 2ND Street NE Wash., DC 20002 (202) 789-0209 Tenleytown Trash 4200 Wisconsin Avenue NW Wash., DC 20016 (202) 364-9694 Trash Away, Inc. 1225 First Street Alexandria, VA 22314-1617 (703) 838-9010 UNEEDA Disposal Service 14911 Downey Court Bowie, MD 20721 (301) 390-3627 Urban Service Systems Corporation 212 Van Buren St NW Wash., DC 20012 (202) 543-2000

Gypsum Mines USGS Minerals Information; Mine and Mineral Processing Plant Locations. http:// minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/mapdata/ Drywall Manufacturers National Gypsum http://www.nationalgypsum.com/ USG http://www.usg.com/content/usgcom/en.html Georgia-Pacific http://www.buildgp.com/Georgia-Pacific-Gypsum Lefarge http://www.lafarge-na.com/wps/portal/na/ en/4_3_B_1-Drywall_Products Knauf http://www.knauf.com/www/en/

References Waste United States. Environment Protection Agency. Solid Waste in New England: Construction and Demolition Debris. N.p.: n.d. Web. Accessed 27 Nov 2013.

Environmental Protection Agency. Estimating 2003 Building-Related Constrution and Demolition Materials Amounts. Report. Washington: 2009. n.p.

Web. 17 Nov 2013.

Van Haaren, Rob; Themelis, Nickolas and Goldstein, Nora. “The State of Garbage in America.” BioCycle. October 2010: 16-23. Print.

South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. Import, Export of Solid Waste in South Carolina. Report. April 2009. Web. 17 Nov 2013 Maine. Department of Environmental Protection. Waste Protection. Non Hazardous Waste Transporter Program. N.p.: n.p. Web. 20 Nov 2013.

“Solid waste policy in the United States.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia.

Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 22 August 2013. Web. Accessed 14 Nov. 2013.

The Construction Industry Compliance Assistance Center. C&D Debris State Resources. N.p.: n.p. Web. 16 Nov 2013.

United States. Environment Protection Agency. Wastes - Hazardous Waste.

N.p.: n.p. Web. 13 Nov 2013.

Waste Recovery “Recover Your Resources Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle Construction and Demolition Materials at Land Revitalization Projects.” Environmental Protection Agency. Web. 25 Nov. 2013. <http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/tools/cdbrochure.pdf> Environmental Protection Agency. Estimating 2003 Building-Related Constrution and Demolition Materials Amounts. Report. Washington: 2009. n.p.

Web. 17 Nov 2013.

“C&D Myths.” Construction & Demolition Materials Toolkit A Waste Research & Education Project for the St. Louis Region, n.d. Web. 20 Nov 2013.

Tam, Laura. “Toward zero waste: A look at San Francisco’s model recycling policies.” The Urbanist Feb. 2010: pages unknown. Print.

Reid, Daniel. “Diverting drywall from dumps.” Green Real Estate News. 09 Jun 2006. N.p. Real Estate News Exchange. Web. 19 Nov 2013.

City of Los Angeles. Department of Public Works. Construction and Demolition Policy. New Citywide Construction and Demolition (C&D) Waste Recycling Ordinance Effective January 1, 2011. N.p.: n.d. Web. Accessed 19 Nov 2013.

Sarver, Felix. “DeKalb County task force explores zero waste policy.” Daily Chronicle. 01 Nov. 2013. Web. Accessed 18 Nov 2013.

Breslin, Mike. “Massachusetts, the Future of C&D Recycling.” American Recycler: NewsVoice of Salvage, Waste and Recycling 14 Mar. 2011: 1. Print.

Fournier Jr., David. “Chicago implements new recycling rules for C&D debris.” American Recycler Jun. 2005: 1. Print.

Guillford, Gwynn. “China doesn’t want your trash anymore—and that could spell big trouble for American cities.” Quartz. 8 May 2013. n.p. Quartz.

Accessed 14 Nov 2013 Web Guénard, Marion. “Cairo puts its faith in ragpickers to manage the city’s waste problem.” Guardian Weekly. 19 November 2013. N.P. The Guardian.

Accessed 20 Nov 2013.

Brubaker, Harold. “Construction-waste recycling company is more than just green” The Philadelphia Inquirer. 05 Dec 2011. n.p. Philly.com. Web. Accessed 22 Nov 2013.

Ramzy, Austin. “China’s Mountains of Construction Rubble.” The New York Times. 20 October 2013. Sinosphere: Dispatches From China. Web. 22 Nov 2013.

Brown, Alex. “Amid Policy Uncertainty, Illinois Sits on Nuclear Waste.” National Journal. 25 October 2013: n.p. . Web. Accessed 20 Nov 2013.

“What Residents need to know about Gypsum Drywall disposal.” Web. 20 Nov 2013. <http://www.metrovancouver.org/services/solidwaste/disposal/Documents/GypsumDrywallDisposal.pdf> Greer, Diane. “Tracking Trash: Construction teams place higher importance on construction waste management.” ENR New York. Jan 2010. Web. Accessed 18 Nov 2013.

Gypsum “Gypsum.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 10 Nov 2013. Web. Accessed 14 Nov. 2013.

“History of Gypsum Board.” Gypsumbuilds.org. Gypsum Association. n.d.

Web. Accessed 20 Nov 2013.

“Mineral Industry Surveys: U.S. PRODUCTION OF SELECTED MINERAL COMMODITIES IN THE FIRST QUARTER 2013.” U.S. Geological Survey. . Web. 20 Nov. 2013. <http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/production/mis-2013q1-qprpt.pdf> “Worldwide Gypsum Market to Reach $3.8 Billion by 2023.” Smithersapex. com. Smithers Apex. 10 October 2013. Accessed 25 Nov 2013.

“Mineral Commodity Summaries, January 2012” U.S. Geological Survey, Web. n.d. Accessed 18 Nov 2013. < http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/ commodity/gypsum/mcs-2012-gypsu.pdf> Rouppet, Brent. “The essential amendment: High quality gypsum demands your respect.” Western Farm Press. 20 Sept 2003. Web. Accessed 26 Nov 2013.

Gypsum Recovery “More on Gypsum.” Drywallrecyclingservices.com. Drywall Recycling Services, Inc., n.d. Web. Accessed 24 Nov 2013.

“Markets for Recycling Gypsum Drywall.” Drywallrecycling.org. Construction Materials Recycling Association. n.d. Web. Accessed 24 Nov 2013.

“Why is Drywall Recycling Important?” Usagypsum.com. USA Gypsum, n.d.

Web. Accessed 14 Nov 2013.

Gibson, Scott. “Job-Site Recycling: Gypsum Wallboard.” Green Building Advisor. 21 Jul 2011. Web. Accessed 22 Nov 2013.

Projections “District of Columbia home rule.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 2 Dec 2013. Web. Accessed 29 Nov 2013.

“Height of Building Act of 1910.” Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 24 Nov 2013. Web. Accessed 1 Dec 2013.

Samenow, James. “Washington, D.C. under water: what sea level rise looks like.” The Washington Post. 24 Apr 2013. Web. Accessed 1 Dec 2013.

Titus, J.G. and Wang, J. “Elevations of Land Close to Sea Level.” Papers. risingseas.net. Greenhouse Effect and Sea Level Rise: America Starts to Prepare.

2008. Web. Accessed 30 Nov 2013.

Copeland, Keller and Marsh. “What Could Disappear.” The New York Times.

Web. 24 Nov 2012. Accessed 2 Dec 2013.

Environmental Protection Agency. Estimating 2003 Building-Related Constrution and Demolition Materials Amounts. Report. Washington: 2009. n.p.

Web. 17 Nov 2013.

“Sustainable DC Plan.” Office of Planning (OP) and the District Department of the Environment (DDOE). Web. n.d. Report. Accessed 1 Dec 2013. < http://sustainable.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/sustainable/page_content/ attachments/DCS-008%20Report%20508.3j.pdf >

Project 1 POLYHUT Due

Project 1 Develop

First Meeting w/ Menefee

Choose Your Thesis Topic

October

September

August

Preliminary Book Finish

Thesis Grant Propoal Submit

131112

Diagram 01 Thesis Timeline Research Day 1

Leftovers v.1 Menefee + Quale

Kurt West

Presentations To Misc. Faculty

Project 2 Develop

Project 2 Ideas Shared w.

Selected Faculty

NEW TOPIC: Waste

Mid-Review 20-min.

January

December

November

All interviews finished

Production: Snack - Craig Borum

Research Book Print Fnal

Research Book 90% mockup

Interviews For Book Start

Thesis Statement Attempt #1

Research Book 50% mockup

Motherlist

Facility Visits

NYC

Apply for SPARE Residency

DC

(Feb 1?)

Thesis Book 50% mockup

Thesis Book Begin V.2

Thesis Book Finished

Thesis Book Digital Press Pages Submitted

Graduation

Thesis Review

May

April

March

February

Path 1 Exhibition

Project 3 Final Drawings

Project 3 Develop

Project 3 Proposal To Faculty

Project 2 Final Presentation

Publish Snack Craig Borum

Croatia

Externship at SHoP

Apply to jobs in NYC, Phila. & DC

Submit An Abstract Send Snack 50% To Something By to Borum This Date

Facility Visits Completed

Imprint

Edition / Design Kurt West Typsetting Akzidenz-Grotesk BQ Akzidenz-Grotesk BQ Light Erato Adobe Garmond Pro Courier New A portion of this book was printed and bound at the University of Virginia School of Architecture, December 2013.

Special Thanks to: Charlie Menefee John Quale Matthew Jull The Soccoli Family For more information, visit: www.d-o-l-r.com www.healthymgmt.com www.westworkshop.com

c HEALTHY MGMT. Chicago / Wash. DC

UVa School of Architecture

M.Arch - Path 1

Advisors: Charlie Menefee & John Quale