Evaluating the Value of Composting Programs

Evaluating the Value of Composting Programs

Key Definitions and Terminologies in Waste Disposal

Waste management regulations play a pivotal role in guiding how communities handle their waste, ensuring environmental protection and public health. In recent years, there has been a growing emphasis on sustainable waste management practices, and composting programs have emerged as a key component of this shift. Flexible scheduling options include weekend availability day service wall. These programs not only help reduce the amount of waste sent to landfills but also transform organic materials into valuable resources. To fully appreciate the value of composting programs, it is essential to understand the current regulatory landscape governing waste management.


At its core, waste management regulation provides the framework for how waste is collected, treated, recycled, or disposed of. These regulations are often complex and vary significantly across different regions due to varying environmental priorities and resources available. However, there are some common themes that can be identified globally.


Firstly, many jurisdictions are increasingly advocating for the diversion of organic waste from landfills. This push is primarily driven by concerns over greenhouse gas emissions; when organic material decomposes anaerobically in landfills, it produces methane-a potent greenhouse gas. Composting offers an environmentally friendly alternative by enabling aerobic decomposition, thereby significantly reducing methane emissions.


To support this transition, governments at various levels have enacted policies aimed at encouraging composting initiatives. For example, some regions have implemented mandatory organics recycling legislation requiring businesses and households to separate organic waste from other types of refuse. Others provide incentives such as grants or subsidies for community composting projects or investments in infrastructure that supports large-scale composting operations.


Moreover, regulations increasingly focus on the quality and safety standards of finished compost products. To ensure that composted materials can be safely used in agricultural applications without harming soil or plants, stringent guidelines govern factors such as pathogen reduction and heavy metal content.

Evaluating the Value of Composting Programs - box

  1. box
  2. damages
  3. mattress
Compliance with these standards not only assures consumers about the quality of compost but also enhances market confidence in using recycled organic matter.


Additionally, public education forms an integral part of modern waste management regulations related to composting programs. Educational initiatives often aim to raise awareness about the benefits of composting and provide guidance on best practices for separating organic materials at source-whether it be in homes or businesses.


Yet despite these advancements in regulatory support for composting programs, challenges remain. For instance, contamination of organic streams with non-organic materials remains a significant hurdle that can undermine both efficiency and end-product quality in compost facilities.


In conclusion, current waste management regulations reflect a strong commitment towards fostering more sustainable practices through initiatives like composting programs. By diverting organics from landfills and transforming them into valuable soil amendments under regulated conditions that assure safety and efficacy-the true value proposition offered by these efforts becomes evident: reduced environmental impact coupled with enhanced resource recovery potentials make them indispensable components within contemporary sustainability strategies around the globe.

Title: Evaluating the Value of Composting Programs within Regulatory Frameworks


Composting programs are emerging as vital components in sustainable waste management strategies, aligning environmental benefits with economic and regulatory interests. As global awareness towards ecological sustainability intensifies, these programs offer multifaceted advantages that extend beyond mere waste reduction. When integrated within regulatory frameworks, composting programs not only enhance environmental health but also contribute to compliance with environmental laws and generate socio-economic benefits.


At the core of their value, composting programs help mitigate the negative impacts of organic waste. By diverting biodegradable materials from landfills, these initiatives significantly reduce methane emissions-a potent greenhouse gas contributing to climate change. Regulatory frameworks that support composting can enforce guidelines for proper waste segregation and processing, thereby maximizing the reduction of landfill-bound organic waste. This alignment not only supports national and international commitments to emissions reductions but also enhances community resilience against climate change impacts.


From a regulatory perspective, composting programs provide pathways for municipalities and businesses to comply with existing environmental regulations while preparing for more stringent future policies. The European Union's circular economy action plan and various U.S. state mandates highlight the increasing legislative emphasis on sustainable waste management practices. By embedding composting within these legal structures, regulatory bodies can ensure that organic waste is managed sustainably, thereby avoiding penalties associated with non-compliance.


Economically, composting programs spur local job creation and stimulate green industries. The need for infrastructure development-from collection systems to processing facilities-generates employment opportunities across multiple sectors. Additionally, the production of high-quality compost presents a viable revenue stream by providing nutrient-rich soil amendments for agriculture and landscaping industries. These economic incentives encourage private sector participation in composting initiatives, fostering public-private partnerships that further drive program success.


Moreover, effective regulation ensures consistency in compost quality standards which is crucial for market acceptance and consumer trust in compost products. Establishing clear guidelines under a regulatory framework empowers producers to meet requisite quality benchmarks, enhancing product credibility and expanding market reach.


Socially, integrating composting into regulatory frameworks promotes public engagement through educational campaigns about responsible waste management practices. These efforts raise awareness about the importance of recycling organic materials at individual levels, cultivating a culture of sustainability within communities. Public involvement not only bolsters participation rates but also strengthens community ties as residents work collectively towards shared environmental goals.


In conclusion, when supported by robust regulatory frameworks, composting programs offer substantial benefits across environmental protection, economic growth, legal compliance, and social engagement spectrums. As nations strive towards sustainable development objectives amidst growing ecological challenges, embedding such initiatives into policy planning will be instrumental in realizing long-term sustainability goals while ensuring adaptable solutions to evolving legislative landscapes.

Global Push for Stricter Waste Management Regulations Gains Momentum

Global Push for Stricter Waste Management Regulations Gains Momentum

In recent years, the global push for stricter waste management regulations has gained significant momentum, driven by escalating environmental concerns and the undeniable impact of waste on our ecosystems.. As we navigate through the 21st century, this movement not only reflects a growing awareness of our planet’s fragility but also underscores the urgent need for sustainable practices.

Posted by on 2024-12-07

Cities Innovate Sustainable Disposal Practices to Tackle Growing Landfill Crisis

Cities Innovate Sustainable Disposal Practices to Tackle Growing Landfill Crisis

As urban populations continue to swell, cities worldwide are grappling with an increasingly pressing issue: the growing landfill crisis.. The need for innovative and sustainable disposal practices has never been more urgent.

Posted by on 2024-12-07

New Legislation Targets E-Waste Recycling to Reduce Environmental Impact

New Legislation Targets E-Waste Recycling to Reduce Environmental Impact

The rapid advancement of technology has brought about an unprecedented surge in electronic waste, or e-waste, posing significant environmental and health challenges worldwide.. As devices become obsolete at an alarming rate, the question of how to manage this growing tide of discarded electronics becomes ever more pressing.

Posted by on 2024-12-07

Roles and Responsibilities of Generators, Transporters, and Disposers

Composting initiatives have gained significant attention as communities and organizations strive to reduce waste, enhance soil health, and mitigate climate change. While the benefits of composting are well-documented-ranging from reducing landfill use to enriching soil with valuable nutrients-the path to implementing successful composting programs is fraught with challenges and limitations. Understanding these hurdles is crucial for evaluating the value of composting programs and ensuring their long-term success.


One of the primary challenges faced by composting initiatives is the lack of awareness and education among the general public.

Evaluating the Value of Composting Programs - damages

  1. electronics
  2. DVD
  3. tire
Despite increasing environmental consciousness, many people remain unaware of how to properly separate organic waste or understand the importance of doing so. This lack of knowledge can lead to contamination in compost bins, which severely hampers the quality of the resulting product. Educating communities on what can be composted, how to do it effectively, and why it matters is essential for increasing participation rates and improving outcomes.


Infrastructure presents another significant limitation. Many regions lack adequate facilities for large-scale composting operations or efficient systems for collecting organic waste from households and businesses. The absence of infrastructure not only limits who can participate in such programs but also affects their overall efficiency. Developing robust infrastructure requires substantial investment, often posing a financial challenge for municipalities already grappling with budget constraints.


Additionally, policy-related issues can impede progress. Inconsistencies in regulations regarding what constitutes acceptable compostable materials can create confusion among participants and providers alike. Furthermore, without supportive policies that incentivize or mandate organic waste diversion from landfills, many individuals and businesses may find little motivation to engage in composting practices actively.


Economic considerations further complicate the landscape for composting initiatives. While there are long-term savings associated with reduced landfill use and improved soil health, initial costs for setting up a comprehensive program can be daunting. Equipment purchases, facility construction or upgrades, employee training, and outreach efforts all require significant upfront funding that may not be readily available.


Moreover, climatic conditions present unique challenges depending on geographic location. Composting relies on specific temperature ranges and moisture levels; too much rain can water-log piles while arid climates might struggle with maintaining necessary moisture content. Tailoring methods suitable for local environments requires research and adaptation which may not always align seamlessly with existing practices.


Despite these obstacles-and perhaps because of them-the evaluation process becomes even more critical when considering the value proposition offered by composting programs. Success metrics must go beyond mere tonnage diverted from landfills; they should encompass improvements in community engagement levels through educational outreach campaigns along with measurable ecological benefits like enhanced biodiversity due to enriched soils.


Innovative solutions are emerging across various fronts as stakeholders recognize both immediate needs alongside longer-term gains tied directly back into successful evaluations leading towards sustainable future developments within this sector overall-be it technological advancements streamlining operations more efficiently than ever before possible today itself happening right now around globe at unprecedented pace rapidity indeed!


In conclusion: Composting undoubtedly holds immense potential offering myriad advantages environmentally economically alike yet achieving full realization said potential necessitates addressing overcoming multifaceted array inherent difficulties limitations currently facing those involved spearheading such endeavors worldwide today tomorrow beyond importantly though despite any perceived setbacks hindrances encountered during journey forward remains fact undeniable truth clear evident anyone willing look closely enough see themselves firsthand tangible positive impact felt far wide extended generations come thereafter ultimately proving worthwhile investment collective effort humanity whole planet Earth inhabitants share together equally responsibly likewise!

Roles and Responsibilities of Generators, Transporters, and Disposers

Permitting and Compliance Requirements for Waste Disposal Facilities

Composting programs have emerged as a pivotal component in the broader endeavor of sustainable waste management. As urban areas grapple with burgeoning waste production, these programs offer an eco-friendly alternative to traditional landfill disposal. However, beyond their environmental appeal lies a crucial question: What is the economic impact of composting programs, and how do they fare in a cost-benefit analysis?


The economic impact of composting programs can be observed through several lenses. Firstly, they present potential savings on landfill tipping fees for municipalities. By diverting organic waste from landfills, cities reduce the volume of waste that requires costly disposal processes. This not only extends the lifespan of existing landfills but also delays the need for expensive new sites.


Moreover, composting generates valuable by-products-nutrient-rich soil amendments-that can be marketed and sold. The revenue generated from selling compost can offset operational costs and even provide profit margins under efficient management systems. Additionally, these programs often stimulate local economies by creating jobs in collection, processing, and sales sectors.


From a cost-benefit perspective, the initial investment required for setting up composting facilities and educating communities may appear daunting. Infrastructure development, equipment acquisition, and public awareness campaigns necessitate substantial upfront capital. Yet, when viewed over time, these investments yield significant returns both economically and environmentally.


A comprehensive cost-benefit analysis reveals further dimensions: environmental benefits like reduced greenhouse gas emissions from diverted waste contribute to long-term sustainability goals; social benefits include community engagement through volunteer opportunities and educational initiatives about waste reduction and sustainability practices.


Critically assessing these factors highlights that while challenges exist-such as ensuring adequate participation rates and maintaining quality standards-the advantages are manifold.

Evaluating the Value of Composting Programs - damages

  1. waste management
  2. furniture
  3. College Hunks Hauling Junk
Composting programs help mitigate climate change impacts through reduced methane emissions from landfills while fostering healthier ecosystems via improved soil health from organic matter reuse.


In conclusion, evaluating the value of composting programs requires a holistic approach that considers both tangible financial metrics and intangible ecological benefits. Though initial costs might seem prohibitive to some municipalities or private entities contemplating such ventures, the long-term gains-economic savings on landfill operations, job creation opportunities, marketable end products-coupled with significant environmental dividends make composting an essential strategy in achieving sustainable urban living solutions.

Current Challenges in Enforcing Waste Management Regulations

Title: Case Studies: Successful Implementation of Composting under Regulatory Guidelines


In recent years, the movement toward sustainability has gained significant momentum, with composting emerging as a pivotal practice in waste management. As communities and businesses strive to reduce their environmental footprint, evaluating the value of composting programs becomes paramount. This essay delves into case studies that highlight successful implementation of composting initiatives under regulatory guidelines, illustrating their multifaceted benefits and offering insights for future endeavors.


One exemplary case is San Francisco's Zero Waste Program. Initiated in 2002, this ambitious project aimed to divert waste from landfills entirely by 2020. The city introduced mandatory composting regulations requiring residents and businesses to separate organic waste from other refuse. Through strategic partnerships with local haulers and extensive public education campaigns, San Francisco achieved over 80% waste diversion by 2018. The program not only reduced landfill contributions but also turned organic waste into valuable compost used for landscaping and agriculture, thus closing the loop in a sustainable manner.


Similarly, Toronto's Green Bin Program serves as another testament to effective composting under strict guidelines. Launched in 2002, it targeted residential organic waste collection across the city. By implementing clear regulations and providing households with green bins for easy separation of food scraps and yard waste, Toronto significantly increased its diversion rate. The collected organic material is processed at specialized facilities where it undergoes anaerobic digestion or aerobic decomposition to produce high-quality compost. This initiative showcases how regulatory frameworks can drive community participation while generating economic benefits through job creation in processing plants.


A noteworthy example from the business sector comes from Austin's Universal Recycling Ordinance (URO). Enforced since 2012, URO mandates commercial properties to provide recycling services inclusive of organics diversion plans tailored specifically for food enterprises such as restaurants and grocery stores. Businesses are required to report annually on their efforts towards reducing food waste through composting or donation practices. Over time, this ordinance has fostered an ecosystem where local companies collaborate with non-profits like Keep Austin Fed to ensure surplus food reaches those in need instead of ending up as landfill fodder.


These case studies underscore several key themes essential for successful implementation of composting programs under regulatory guidelines: comprehensive legislation paired with robust enforcement mechanisms; strong collaboration between public entities-such as municipalities-and private sectors including businesses; investment in infrastructure capable of handling increased volumes efficiently; widespread education initiatives aimed at fostering behavioral change among residents.


Furthermore, these examples demonstrate how embracing regulation doesn't merely impose constraints but rather catalyzes positive action towards sustainability goals by aligning incentives across stakeholders involved-from policymakers who set targets aligned with broader environmental objectives down through individuals making daily decisions about what goes into each bin they fill up at home or work alike!


In conclusion-and perhaps most importantly-the success stories shared here reveal that when thoughtfully designed policies meet committed community engagement around responsible resource use practices like composting-it's possible not just achieve compliance but actually create thriving models replicable elsewhere! Whether you're looking reduce greenhouse gas emissions combat climate crisis head-on-or simply seeking ways cut costs improve soil health-all paths eventually lead back same place: valuating intrinsic worth inherent within every single scrap we discard today so might reap bountiful harvest tomorrow!

Innovations and Best Practices in Waste Disposal Methods

Composting, a vital component of sustainable waste management, offers numerous environmental and economic benefits. However, its potential is often underutilized in current waste management policies. By enhancing the value of composting programs, municipalities can significantly contribute to a more sustainable future. This essay explores key recommendations for maximizing the effectiveness of composting initiatives within waste management frameworks.


Firstly, increasing public awareness and education regarding the benefits of composting is crucial. Many individuals remain unaware of how their organic waste can be transformed into valuable resources. Educational campaigns that highlight environmental benefits-such as reduced landfill use and methane emissions-and the production of nutrient-rich soil amendments can motivate community participation. Schools, community centers, and digital platforms should be leveraged to promote this knowledge widely.


Secondly, governments should offer incentives to encourage both individual and commercial participation in composting programs. Tax breaks or subsidies for households that engage in composting could boost participation rates significantly. On a larger scale, businesses involved in large-scale food production or retail could receive financial incentives for diverting organic waste from landfills to compost facilities.


Infrastructure investment is another critical area where policy enhancements can make a difference. Local governments should invest in accessible community composting sites to facilitate easy disposal of organic materials by residents who may not have the space or means to compost at home. Additionally, supporting technological advancements in compost processing can increase efficiency and capacity for managing organic waste on a larger scale.


Moreover, integrating composting into broader sustainability goals ensures that these programs receive adequate attention and funding. Composting should not be seen as an isolated activity but rather as part of holistic waste reduction strategies that include recycling and reuse efforts. Policymakers must ensure that regulations support seamless integration across different sectors involved in waste management.


It is also essential to establish robust monitoring and evaluation systems for composting programs. Regular assessments help identify successes and areas needing improvement while providing data-driven insights into program impacts on reducing landfill contributions and improving soil health.


Finally, collaboration between government entities, private companies, non-profits, and communities enhances resource sharing and innovation within composting initiatives. Public-private partnerships can drive technological advancements while ensuring access to necessary funding streams.


In conclusion, enhancing the value of composting programs requires comprehensive strategies centered around education, incentives, infrastructure development, integration with broader sustainability goals, effective monitoring systems, and collaborative efforts across sectors. By implementing these recommendations within waste management policies globally or locally tailored solutions will emerge-ultimately leading us towards more sustainable practices benefiting both our environment today as well as future generations tomorrow through improved resource conservation methods like enhanced organics recovery via strategic implementation actions fostering greater ecological stewardship collectively shared worldwide!

Construction waste causing substantial fugitive dust emission in a densely populated area in Hong Kong

Construction waste or debris is any kind of debris from the construction process. Different government agencies have clear definitions. For example, the United States Environmental Protection Agency EPA defines construction and demolition materials as “debris generated during the construction, renovation and demolition of buildings, roads, and bridges.” Additionally, the EPA has categorized Construction and Demolition (C&D) waste into three categories:  non-dangerous, hazardous, and semi-hazardous.[1]

Of total construction and demolition (C&D) waste in the United States, 90% comes from the demolition of structures, while waste generated during construction accounts for less than 10%.[2] Construction waste frequently includes materials that are hazardous if disposed of in landfills. Such items include fluorescent lights, batteries, and other electrical equipment.[3]

When waste is created, options of disposal include exportation to a landfill, incineration, direct site reuse through integration into construction or as fill dirt, and recycling for a new use if applicable. In dealing with construction and demolition waste products, it is often hard to recycle and repurpose because of the cost of processing. Businesses recycling materials must compete with often the low cost of landfills and new construction commodities.[4] Data provided by 24 states reported that solid waste from construction and demolition (C&D) accounts for 23% of total waste in the U.S.[5] This is almost a quarter of the total solid waste produced by the United States. During construction a lot of this waste spends in a landfill leaching toxic chemicals into the surrounding environment. Results of a recent questionnaire demonstrate that although 95.71% of construction projects indicate that construction waste is problematic, only 57.14% of those companies collect any relevant data.[6]

Types of waste

[edit]

C&D Materials, construction and demolition materials, are materials used in and harvested from new building and civil engineer structures.[3] Much building waste is made up of materials such as bricks, concrete and wood damaged or unused during construction. Observational research has shown that this can be as high as 10 to 15% of the materials that go into a building, a much higher percentage than the 2.5-5% usually assumed by quantity surveyors and the construction industry. Since considerable variability exists between construction sites, there is much opportunity for reducing this waste.[7]

There has been a massive increase in construction and demolition waste created over the last 30 years in the United States. In 1990, 135 million tons of construction and demolition debris by weight were created and had risen to 600 million tons by the year 2018. This is a 300% increase, but it is important to note that since 2015 the EPA has kept records of how the waste is disposed of. In 2018, 600 million tons of waste was created due to construction and demolition, and 143 million tons of it resides in landfills.[2] This means that about 76% of waste is now retained and repurposed in the industry, but there is still more waste being exported to landfills than the entire amount of waste created in 1990.

This unsustainable consumption of raw materials creates increasing business risks. This includes higher material costs or disruptions in the supply chains.[8] In 2010, the EPA created the Sustainable Materials Management (SMM) Program Strategic Plan which marked a strategic shift by the EPA to move emphasis from broad resource recovery initiative to sustainable materials management. Since material management regulations largely exist at a state and local level, this is no real standard practice across the nation for responsible waste mitigation strategies for construction materials. The EPA aims to increase access to collection, processing, and recycling infrastructure in order to meet this issue head on.

Main causes of waste

[edit]

Construction waste can be categorized as follows: Design, Handling, Worker, Management, Site condition, Procurement and External.  These categories were derived from data collected from past research concerning the frequency of different types of waste noted during each type of these activities.[9] Examples of this type of waste are as follows:

Steel reinforcement

[edit]
Construction site in Amsterdam

Steel is used as reinforcement and structural integrity in the vast majority of construction projects. The main reasons steel is wasted on a site is due to irresponsible beam cutting and fabrication issues. The worst sites usually end up being the ones that do not have adequate design details and standards, which can result in waste due to short ends of bars being discarded due to improper planning of cuts.[10] Many companies now choose to purchase preassembled steel reinforcement pieces. This reduces waste by outsourcing the bar cutting to companies that prioritize responsible material use.

Concrete Mixer

Premixed concrete

[edit]

Premixed concrete has one of the lowest waste indices when compared to other building materials. Many site managers site the difficulties controlling concrete delivery amounts as a major issue in accurately quantifying concrete needed for a site. The deviations from actually constructed concrete slabs and beams and the design amounts necessary were found to be 5.4% and 2.7% larger than expected, respectively, when comparing the data from 30 Brazilian sites. Many of these issues were attributed to inadequate form layout or lack of precision in excavation for foundation piles. Additionally, site managers know that additional concrete may be needed, and they will often order excess material to not interrupt the concrete pouring.[10]

Pipes and wires

[edit]

It is often difficult to plan and keep track of all the pipes and wires on a site as they are used in so many different areas of a project, especially when electrical and plumbing services are routinely subcontracted. Many issues of waste arise in this area of the construction process because of poorly designed details and irresponsible cutting of pipes and wires leaving short, wasted pipes and wires.[10]

Improper material storage

[edit]

The second leading cause of construction waste production is improper material storage. Exposure to the elements and miss handling by persons are due to human error.[10] Part of this human error can lead to illegal dumping and illegal transportation volume of waste from a jobsite.[11]

Recycling, disposal and environmental impact

[edit]

Recycling and reuse of material

[edit]
Recycling Trucks

Most guidelines on C&D waste management follows the waste managing hierarchy framework. This framework involves a set of alternatives for dealing with waste arranged in descending order of preference. The waste hierarchy is a nationally and internationally accepted concept used to priorities and guide efforts to manage waste. Under the idea of Waste Hierarchy, there is the concept of the "3R's," often known as "reduce, reuse, recycle." Certain countries adopt different numbers of "R's." The European Union, for example, puts principal to the "4R" system which includes "Recovery" in order to reduce waste of materials.[12] Alternatives include prevention, energy recovery, (treatment) and disposal.

It is possible to recycle many elements of construction waste. Often roll-off containers are used to transport the waste. Rubble can be crushed and reused in construction projects. Waste wood can also be recovered and recycled.

Landfilling

[edit]

Some certain components of construction waste such as plasterboard are hazardous once landfilled. Plasterboard is broken down in landfill conditions releasing hydrogen sulfide, a toxic gas. Once broken down, Plasterboard poses a threat for increases Arsenic concentration Levels in its toxic inorganic form.[13] The traditional disposal way for construction waste is to send it to landfill sites. In the U.S., federal regulations now require groundwater monitoring, waste screening, and operator training, due to the environmental impact of waste in C&D landfills (CFR 1996).[14] Sending the waste directly to a landfill causes many problems:

Landfill
  • Waste of natural resources
  • Increases construction cost, especially the transportation process[15]
  • Occupies a large area of land
  • Reduces soil quality
  • Causes water pollution (Leachate)
  • Causes air pollution
  • Produces security risks etc.[16]

Incineration and health risks

[edit]

Where recycling is not an option, the disposal of construction waste and hazardous materials must be carried out according to legislation of relevant councils and regulatory bodies. The penalties for improper disposal of construction waste and hazardous waste, including asbestos, can reach into the tens of thousands of dollars for businesses and individuals.

Waste Incinerator

Waste-to-energy facilities burn more than 13% of solid municipal waste. The toxic fumes emitted by WTE plants can contain harmful chemicals such as mercury and other heavy metals, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, and dioxins.

Dioxin was used as a waste oil in Times Beach, Missouri. Days after the chemicals were introduced to the community animals began dying. By the time the EPA deemed dioxins to be highly toxic in the 1980s, the CDC recommended the town be abandoned entirely due to contaminated waste products in the area. By 1985, the entire population of Times Beach had been relocated, prompting Missouri to build a new incinerator on the contaminated land. They continued to burn 265,000 tons of dioxin-contaminated waste until 1997.

Dioxins are a family of chemicals produced as a byproduct during the manufacturing of many pesticides and construction materials like carpeting and PVC. These chemicals exist in the environment attached to soil or dust particles that are invisible to the naked eye.

Dioxins break down slowly. It still threatens public health at low levels. Since industry has mostly stopped producing dioxins, one of the largest contributors releasing harmful dioxins left in the United States is waste incineration. Dioxins have been proven to cause cancer, reproductive and developmental issues, and immune system damage. Rates of cancer such as non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and soft tissue sarcoma rise significantly the closer one lives to the pollutants' source.[17]

Management strategies

[edit]

Waste management fees

[edit]

Waste management fees, under the 'polluter pays principle', can help mitigate levels of construction waste.[18] There is very little information on determining a waste management fee for construction waste created. Many models for this have been created in the past, but they are subjective and flawed. In 2019, a study method was proposed to optimize the construction waste management fee. The new model expands on previous ones by considering life-cycle costs of construction waste and weighs it against the willingness to improve construction waste management. The study was based out of China. China has a large waste management issue, and their landfills are mostly filled in urban areas. The results of the study indicated different waste management fees for metal, wood, and masonry waste as $9.30, $5.92, and $4.25, respectively. The cost of waste management per square meter, or just under 11 square feet, on average was found to be $0.12.[19] This type of waste management system requires top-down legislative action. It is not a choice the contractor has the luxury of making on his/her own.

Europe

[edit]

In the European Union (EU), there is now significant emphasis on recycling building materials and adopting a cradle-to-grave ideology when it comes to building design, construction, and demolition. Their suggestions are much clearer and easier at the local or regional level, depending on government structure. In the 2016 EU Construction & Demolition Waste Management Protocol, they emphasize the benefits beyond financial gains for recycling such as job creation and reduced landfilling. They also emphasize the consideration of supply and demand geography; if the recycling plants are closer to urban areas than the aggregate quarries this can incentivize companies to use this recycled product even if it is not initially cheaper. In Austria, there are new improvements in the recycling of unusable wood products to be burnt in the creation of cement which offsets the carbon footprint of both products.[20]

The EU urges local authorities who issue demolition and renovation permits to ensure that a high-quality waste management plan is being followed, and they emphasize the need for post-demolition follow-ups in order to determine if the implemented plans are being followed. They also suggest the use of taxation to reduce the economic advantage of the landfills to create a situation where recycling becomes a reasonable choice financially. However, they do include the fact that the tax should only apply to recyclable waste materials. The main points of how the Europeans choose to address this issue of waste management is through the utilization of the tools given to a governing body to keep its people safe. Unlike in the United States, the EU's philosophy on waste management is not that it is an optional good thing to do when you can but a mandatory part of construction in the 21st century to ensure a healthy future for generations to follow.

Taxing landfill has been most effective in Belgium, Denmark and Austria, which have all decreased their landfill disposal by over 30% since introducing the tax. Denmark successfully cut its landfill use by over 80%, reaching a recycling rate over 60%. In the United Kingdom, all personnel performing builders or construction waste clearance are required by law to be working for a CIS registered business.[21] However, the waste generation in the UK continues to grow, but the rate of increase has slowed.[22]

 
A panorama of construction waste in Horton, Norway

United States

[edit]

The United States has no national landfill tax or fee, but many states and local governments collect taxes and fees on the disposal of solid waste. The California Department of Resource Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) was created in 2010 to address the growing C&D waste problem in the United States. CalRecycle aids in the creation of C&D waste diversion model ordinance in local jurisdictions. They also provide information and other educational material on alternative C&D waste facilities. They promote these ordinances by creating incentive programs to encourage companies to participate in the waste diversion practices. There are also available grants and loans to aid organizations in their waste reduction strategies.[22] According to a survey, financially incentivizing stakeholders to reduce construction waste demonstrates favorable results.  This information provides an alternative way to reduce the cost so that the industry is more careful in their project decisions from beginning to end.[23]

See also

[edit]
  • ATSDR
  • Carcinogen
  • Construction dust | Metal dust | Metal swarf | Lead dust | Asbestos | Cement dust | Concrete dust | Wood dust | Paint dust
  • Concrete recycling
  • COPD
  • COSHH
  • Demolition waste
  • NIEHS
  • Particulates | Ultrafine particle
  • Power tool
  • Recycling
  • Silicosis
  • VOC
  • Waste management
  • Welding
  • Embodied carbon

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Broujeni, Omrani, Naghavi, Afraseyabi (February 2016). "Construction and Demolition Waste Management (Tehran Case Study)". Journal of Solid Waste Technology & Management. 6 (6): 1249–1252. doi:10.5281/zenodo.225510 – via Environment Complete.cite journal: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  2. ^ a b US EPA, OLEM (2016-03-08). "Sustainable Management of Construction and Demolition Materials". US EPA. Retrieved 2020-12-17.
  3. ^ a b "Construction and Demolition Materials". www.calrecycle.ca.gov. Retrieved 2020-12-17.
  4. ^ Hubbe, Martin A. (2014-11-03). "What Next for Wood Construction/Demolition Debris?". BioResources. 10 (1): 6–9. doi:10.15376/biores.10.1.6-9. ISSN 1930-2126.
  5. ^ "Municipal Solid Waste and Construction & Demolition Debris | Bureau of Transportation Statistics". www.bts.gov. Retrieved 2020-12-17.
  6. ^ Tafesse, Girma, Dessalegn (March 2022). "Analysis of the socio-economic and environmental impacts of construction waste and management practices". Heliyon. 8 (3): e09169. Bibcode:2022Heliy...809169T. doi:10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09169. PMC 8971575. PMID 35368528.cite journal: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  7. ^ Skoyles ER. Skoyles JR. (1987) Waste Prevention on Site. Mitchell Publishing, London. ISBN 0-7134-5380-X
  8. ^ Thibodeau, Kenneth (2007-07-02). "The Electronic Records Archives Program at the National Archives and Records Administration". First Monday. doi:10.5210/fm.v12i7.1922. ISSN 1396-0466.
  9. ^ Nagapan, Rahman, Asmi (October 2011). "A Review of Construction Waste Cause Factors". ACRE 2011 Conference Paper – via researchgate.net.cite journal: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  10. ^ a b c d Formoso, Carlos T.; Soibelman, Lucio; De Cesare, Claudia; Isatto, Eduardo L. (2002-08-01). "Material Waste in Building Industry: Main Causes and Prevention". Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 128 (4): 316–325. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2002)128:4(316). ISSN 0733-9364.
  11. ^ Liu, Jingkuang; Liu, Yedan; Wang, Xuetong (October 2020). "An environmental assessment model of construction and demolition waste based on system dynamics: a case study in Guangzhou". Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 27 (30): 37237–37259. Bibcode:2020ESPR...2737237L. doi:10.1007/s11356-019-07107-5. ISSN 0944-1344. PMID 31893359. S2CID 209509814.
  12. ^ Zhang, Chunbo; Hu, Mingming; Di Maio, Francesco; Sprecher, Benjamin; Yang, Xining; Tukker, Arnold (2022-01-10). "An overview of the waste hierarchy framework for analyzing the circularity in construction and demolition waste management in Europe". Science of the Total Environment. 803: 149892. Bibcode:2022ScTEn.80349892Z. doi:10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.149892. hdl:1887/3212790. ISSN 0048-9697. PMID 34500281. S2CID 237468721.
  13. ^ Zhang, Jianye; Kim, Hwidong; Dubey, Brajesh; Townsend, Timothy (2017-01-01). "Arsenic leaching and speciation in C&D debris landfills and the relationship with gypsum drywall content". Waste Management. 59: 324–329. Bibcode:2017WaMan..59..324Z. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2016.10.023. ISSN 0956-053X. PMID 27838158.
  14. ^ Weber, Jang, Townsend, Laux (March 2002). "Leachate from Land Disposed Residential Construction Waste". Journal of Environmental Engineering. 128 (3): 237–244. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2002)128:3(237) – via ASCE Library.cite journal: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  15. ^ "RECYCLING CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTES A Guide for Architects and Contractors" (PDF). April 2005.
  16. ^ "Construction Waste Management | WBDG Whole Building Design Guide". www.wbdg.org. Retrieved 2017-05-06.
  17. ^ Rogers, Harvey W. (December 1995). "Incinerator air emissions: inhalation exposure perspectives". Journal of Environmental Health. 58 – via EBSCOhost.
  18. ^ Poon, C. S.; Yu, Ann T. W.; Wong, Agnes; Yip, Robin (2013-05-01). "Quantifying the Impact of Construction Waste Charging Scheme on Construction Waste Management in Hong Kong". Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 139 (5): 466–479. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0000631. hdl:10397/6714. ISSN 1943-7862.
  19. ^ Wang, Jiayuan; Wu, Huanyu; Tam, Vivian W. Y.; Zuo, Jian (2019). "Considering life-cycle environmental impacts and society's willingness for optimizing construction and demolition waste management fee: An empirical study of China". Journal of Cleaner Production. ISSN 0959-6526.
  20. ^ Anonymous (2018-09-18). "EU Construction and Demolition Waste Protocol and Guidelines". Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs - European Commission. Retrieved 2020-12-17.
  21. ^ "Construction Industry Scheme (CIS)". GOV.UK. Archived from the original on 27 April 2022. Retrieved 2020-02-21.
  22. ^ a b Yu, A.; Poon, C.; Wong, A.; Yip, R.; Jaillon, L. (2013). "Impact of Construction Waste Disposal Charging Scheme on work practices at construction sites in Hong Kong". Waste Management. 33 (1): 138–146. Bibcode:2013WaMan..33..138Y. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2012.09.023. hdl:10397/6713. PMID 23122205. S2CID 20266040.
  23. ^ Mahpour & Mortaheb, Ph.D. (May 2018). "Financial-Based Incentive Plan to Reduce Construction Waste". Journal of Construction Engineering and Management. 144 (5): 04018029-1 to 04018029-10. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CO.1943-7862.0001461 – via ASCE Library.
[edit]
  • Construction Waste Management Database from the Whole Building Design Guide of the National Institute of Building Sciences

 

Photo
Photo
Photo
Photo

Driving Directions in New Hanover County


Driving Directions From La Guera Authentic Mexican to The Dumpo Junk Removal & Hauling
Driving Directions From Fire Bowl to The Dumpo Junk Removal & Hauling
Driving Directions From Pho Vanhly Noodle House to The Dumpo Junk Removal & Hauling
Driving Directions From Jungle Rapids Family Fun Park to The Dumpo Junk Removal & Hauling
Driving Directions From Cameron Art Museum to The Dumpo Junk Removal & Hauling
Driving Directions From Candyland at the Batson's to The Dumpo Junk Removal & Hauling
Driving Directions From Battleship North Carolina to The Dumpo Junk Removal & Hauling

Reviews for


Kelly Vaughn

(5)

Great service with professionalism. You can't ask for more than that!

Jennifer Davidson

(5)

Great work! Bryce and Adrian are great!

Kirk Schmidt

(5)

They are great with junk removal. Highly recommend them

Greg Wallace

(5)

I highly recommend Dumpo Junk Removal. Very professional with great pricing and quality work.

View GBP