Download - GYPSUM Recycling in the National Capital Region · Construction Recycling Initiative Position Paper JUNE 1, 2010 GYPSUM Recycling in the National Capital Region

Construction Recycling Initiative

Position Paper

JUNE 1, 2010

GYPSUM Recycling in the National Capital Region

Published by the Construction Recycling Initiative (CRI) - National Capital Region www.constructionrecycling.ca

Copyright ©2010 Construction Recycling Initiative (CRI) – All rights reserved May 26

th 2010 Construction Recycling Initiative Position Paper

2

CRI - Construction Recycling Initiative GYPSUM Recycling in the National Capital Region

Canada leads the world in a number of fronts, and is widely recognized as an environmentally aware

nation. Despite this awareness, we have an extremely poor performance globally when it comes to actual

environmental leadership. We currently rank 15th out of 17 peer countries when it comes to

environmental performance, and rank in last place when it comes to municipal waste generation.

We currently recycle only 1% of gypsum waste in the National Capital District, one of the lowest rates for

Canadian cities- when the facilities are available to us today.

This position paper presents the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Construction Recycling

Initiative (CRI) task group: A volunteer group formed specifically to examine the state of gypsum recycling

in the National Capital Region, and to help turn this deplorable situation around. And in so doing improve

our record on municipal waste, and our environmental impact.

Prepared by:

Renée Gratton, LEED® A.P., RG Integration; Carp, Ontario; T.: (613) 795-4632, &

Guy Beaudoin, LEED® A.P., Ed Brunet & Associés; Gatineau, Québec; (819) 777-3877

With the assistance of:

Chris Lance, CASC, Ottawa Chapter Construction Specifications Canada

Deirdre Ellis Architect, LEED® A.P., CSV Architects, Ottawa Regional Society of Architects

Mark Gray, Architect; LEED® A.P., Director Ottawa Region Chapter Canada Green Building Council

Serge Desjardins, Minto Communities Inc

Bob Kenney, Nova Scotia Ministry of Environment

Mark Lucuik, P. Eng., LEED® A.P., Morrison Hershfield Ltd

Anne Robinson, City of Ottawa

Isabelle Bradbury, Architecte, LEED® A.P.

Ann Callaghan, ARIDO, LEED® A.P., CLWG, Association of Registered Interior Designers of ORC

Lori Gadzala, LEED® A.P.

Mike Beaudoin

Sean Kerwin

Greg Sabourin

David M Lynch (Document editor)

Distribution of this report is not limited to the above-mentioned group, and may be shared for information and

education purpose only. This report is a gathering of important information resulting from countless hours of

volunteer research and the intellectual property of the author and contributors. The report may not be used for

commercial purpose without the written authorization of the task group.

A French translation of this document will be made available as soon as possible




3

Contents

GYPSUM Recycling in the National Capital Region ....................................................................................... 5

Foreword: The creation of a task group to tackle drywall waste ............................................................ 5

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................................................. 7

THE ISSUE ...................................................................................................................................................... 9

Quantities of drywall waste in the National Capital Area and Canada ..................................................... 9

Drywall composites and waste products ................................................................................................ 10

Gypsum ............................................................................................................................................... 10

List of Mining and Mineral Processing Operations in Canada - Gypsum ............................................ 12

Drywall ................................................................................................................................................ 13

Current drywall waste disposal methods ............................................................................................... 13

THE IMPACTS .............................................................................................................................................. 14

Drywall in Landfills .................................................................................................................................. 15

The limitations of Gypsum waste as a soil amendment ......................................................................... 16

OUR PROPOSAL ........................................................................................................................................... 18

1 - REDUCE .............................................................................................................................................. 18

Educate stakeholders on impact of material selection....................................................................... 18

Minimization of Material Use-Avoiding Gypsum Board: .................................................................... 19

Minimization of Material Use – Efficient Layout: ............................................................................... 19

Material Selection and Life Cycle Analysis: ......................................................................................... 19

2 - REUSE ................................................................................................................................................. 20

3 - RECYCLE ............................................................................................................................................. 21

Encourage the Economic Environment for Drywall Recycling: ........................................................... 21

Current recycling usage in the National Capital region ...................................................................... 21

Cities and Municipality’s Roles in IC&I Waste Management .............................................................. 21

Restrictions on local acceptance of drywall into landfill .................................................................... 22

How does the National Capital Region’s Drywall Recycling performance compare to other cities? . 24

Recommendations to the City of Ottawa ............................................................................................... 25

Basic Recycling Steps: ......................................................................................................................... 26




4

Encourage the creation transfer stations at all local landfill sites and elsewhere ............................. 28

Educate the industry on the issues and cost of recycling drywall ...................................................... 29

Clarify the LEED Rating System and Submittals .................................................................................. 30

Construction Waste Management – Divert 50% to 75% from Landfill ............................................... 30

Resource Reuse ................................................................................................................................... 30

Recycled Content Credit in Materials and Resources ......................................................................... 31

Investigate and challenge “Greenwashing” ........................................................................................ 31

Review specifications and/or standard construction waste management plan ................................ 32

Update / Amend CCA 81, 2001 ........................................................................................................... 33

Enforce LEED Project documentation ................................................................................................. 34

Additional recommendations: ................................................................................................................ 35

Other Considerations .............................................................................................................................. 36

APPENDIX A: TASK GROUP DETAILS ........................................................................................................... 38

CRI task group Next Steps: ...................................................................................................................... 39

APPENDIX B: LIST OF CRI TASK GROUP SPONSORS .................................................................................... 40

APPENDIX C: SAMPLE OF RESOURCES USED IN CREATING THIS WHITE PAPER ......................................... 41

APPENDIX D: A GENERIC WASTE MANAGEMENT SPECIFICATION SAMPLE ............................................... 43

APPENDIX E: CARLETON UNIVERSITY DESIGN PROJECT ............................................................................. 46

APPENDIX F – EXAMPLE SPECIFICATION ..................................................................................................... 48




5

GYPSUM Recycling in the National Capital Region

Foreword: The creation of a task group to tackle drywall waste

Drywall recycling initiatives in the National Capital Region date back to 2007, and while some

information has been communicated through local organizations and related presentations (i.e.:

Comparing Integrated Interior Partitions, The Greenwashing Monster, Walking the Talk, etc.) , the first

detailed presentation on this issue occurred on May 26, 2009, at the office of Capital Office Interiors in

Ottawa by:

• Renée Gratton, LEED® A.P., RG Integration

• Guy Beaudoin, LEED® A.P., Ed Brunet & Associés

• Gerald Morin, Morin Brothers

Special guest to speak on the process of drywall recycling was Richard Marsh of New West Gypsum

Recycling.

Following this, professional stewards of the local building industry rose to the challenge of assisting in

the research, the preparation of this position paper, industry education, and Construction Waste

Management conference, both part of an urgent call to action.

• Association of Registered Interior Designers of Ontario Eastern Ontario Chapter: Ann

Callaghan, ARIDO, LEED® A.P., CLWG

• Carleton University Graduates – Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering:

Michael Beaudoin, Sean Kerwin, Greg Sabourin

• Minto Communities Inc.: Serge Desjardins

• Morrison Hershfield Inc.: Mark Lucuik, P.Eng., LEED® A.P

• Ottawa Region Chapter of the Canada Green Building Council: Lori Gadzala, LEED® A.P.,

Executive Director & Mark Gray Architect, LEED® A.P., Director

• Ottawa Chapter of Construction Specifications Canada: Chris Lance, Construction

Administration Specification Consulting

• Ottawa Regional Society of Architects: Deirdre Ellis Architect, LEED® A.P., CSV Architects

• Walls & Ceiling Contractors Association Ottawa Chapter: Marc Desormeaux, MM Interiors

The consortium, which is not a legal entity, calls itself the “Construction Recycling Initiatives (CRI) Task

Group’’.

The CRI task group would like to acknowledge and thank the following individuals for their time, and

contribution in the development of this paper and assisting raising industry awareness and education:

• Isabelle Bradbury Architecte, LEED® A.P.

• Canadian Standards Association (CSA): Dwayne Torrey and Vince Catalli

• Carleton University – Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering: Prof. Karman

• City of Ottawa: Anne Robinson & Paul McCann

• Environmental Advisory Committee to the City of Ottawa: special thanks to William Toms

• SABMag: Don Griffith

• NWGR (New West Gypsum Recycling): Richard Marsh




6

• Ontario Ministry of the Environment: Steve Burns, District Manager

• Ottawa Construction Association: John Devries

• Ottawa Construction News: Mark Buckshon

• NRCan: Stephen Pope

• Stone Tile: Elizabeth Millar

• Tandus: Julie Charron

• Drywall manufacturer’s representatives and suppliers including: Certainteed, CGC, Lafarge,

Gratien Proulx, Matériaux DL, Morin Brothers

• Local waste management companies including: special thanks to Terry Wagner of

Tomlinson, and Bob Graham of WSI

NOTE:

a) The CRI task group volunteers do not own any business, in whole or in part, which would stand

to lose or profit in any way from the implementation of drywall recycling in the region.

b) While the task group has held public information sessions, and stakeholders have provided

feedback on draft reports, task group meetings have been members-only to maintain

objectivity.

c) The following stakeholders have been identified as important to the success of the overall

objective and have therefore either been invited to participate and/or are kept informed:

- ACQ (Association de la Construction du Québec) - Outaouais

- BILDCO (Building Industry Liaison – Designers, Contractors and Owners)

- BOMA (Building Owners and Managers Association)

- CCA (Canadian Contractors Association)

- City of Gatineau

- COCA (Council of Ontario Construction Associations)

- Ecology Ottawa

- Greater Ottawa Home Builders Association

- Gypsum Association

- IFMA (International Facility Management Association)

- OAA (Ontario Association of Architects)

- OGCA (Ontario General Contractors Association)

The CRI task group would also like to acknowledge the support of their sponsors, who make it possible

for the task group to develop sustainable promotional materials, distribute our Gypsum Recycling in the

National Capital Region report, and educate stakeholders on the importance (and indeed, the provincial

requirements) for recycling construction waste. Sponsor logos are under the table of contents; sponsor

names and contact information are in Appendix B.




7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY It was reported that when Gandhi was asked: “What do you think about Western civilization?” he

answered, “It would be a good idea”. Unfortunately, the same is frequently said about the issue of

effective waste management, which is a huge problem worldwide.

It is such a wide ranging challenge that the tendency is either towards the setting of unrealistic goals, or

“analysis paralysis” – with lots of discussion and analysis but no real action. Canada leads the world in a

number of fronts, and is widely recognized as an environmentally aware nation. Despite this awareness,

we have an extremely poor performance globally when it comes to actual environmental leadership.

According to the Conference Board of Canada:

• Canada ranks 15th out of 17 peer countries, and only warrants a “C” grade when it

comes to environmental performance.

• We rank last and get a “D” grade on municipal waste generation. Our municipal waste

per capita has been steadily increasing since 1980, and we are now producing 791 kg

per capita of municipal waste annually - almost twice as much as this year’s best

performer; Japan.

• While we have improved air quality, reduced our energy intensity, and increased the

growth of forest resources relative to forest harvest, we are still lagging in the reduction

of greenhouse gas emissions.

• To improve our overall performance, we must promote economic growth without

further degrading the environment, partly by encouraging more sustainable

consumption.

The focus of the CRI task group is the construction industries contribution to municipal waste; which

contributes to environmental damage including habitat destruction, surface and groundwater pollution,

and other forms of air, soil, and water contamination. Our mission is to identify pragmatic ways we can

immediately reduce the volume of construction and demolition waste in this area.

The province of Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment 2009 review of the Minister’s Report on the

Waste Diversion Act 2002, titled ‘’From Waste to Worth: The Role of Waste Diversion in the Green

Economy’’ indicates that while Ontarians divert about 39% of our residential waste, we only divert about

12% at work and play (referred to as Industrial Commercial and Institutional (IC&I) which includes

construction and demolition waste. Incredibly, even though there are more services available to us to

deal with this type of waste, and the fact that Ontario regulations 102/94 & 103/94 make drywall waste

diversion mandatory, this paltry 12% performance actually appears to be decreasing.

The city of Ottawa’s Diversion 2015 – Industrial, Commercial & Institutional (IC&I) Waste 3R Strategy

date April 2009 addresses drywall, but unfortunately needs important updates in respect to drywall

recycling as the situation has improved considerably since the report research was done, and this is




8

misleading to companies. Furthermore, as the city is not legally responsible for IC&I waste diversion, and

therefore await for provincial action, our cause for concern can only increase.

It is estimated that the construction industry consumes approximately 40% of the global material flow,

and the reduction of that consumption is a longer-term issue. However, the construction industry also

generates about 33% of the North American solid waste stream, and approximately 10-15% of this

waste is comprised of gypsum drywall product, which can be recycled today easily and economically,

with very little effort.

While gypsum is being effectively recycled around the world, the amount of recycling in the National

Capital District is woefully low. Despite the Ontario Ministry of the Environment Regulations 102/94

and 103/94, along with the fact that access to drywall recycling has been available to our region for

some time, in the period from October 2008 to August 2009, the NCR only recycled an average of 9

ounces of drywall per capita. (less than 1% of a single 4x8 sheet of drywall).

For comparison, the nearby Pembroke region recycled over 54lbs of drywall per capita (almost a full

sheet)…

In the greater Ottawa region, we are needlessly allowing the equivalent of at least four (4) 53’ truck

trailers, filled with recyclable drywall to be sent to landfill, every day.

The alternative is not only viable, it’s available now, and with minimal effort or cost – in some case,

at no extra cost.

This position paper presents the findings of an initial research and consulting period, and basic

recommendations of the Construction Recycling Initiative (CRI) task group: a volunteer group formed

specifically to examine the state of gypsum recycling in the National Capital Region, and to act to help

turn this deplorable situation around.




9

THE ISSUE Building materials are an important aspect to sustainable buildings. Many factors contribute or detract

from a material’s sustainability, including the embodied energy required for extraction, transportation,

processing, installation, and maintenance; the ecological impacts of their disposal; and their impact on

precious water reserves. Stakeholders aiming for more sustainable buildings —including manufacturers,

specifiers, regulators, and consumers—must understand the fundamentals of sustainability including

the environmental, economic, and community issues, and the synergies and trade-offs between issues.

Gypsum wallboard or drywall has become one of the most widely used commodity building material in

both residential and commercial buildings. While there are several advantages to this material, and

there is no sign of shortage in the near future, there are several issues rising from current industry

practices starting with the fact that it is made of a non-renewable mineral. Demand for gypsum

products in North America is forecast to grow about two percent annually through 2011, exceeding 52

million metric tons. Of equal importance is the embodied energy associated with the fabrication process

from virgin materials. In addition, water is an important factor of sustainability which cannot be ignored

when one considers the global water crisis that we are faced with.

The construction industry’s rule of thumb is that gypsum drywall scrap is generated at a rate of one

pound per square foot of floor area, or approximately one ton per average house. Gypsum scrap is

approximately 1% of the total waste stream and constitutes 15% of C&D waste continent wide.

Quantities of drywall waste in the National Capital Area and Canada

Quantities of drywall waste in the National Capital region and elsewhere within North America vary

considerably between reports, and in comparison to verified quantities. Therefore, the CRI task group

has opted for the most conservative approach.

Our estimated waste figures came in part from “The City of Ottawa’s Industrial, Commercial and

Institutional Waste Diversion Strategy ’Diversion 2015’’ report, which indicates approximately 28,000

metric tonnes of drywall waste was sent to landfill in 2005. Verification and other necessary figures

were provided by various local (Greater Ottawa and Outaouais), stakeholders such as suppliers, waste

management companies, gypsum association and manufacturers, as well as industry accepted figures.

The task group estimates that at least 33,600 tons of drywall are shipped to landfill annually, which

translates to approximately: 4,669 sheets of drywall sent to landfill each day in the Greater Ottawa and

Outaouais region.

When we consider that drywall recycling has been available to our region for some time now, we are

faced with the fact that we have been needlessly allowing the equivalent of at least four (4) 53’ truck

trailers, filled with recyclable drywall to be sent to landfill, every day.




10

Ironically, because drywall is included in what is described as industrial Commercial and institutional

waste (IC&I) which the regional municipal governments point to all others to divert, these figures are

expected to increase based on various market studies and if without immediate actions. Furthermore,

without the inclusion of a recycled content requirement in new board specification, demand on virgin

material along with corresponding embodied energy or other negative environmental impacts will also

continue to grow.

Drywall composites and waste products

The industry commonly uses the terms gypsum, drywall board, gyproc, wallboard, and sheetrock

interchangeably. For the purpose of this report, “drywall board” and “sheet rock” will refer to the board

building product, and ‘gypsum’ will refer to the primary mineral component. Drywall board waste is

comprised of solids, gases, and liquids with gypsum comprising the primary bulk weight of the board

material.

Gypsum

While we know that gypsum is a mineral, the complexities all stakeholders face, might be best

understood once we truly understand the origin of the material at issue. Some of the clearest

information on gypsum found and extracted for the purpose of this paper, was from a document titled

’Living with Gypsum’ prepared by ‘Euro Gypsum’ - the voice of the European gypsum industry.

What is natural Gypsum and where does it come from? Calcium Sulphate (CaSO4) resources were

deposited in large sedimentary basins up to 230 million years ago. The formation of Gypsum deposits

usually involved the deposition of the Calcium Sulphate mineral Anhydrite, which was then hydrated to

form Gypsum. The depth of hydration can range from the surface of the deposit down to three hundred

metres, depending on climate, topography and the structure of the deposit. Anhydrite is often mined in

conjunction with Gypsum, but is comparatively limited in its technical applications. The content of

Gypsum in the sedimentary rock varies from 75% to 95%, the rest being clay and chalk.

Gypsum is an abundant rock-like mineral commonly mined from numerous deposits found throughout

the world with the main producers of gypsum coming from USA, China and Canada, Iran and Thailand.

Other producers include Germany, UK, France, Spain, Italy, Turkey, and Poland. According to Natural

Resources Canada, annual Canadian gypsum production between 1994 and 2006 was 7.8 to 9.3 million

tons .




11




12

List of Mining and Mineral Processing Operations in Canada - Gypsum

Company Name Site Name Type of Operation Province Products

CertainTeed Gypsum (BPB Canada) Inc. Windermere Mine Open-pit mine British Columbia Gypsum

CertainTeed Gypsum Canada Inc. Amaranth Mine Open-pit mine Manitoba Gypsum

CGC Inc Hagersville Mine Underground Mine Ontario Gypsum

Galen Gypsum Mines Limited Gypsum Mine Open-pit mine Newfoundland & Labrador Gypsum

Georgia-Pacific Canada Inc. Canal Flats Quarry Quarry British Columbia Gypsum

Lafarge Canada Inc. BC Gypsum Operations Quarry British Columbia Gypsum

National Gypsum (Canada) Ltd. Milford Station Open-pit mine Nova Scotia Gypsum

Reference: Natural Resources Canada

According to Euro Gypsum, ‘’world reserves of natural Gypsum probably exceed trillions of tons,

sufficient to meet future demand. Identified reserves are capable of sustaining decades of output at

current rates of extraction. ‘’ While the information contained in the document was extremely valuable,

these two sentences belie a fundamental misunderstanding with respect to the long term view of

sustainability.

It is interesting to note that while the rate at which natural gypsum reserves are exploited is slowing

down in Europe and North America, apparently due to the increase in consumption of synthetic material

(i.e. FGD Gypsum – explained further in the report), research indicates that gypsum demand will rise 2

to 2.7% annually through 2013 at a minimum.

While the principal current market for gypsum is drywall board, other known markets include:

architectural or artistic uses, soil or turbid water additives, medical casts, food additives, drugs &

cosmetics and toothpaste, cement and carpet industry, etc.

It is easy to imagine other potential future markets, but perhaps one of the most interesting one might

come from an abstract on a report titled ‘Mining water from gypsum’ by Peter Van Der Gaag for the

International Journal of Global Environmental Issues 2008 – Vol. 8, No.3 pp. 274-281 which indicates

that Holland Innovation Team (HIT) is working on ‘dewatering gypsum deposits since 1987. In essence,

world water resources are scarce and unevenly distributed. In many areas, water is of poor quality or

dangerously low due to overexploitation.

http://www.cgcinc.com/

http://www.gp.com/

http://dom.lafarge-na.com/

http://www.national-gypsum.com/




13

Through the research for this paper, one striking finding was how fragmented the North American

gypsum industry appears in comparison to that of the Europeans, which prides itself on being one of the

few fully integrated industries within the construction products field. The companies which mine

gypsum also process it and manufacture the value-added products (plasterboards, building plasters,

special plasters, gypsum blocks, etc.) and associated systems such as steel studs, compounds, etc. The

European industry unlike the North American one covers the whole life-cycle of a product from cradle to

grave and beyond, recognizes the importance of Environmental Product Declarations (EPD’s). Whereas

the Canadian market focuses on speed, wide range of products and volume

These fundamental differences might explain some of the difficulties experienced through this research

and the challenges ahead as a more sustainable solution. Sustainability is the capacity to endure. For

humans, it is the potential for long-term maintenance of wellbeing, which in turn depends on the

wellbeing of the natural world and the responsible use of natural resource. Therefore, while the gypsum

mines, operations, and future restoration were not the focus of this particular effort, they are key and

must be integrated in the planning for a truly sustainable solution.

Drywall

Drywall is one of the most familiar building materials as its properties can be modified for many

requirements. Designers specify it for its fire resistance, acoustical and thermal and aesthetic properties.

Drywall is easy and fast to install. Finished drywall also does not present indoor environmental concerns

as can be found in many other interior products, unless of course it has been contaminated with

asbestos or other contaminants.

Drywall board itself is the result of an industrial process, which includes other products made from

natural resources. To further complicate things, it is also usually finished with other products, such as

paint or vinyl, with a number of other respective environmental concerns, installation practices are key

to indoor environmental quality. Lastly, is also subject to contamination.

Current drywall waste disposal methods

Depending on the area’s municipal and provincial leadership along with regulations, resources,

awareness, available services, etc, drywall waste is disposed of in a variety of ways; some banned, while

others are poorly researched, harmful to the environment, or unsustainable. These include:

• Burning / incineration: Drywall has fire resistant properties. While the paper will easily

burn, the core won’t, even more so with the fire rated types. Therefore, not only is

valuable material wasted, toxic substances emitted; a bigger mess is left to clean up.

Landfills (locally and in the US): We all recognize that landfill space is at a premium, no

one wants to see landfill expansions or new ones. Landfills contribute to global

warming, and recyclable materials are lost forever in landfills. This paper will further

expand on other environmental risks associated with drywall in landfills.

• As a soil amendment / agricultural fertilizer: This is a better option than petroleum

based products and can in fact be a good option – depending on a number of factors




14

such as location, soil, etc., IF done right. Readers will find more information on this

option further on in this paper.

• Animal bedding / litter: Concerns over this would be similar to those of landfills

• Separated – stock piled: Too often stock piles are not placed on concrete lined areas,

nor are they suitably covered, which may cause soil, water, air pollution and

sedimentation concerns

• Buried on building sites, or designated park areas: The case of a municipal property in

Anjou Québec, where the soil had to be remediated when hydrogen sulfide gas

concerns was found, due to excessive amounts of buried drywall, prior to turning into

planned parkland.

• Smashed and left between walls during construction: As suggested by various white

papers. However, all suggestions of this came from US papers and when so much effort

is being done to improve the building envelope, it is doubtful that this practice has been

tested for its impact on R value or indoor air quality especially in Canada.

• Cut-up and disposed in garbage bags as household waste: Adding pressure to the

municipal landfills, wasting valuable recyclable resources.

• Sent to drywall manufacturers for recycling: Great option, but generally limited and

likely conditional.

• Sent to drywall recyclers: Once all efforts have been done to reduce and reuse any

material, then recycling is our last and best option to ensure a sustainable solution for

future generations

It is interesting to know that while there was a time that disposal at sea in coastal areas was an

acceptable method of disposing of drywall waste (considering where gypsum itself came from), this has

subsequently been banned by most nations due to the obvious harmful effects on the ecosystem.

THE IMPACTS Wasting valuable recyclable materials such as drywall, made primarily of non-renewable resources,

increases demand on virgin materials and decreases the ability for future generation to sustain

themselves.

While drywall is an excellent building material, and does not pose the type of indoor environmental

quality concerns that others do, it is composed of 0.5% (by weight) of rapidly biodegradable starch,

which produces hydrogen sulfide gas, when mixed with organic waste and exposed to rain in an

anaerobic environment such as landfill, sewer or wetland mud.

Co2 emissions come from a long list of sources, including embodied energy.




15

Drywall in Landfills

Drywall waste in landfill is only one of those fully recyclable building materials, which is lost forever.

Failure to recycle increases demand on virgin non-renewable resources and increases energy

consumption required to extract and transport to the manufacturers which will be discussed further on

in the report.

Another important direct impact of drywall waste in landfill is the hydrogen sulfide it causes. H2S is a

colorless, flammable, extremely hazardous gas, with a distinctive smell of rotten eggs. It is heavier than

air and may travel along the ground, collecting in low-lying and enclosed poorly ventilated areas such as

basements, manholes, sewer lines, underground telephone vaults and other such areas. It is a highly

flammable gas and gas/air mixtures can be explosive. If ignited, the gas burns to produce toxic vapors

and gases, such as sulfur dioxide.

Health effects depend on the concentration levels and duration of exposure. Exposure to low

concentration to H2S can cause eye, nose, throat and respiratory system irritation, breathing difficulties

in asthmatics, inflammation, headache, fatigue, irritability, insomnia, digestive disturbances, and weight

loss. Continuous low-level exposure, or at high concentrations, causes a person loses his/her ability to

smell the gas even though it is still present. It is a chemical asphyxiate, compromising oxygen utilization

and at moderate to high levels of concentration will have much more serious effects, able to affect the

central nervous system and even cause death.

There are four phases of decomposition of landfill waste. The composition of the gas produced changes

with each four phases of decomposition. Landfills accept waste over a 20 to 30 year period, so waste in

a landfill may be undergoing several phases of decomposition at once. While landfill waste creates

mainly methane and carbon dioxide, it also creates 2% to 9% of other gases, such as sulfides. Gas is

produced at a stable rate for approximately 20 years, but continues to be emitted for 50 years or more.

According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, under ‘Landfill Gas Basic’, travel

distances for landfill gas of more than 1,500 feet have been observed. Gases migrating from a landfill

may eventually reach buildings and homes.

The elimination of odor from hydrogen sulfide by landfill management companies is done in a number

of ways, and the following specifically bring their own environmental impact and cost:

1) Direct burning to sulfur dioxide creates more powerful greenhouse gases like nitrous oxide,

perfluorocarbons and hydrofluorocarbons which have longer life and a higher global warming

potential (290; 12,000 respectively). This also creates new toxic combustion products such as

dioxins and furans, while at the same time inorganic compounds (heavy metals) are not

destroyed.

2) Chemical scrubbing incurs high operating costs and generates halomethanes that are known air

toxics. It also requires hazardous chemicals for its operation which pose serious health and

safety concerns.




16

Hydrogen sulfide is also an air pollutant with Global Warming Potential (GWP) and Ozone Depletion

Potential (ODP) which contributes to acid rain. Though we recognize that the portion of sulfides is a

small portion of the landfill gas, there are other important factors to consider and add to this, such as:

The sheer volume of waste sent to landfills

Life cycle impacts, discussed further on

In addition to gases, leachates (the liquid that drains or 'leaches' from a landfill), is also produced,

varying widely in composition depending on the age of the landfill and the type of waste it contains. It

usually contains both dissolved and suspended material.

In landfill sites with large volumes of building waste, especially those containing gypsum plaster, the

reaction of leachates with the gypsum can generate large volume of hydrogen sulfide, which may be

absorbed into the leachates as well being released as landfill gas.

In Ontario, landfills are required to have liners to prevent leachates. While the CRI task group has not

investigated if the US landfills receiving our C&D waste also do, there were indications that some have

been closed due to this specific problem.

The limitations of Gypsum waste as a soil amendment

Gypsum is a well known safe soil additive, with considerable benefits to certain soil types; increasing

water infiltration, providing plant nutrients such as calcium and sulfur, reducing salt concentrations and

improving clay soils physical properties.

Because these benefits are well documented, many documents addressing construction and demolition

waste management promote recycling drywall as a soil amendment, but are unfortunately not specific

about acceptable best practices and limitations which in overview would include:

Unpainted, clean drywall waste only – NO contaminants (which mostly excludes waste

from demolition projects)

Certain types of drywall may or may not be acceptable to certain types of soils

(Common additional ingredients found in drywall board: paper and/or glass fibre,

plasticizer, foaming agents, potassium carbonate, ethylenediaminetetracetic acid and

starch; Some types such as fire-rated or mildew-resistant also incorporate other

additives to meet special requirements)

In balanced quantity

Crushed gypsum only

Backed by a professional soil consultant

As ones starts to consider all the limitations, consulting fees, material manipulation, etc for this type of

waste diversion, the economics becomes weak and therefore a poor sustainable plan at present




17

While we recognize this as a well documented industry practice, concerns remain mainly due to the lack

of industry standards / guidelines or regional resources for verification of any of the following:

• General use without proper studies of the specific soils to which it would be applied

• Excessive amount buried eventually causing high hydrogen sulfide gas levels such as a

case in Anjou Quebec where the soil had to be remediated prior to the development of

a municipal park.

• Careless use in animal bedding (citing a 1996 letter from The Corporation of the District

of Central Saanich, BC, Re.: Provincial Agricultural Land Commission File C#-30990, that

the Commission felt ‘the use of the material will be detrimental to the land.

Furthermore, the Commission stresses that it does not consider waste drywall by itself,

or mixed with manure and wood waste as an agricultural waste. Drywall is an ‘industrial

waste’ … Soil Conservation Act Order dated November 4, 1996.

• The risks or ability of toxic board (i.e.: China Board, mouldy) contaminating our soil and

thereby our food chain.

Without proper testing, guidelines and education, we risk our regional farm lands and thereby

our health and that of generations to come.

However, in spite of ongoing concerns, and in view of the large agricultural industry in our area, and the

challenges and trade-offs we face on recycling drywall, the CRI task group encourages the local

agricultural and composting industries to further research this, establish specific local regulations and

work with the local building / drywall industry to develop an integrated plan for this specific market.

To this end, we will gladly continue to consider research and share information provided to us as we

have with Mr. Bob Kenney of the Nova Scotia Ministry of the Environment. A 2009 study was prepared

for the Resource Recovery Fund Board Nova Scotia entitled ‘Composting Drywall – An Evaluation of

Using the Compost Process as a Means of Drywall Disposal’. It evaluated the impacts of adding clean

waste wallboard to composting organic materials, and demonstrated that gypsum concentrations as

high as 35% seem to have no impact on the microbial activity in the compost pile. The study also refers

to the many soil nutrient benefits of gypsum.

Should composting be the method of waste diversion selected, and this practice is well-regulated, the

task group recommends:

• Working with soil experts

• Monitor quality of compost, soil, bio-solids which include drywall waste

• Develop criteria re: quantity / proportions / guidelines




18

OUR PROPOSAL “In a moment of decision, the best thing you can do is the right thing to do. The worst thing you can do

is nothing.” … Theodore Roosevelt

If North Americans hope to improve their records and find sustainable solutions in terms of waste

management, an important shift in mindset by all is required. For this to happen, we must begin by

recognizing that we are all responsible and we all have a role to play.

It is easier to look for others to provide solutions, pointing out opportunities without understanding or

regards for their respective challenges, than it is to investigate, relate and change our own approach and

practices, ignoring our own opportunities. For instance:

According to the Gypsum Association of North America, it employs approximately 300,000

people (+ related trade industries such as painting). If reduction is to be the approach of the

future, without interest for benefit, we need to recognize the economical and social impact this

will have on that industry.

The proposal will discuss the importance of specifying materials with post-consumer recycled

content and recycling. Drywall manufacturers have to be able to get the recycled gypsum in

order to produce the specified board.

Contracting is highly competitive. Bidders cannot be expected to include items that are not

specified, and count on a fair bidding process.

Therefore, while there are many things we can do to immediately improve on waste diversion, we also

must approach a sustainable plan in a much more integrated manner, including all stakeholders.

This last section is intended to provide an insight on the drywall dilemma as well as some suggestions for

professionals and organizations to begin positively affecting the environment our children will live in, by

using the 3R principle.

1 - REDUCE

Educate stakeholders on impact of material selection

The use of any material inherently results in environmental impact, associated with the extraction,

fabrication, transportation, and disposal of all materials. For example, the use of drywall in a building

will result in the extraction of gypsum from a mine needed to create gypsum board, and the fuels, water

pollution, etc used in mining is an environmental impact that is embodied within the gypsum board.

Accordingly, one goal of a green building designer should be to minimize the impact of the materials

within a building both by minimizing the use of materials, or selecting materials with relatively low

environmental effects. Each of these opportunities is discussed separately below:




19

Minimization of Material Use-Avoiding Gypsum Board:

One might minimize the use of gypsum board either by using it sparingly, or avoiding its use altogether

on a building. This could be accomplished by using a more open concept type design and eliminating

interior walls, or by designing lower ceiling heights.

However, in doing so, consultants are reminded that one of the most common complaints on green

building designs is acoustical performance. Since architecture, acoustics, green design, mechanical

engineering are all specialties, it is unreasonable to expect any consultant to understand all of the

complexities. Therefore, whenever possible, including an acoustical consultant in an integrated design

process will be highly beneficial to building owner.

Drywall contractors can consider this approach as well by reducing the waste factor when estimating

and purchasing. This of course, might require education with installers to ensure they protect the boards

received on site as well as maximize the products they have to work with.

Minimization of Material Use – Efficient Layout:

An effective green building designer might also to endeavor to employ wall and ceiling dimensions

conducive to efficient material use. Gypsum board, for example, is readily available in eight foot and ten

foot lengths, in widths of four feet. Accordingly, careful design of walls and ceilings to match these

dimensions, or multiples of these dimensions, can result in more efficient use of material and less waste.

Other considerations would be the size and location of doors and windows. As an example, a ten foot

high wall that is 20 feet long will produce less gypsum board waste than a 9 foot high wall that is 22 feet

in length.

However, since wider boards are also now available to meet market demand, designers should also

consult with local manufacturers’ representatives and suppliers.

Material Selection and Life Cycle Analysis:

From an environmental perspective, not all building materials are created equally. A material that is

determined or believed to have a high amount of embodied environmental effects can often be

replaced with materials that have lower embodied effects. Designers have a suite of alternative

products available, such as wood paneling, metal skins, or fabrics, all of which have lower environmental

impacts than drywall.

To determine the embodied environmental effects of materials, one can use life cycle analysis (LCA); a

technique for compiling and evaluating the inputs and outputs and the potential environmental impacts

of a product system throughout its life cycle.

Determining LCA impacts is very complex and is difficult to undertake by designers. There are a number

of standards that can help ensure LCA results are fair and unbiased. Further, software and other tools




20

are available to assist designers in understanding the impacts of various materials. For demonstration

purposes, the Athena Environmental Impact Estimator was utilized to estimate the impacts of gypsum

board, plywood, and galvanized steel (potential interior wall surfaces):

Primary Energy is the amount of energy used in the extraction, processing, transportation, construction and disposal of each

material

Weighted Resource Use is the amount of raw materials required for the extraction, processing transportation, construction and

disposal of each material

Global Warming Potential is the amount of greenhouse gases created in the extraction, processing transportation, construction

and disposal of each material

Acidification is a consequence of acids being emitted to the atmosphere and subsequently deposited in surface soils and

water. Increased acidity of these environments can result in negative consequences for coniferous trees and the death of fish

in addition to increased corrosion of manmade structures Acidification Potential (AP) is based on the contributions of sulpher

dioxide, oxides of nitrogen, hydrogen chloride, hydrogen fluoride, ammonia & to contribute acid deposition in the form of

protons

Eutrophication Potential (EP) is the potential of nutrients to cause over-fertilization of water and soil which in turn can result in

increased growth of biomass.

Ozone Depletion Potential (ODP) indicates the potential for emissions of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) compounds and other

halogenated hydrocarbons to deplete the ozone layer.

Smog is a mixture of fog and smoke or other airborne pollutants such as exhaust fumes

From the above table, it can be seen there are very different environmental effects associated with

these different materials, and a designer does have some ability to change the impact of a building

through carefully considered materials selection.

2 - REUSE

Two suggestions come to mind when it comes to re-use.

1. Demountable and moveable partitions systems have come a long way over the last few years,

with more choices, design flexibility, full integration with mechanical and electrical systems and

varying price points. Companies are now either changing their standard finishes to

environmentally preferable wall coverings or able to receive alternate board products. Owners

and designers should also note that the early integration in the design process of these types of

partitions will maximize their financial and environmental benefits.

12 mm Gypsum

Board

12 mm Plywood 26 guage

galvanized Steel

5929 7253 36492

1059 3213 3162

335 198 2086

170 79 748

1.32 0.64 3.92

2.91E-02 1.94E-01 5.50E-01

5.99E-09 4.84E-05 5.67E-09

0.49 0.57 1.57Smog Potential (kg NOx eq)

Eutrophication Potential (kg N eq)

Ozone Depletion Potential (kg CFC-11 eq)

Acidification Potential (moles of H+ eq)

HH Respiratory Effects Potential (kg PM2.5 eq)

Weighted Resource Use kg

Global Warming Potential (kg CO2 eq)

Primary Energy Consumption MJ




21

2. Some organizations such as Habitat for Humanity will not only gladly accept donations of

drywall half sheets and larger at their Restore, but even provide receipts for large quantities. For

further information please contact Myrna Beattie (613) 612-5443

3 - RECYCLE

Encourage the Economic Environment for Drywall Recycling:

Based on data from the Athena Institute, a report from NRCan ‘Let’s Climb Another Molehill indicates

that 24kg of CO2 emissions is avoided with every kg of drywall recycled. While there is still a great deal of

debate and questions on emissions trading (cap and trade), one cannot ignore this as an economic

factor for our region and industry.

Recyclers are, like every other business, motivated by market demand and interest. In order to attract

those types of businesses, creating green jobs, we must first ensure compliance to regulations which

have been in place since 1994, understand the real costs, which alone would increase the market for

recycling in our region. Understanding the synergies and trade-offs, responsibilities of all stakeholders

are essential to encourage the economic environment for drywall recycling.

Current recycling usage in the National Capital region

In spite of provincial regulations and drywall recycling being available in the national capital region for

several years, figures with accessible recyclers show that we have yet to use the service in any

significance. By the end of 2009, only two companies in the National Capital Region had received and

transferred drywall waste to the Oakville recycling facility totaling only 442 tons … or 1.32% of the

annual drywall waste.

The small quantity recycled to date can be attributed to several factors including:

• No restrictions on local acceptance of drywall into landfill

• Poor or no specifications on construction waste management

• Lack of enforcement of specifications when present

• Lack of enforcement on Ontario Ministry of the Environment existing regulations

• Inexpensive US Landfills gate / tipping fees

• Lack of awareness – disregard for provincial regulations - no demand

• Greenwashing , etc…

Cities and Municipality’s Roles in IC&I Waste Management

The cities of Ottawa and Gatineau, as well as the surrounding municipalities are extremely important

stakeholders in IC&I (including C&D) waste management. Not only are they building owners, developers

and managers, they are also a regulator as one can see from the following points




22

The city of Ottawa alone, owns over 900 buildings and facilities, occupying almost 1.2 million

m2 of space; with its own countless construction and demolition projects

The city of Ottawa owns two landfills and operates one of those.

Most cities and municipalities not only have a Solid Waste Sector, but also an important

building department, doing project management, issuing building permits, etc.

The city of Ottawa adopted the LEED rating systems for its own building projects, in some case

mandating 85% waste diversion

For every ton of C&D diverted from the municipally owned landfills, precious space is saved.

Our existing landfills are nearing capacity. New ones will be eventually needed. No one will

want them in their area, and no one will want to pay more taxes to establish them. The cost of

a new landfill could easily be in the range of Two Hundred Million Dollars and Fifty Million

Dollars for an expansion which would be an immense burden onto tax payers.

Waste diversion reduces Greenhouse Gas Emissions not only in landfills, but through the entire

life cycle of any material

Waste diversion reduces air and water pollution, health risks.

Repairing environmental damage around landfills would be costly to taxpayers

Residents, businesses and industries look towards municipal governments for leadership and

representation at higher levels of government.

Restrictions on local acceptance of drywall into landfill

Drywall waste is part of the Construction and Demolition (C&D) which falls in the Industrial, Commercial

and Institutional (IC&I) category and this falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces. While Ontario

Regulation 102/94 require that regulated entities conduct waste audits and prepare, post and update

waste reduction work plans, and that Ontario Regulation 103/94 require that source separation

programs are in place and sets out the types of waste to be separated from the waste stream for

specified sectors, this does not apply to projects less than 2000m2 or to painted drywall. While there is

indication that this could change around 2014, there is currently no plans to ban drywall from landfills

any sooner.

- MOE’s recent efforts have focused on compliance assessment, compliance promotion and

education/outreach. However, the Ministry does have a range of compliance and enforcement tools that it uses to ensure compliance with legislative requirements. These could include Voluntary Abatement Plans, Provincial Officers Orders, Summonses and referring the matter to the Investigations and Enforcement Branch of the Ministry.

- The Environmental Protection Act provides fines up to $ 50,000 per day for an individual and $250,000 per day for a corporation for first offenses. Fines increase for subsequent offenses. A Provincial Officer can also choose to issue a “ticket” for such offences with a maximum fine of $500.




23

The city of Ottawa owns two landfill sites:

1. The Trail Road landfill site is owned and operated by the city and is an important source of

revenue to the city as well as a competitor other regional landfills. This site receives residential

waste, not IC&I, although drywall or other types of construction waste coming from small

renovations or construction projects by home owners or small contractors is accepted.

2. The Springhill is operated by a private company (Tomlinson), which accepts drywall waste,

separates it and transfers it to a drywall recycler, uses it as a soil amendment or stockpiles it.

In April 2009, Ottawa City Council endorsed the ‘Diversion 2015 – Industrial, Commercial & Institutional (IC&I) Waste 3R Strategy’, which was viewed as a positive step for our region, indicating differential tipping fee by January 01-2013, at the Trail Road landfill for drywall, and a ban from disposal by January 01-2014. However, based on media information and communications with the Solid Waste Services Branch, the CRI task group feels that with the current structure and policies, it is very highly unlikely that the city will even approach any of the goals and objectives set out in the strategy.

Understandably, due to jurisdiction, the city can only address drywall at the Trail Road landfill, which

they say does not accept C&D waste. Unfortunately, regional IC&I waste producers, as much as the

users of this site currently have no way of knowing the impacts of drywall in landfills; which is why the

Trail Road landfill has been, and continues to be an important concern of the CRI task group. To this

effect, a number of proposals have been made and readers can find a copy of the motion made by the

Environmental Advisory Committee put forward and voted unanimously for on April 8, 2010.

While the task group will continue to attempt in engaging the city, and make this an electoral issue, the

following points demonstrate why the entire regional building industry must ban together and not wait

for the city to provide education, assistance, infrastructure or leadership in terms of waste diversion:

In 2007, despite a city push for more construction and demolition waste recycling, councilors on

the planning and environment committee rejected a rezoning application for such a facility.

Opportunities to establish a transfer station at the Trail Road landfill have been rejected

Opportunities to work learn from and work with the volunteer professionals of the CRI task

group in gathering information, and considerably improve on the Diversion 2015 strategy have

been rejected, contrary to most of its own objectives and approach

Considerable lack of education on the drywall issues, LEED, and other related concerns

Contradictions between public, private information and that of Diversion 2015 Strategy

Staff from the City of Ottawa Solid Waste Services Branch initially worked closely with the task

group to provide communication, accurate information, and support their efforts whenever and

however possible to accelerate the differential tipping fee (a higher fee imposed if gypsum is

found in the load) to discourage gypsum at the landfill. Unfortunately, although in the Fall of

2009, we were informed that this was to occur in 2010, it was quickly retracted and no further

progress thereafter.

No application for Certificate of Authorization (C of A) for the Trail Road landfill




24

The only and most encouraging sign to date from the city of Ottawa, is a motion Submitted by Councilor

Shad Qadri, Councillor for Stittsville (Ward 6) on Construction and Demolition Recycling Initiatives, to

the Planning and Environment Committee (Reference No ACS2010-CCS-PEC-0024) on June 28th, 2010.

The report recommendations were for the Planning and Environment Committee to recommend city

council approve Eight (8) items in regards to C&D recycling. On July 5th, the PEC unanimously carried this

motion which is now expected to be presented to city council on July 12th.

All details of the report can be found at

http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2010/07-05/22%20-%20ACS2010-CCS-PEC-

0024%20-%20Qadri%20-%20ICI%20Waste%20Recycling%20Initiatives.htm

While there are questions as to whether or not it is strong enough to truly affect change, there can be

no doubt that this is a great first step, for which the councilor and those who worked on the report with

him should be commended. Therefore, the CRI Task Group supports it, along with other important

organizations such as the Ottawa Construction Association, Ottawa Regional Society of Architects,

Association of Registered Interior Designers of Ontario, Chambers of Commerce, etc.

How does the National Capital Region’s Drywall Recycling performance compare to other

cities?

How Much Drywall are We Recycling?

Vancouver

Ottawa

OV

Toronto

Vancouver

360lbs/capita

Toronto

106 lbs/capita

Montreal Montreal

4 lbs/capita

Ottawa Valley

54lbs/capita

Ottawa Transferred

9 oz /capita

In BC lower mainland, Okanagan Valley and Southern Vancouver Island, drywall has been banned from

landfills since the early 1990’s (as well as a soil additive), and an average of nearly 100,000 tons of

drywall is recycled annually

http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2010/07-05/22%20-%20ACS2010-CCS-PEC-0024%20-%20Qadri%20-%20ICI%20Waste%20Recycling%20Initiatives.htm





25

Another striking and embarrassing comparison for the National Capital Region (population 812,129) is to

the nearby Pembroke community (population 13,930), served mainly by Ottawa Valley Waste Recovery.

In the period from October 2008 to August 2009, the NWGR in Oakville received 343 tonnes from the

Pembroke community compared to 208 tonnes from Ottawa. Put another way the Upper Ottawa Valley

has recycled nearly 65% more than the greater Ottawa region, with a population that is less that 2% of

ours!

Toronto has also banned drywall waste from its landfill, and in 2009, recycled 120,000 tons at the

Oakville recycling facility. However since the City-owned Keele Valley landfill site closed at the end of

2002, what does not get recycled simply finds its way over the US border, which in our opinion is

irresponsible given that there is a reclamation facility in Oakville. Unfortunately, recyclers do have

difficulties competing to the extremely low US tipping fees.

Cities / Municipalities operating transfer stations at their own operations include: Metro Vancouver

(formally GVRD) Maple Ridge, Mission, Langley, Chiliwack, Hanover, Northumberland, Peterborough,

Simco, York, Peel, Niagara, Durham, Calgary, Victoria, Nanaimo

Recommendations to the City of Ottawa, and surrounding municipalities

Educate themselves on the issue, impacts and work with the building industry either directly or

with the assistance of the CRI task group for pragmatic and sustainable solutions

Ottawa: Adopt recommendations approved unanimously by the city’s Environmental Advisory

Committee on April 8th; Correct information on facilities available, uphold City Diversion 2015

IC&I Strategy to work with private sector, amend differential tipping fee and ban dates for Trail

Road ; Planning and Environmental Committee vote in favor of motion presented by Councilor

Shad Qadri July 5th; Do not delay any longer on application for Certificate of Approval (C of A) to

set-up a transfer station at the city owned and operated Trail Road landfill, or elsewhere

Accept their responsibilities as building owner, regulator and landfill operator

Include drywall recycling info on web site & on the Collection Calendar for Recycling

Partner with the CRI Task Group, or undertake on their own, a public awareness campaign

Translate this position paper (in full or in part) or provide French resources to, to facilitate the

inclusion of the nearby predominantly French communities and strengthen the business case, all

to increase the business opportunities for recyclers.

Review of city specifications, follow through and enforcement of specifications

Consider Green Building Permits as other cities such as Vancouver and Chicago (providing

incentives such as fast track for green building permit – carbon offsetting)

Work with local industry to find and implement pragmatic and sustainable solutions, possibly

through or with FCM or CMHC grants

Consider joining organizations such as Urban Sustainability Directors Network




26

Be bold, join the green building movement – Compete for the Greenest City by 2020 with 12

other cities, including Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver with an informed and truly engaged

community...

Basic Recycling Steps:

Depending on the project delivery method, recycling might start as early as the design stage, especially

in an integrated design process. However, it generally starts with the person responsible for the

construction waste management plan. Ideally, to keep costs down and in order to ensure all of the

drywall waste is directed to recyclers, the general contractor would provide separate clearly identified

bins, and ensure proper communications to all trade to avoid contamination with other materials. The

bins can then be sent to a local transfer station or shipped directly to a recycler. Shipping to recyclers of

course only makes sense if the space on site allows for large containers, to avoid shipping multiple small

quantities to a minimum of three hours away recycler.

When the site does not allow for source separation, waste material can be co-mingled with others and

separated off site, where the drywall would be accumulated until there is enough to send a full load to a

recycling facility.

In preparing the waste management plan, as required by municipal and provincial regulations, builders

should carefully research all local services available, speak to drywall suppliers, and trade contractors,

waste managers and recyclers to establish the most effective strategy possible as there are several

options in our region and each project should be evaluated on their own merit, and of course, enforce

this plan.

Note that contractors paying for sending waste to a recycler, into a closed loop system should ensure

that the material is not used otherwise into a down-cycle.

Independent drywall recycling facilities are typically located in industrialized areas, relatively close to

drywall manufacturers, or cement plants and process drywall waste through three (3) basic steps:

1) Metal remains such as fasteners or corner beads are removed

2) Paper is stripped and sent for recycling – mostly to pulp and paper mills

3) The core is processed back to a 96% gypsum pure state (in a powder form)

It is important to note that some recycling facilities can accept drywall waste that has been painted or

wet, but would likely not accept toxic / contaminated drywall waste as noted previously.




27

New materials made of this recycled gypsum then would have a ‘’Post-consumer content’’

Post-consumer material is an end product that has completed its life cycle as a consumer item and would otherwise

have been disposed of as a solid waste. Post-consumer materials include recyclables collected in commercial and

residential recycling programs, such as office paper, cardboard, aluminum cans, plastics and metals.

There are two (2) Canadian owned and operated drywall recyclers accessible to the National Capital

Region. The closest, Recycle Gypse Québec, is located in St-Rémi Québec at only 2.5 hours from our

region. This operation is only 3 years old and though while capable of expanding currently has a smaller

capacity. New West Gypsum Recycling (NWGR), established in Langley BC, in 1985, also operates an

important facility in Oakville, Ontario.

Contacts with other gypsum wallboard recycling companies operating in the US, have indicated that in

view of the minimal drywall recycling efforts in Canada, there is currently no other seriously interested

recyclers considering establishing operations North of the border.

However, it is interesting to note a study by students of Carleton University, Department of Civil and

Environmental Engineering on establishing a drywall recycling facility in Cornwall, which would

potentially provide the most sustainable solution of all, balancing environmental, economical and social

pillars. (See Appendix D)

Countless other cities across country either have a recycling facility, aggressively seeking such

opportunities, or at the very least have a transfer station at the city landfill.




28

Some drywall manufacturers may also offer recycling which is certainly welcome news. However, clients

should inquire about conditions and/or limitations such as clean only waste, limited quantities, clients

only, own board waste only, etc.

To ensure effective flow, and to improve the overall economics of gypsum recycling in the area, the task

group also recommends against stockpiling, especially not without the presence of a concrete pad to

avoid leachate or high to avoid sedimentation

NOTE: Toxic drywall (Aka: China Board or Chinese Drywall) … (containing high levels of sulphur) allegedly the

source of diverse negative health issues across North America since 2004 was investigated – mostly to learn if it

could be recycled. Findings showed that while there had been no evidence of this problem in our region, we

recommend that should it be found, it should be disposed of as a contaminated material, with lead, asbestos, mole

or otherwise, it cannot be recycled.

* The Chinese drywall controversy is an alleged health and safety issue involving defective drywall manufactured in

China and imported by the United States starting in 2004.

Encourage the creation transfer stations at all local landfill sites and elsewhere

Regardless of the municipal interest or lack thereof, recycling has been available for some time in our

region. To date, there are two large waste management companies in Ottawa with transfer stations

(WSI and Tomlinson), and one in Gatineau (RMSO). It is important to note that recyclers are open to

other companies and contractors therefore have options for transporting their drywall waste. Other

local waste managers (Ontario and Québec) have expressed interest in the requirements and contacted

the recycling facilities, so other transfer stations are expected in our region.

Also note worthy are drywall suppliers who send their own waste either back to their manufacturers or

to recycling facilities. As we applaud such actions, we encourage all suppliers to follow suite and further

their efforts by providing a value-added service to educate their clients and help facilitate drywall

recycling. Suppliers might also consider alliances with waste managers / recyclers or a take back

program with manufacturers.

In the Gatineau area, there is no evidence of any drywall being diverted from landfills. Since there is

nothing preventing companies to transport recyclables from one province to another, contractors now

have at least three options. The integration of surrounding municipalities is an important consideration

in increasing market demand, research, and development, creating green jobs, decreasing cost, etc.

Unfortunately, we understand that the low US landfill tipping fees will continue to be a challenge in

raising interest on drywall recycling. This noted, should Ottawa Councilor Qadri June motion be

approved, this would also be addressed.




29

Educate the industry on the issues and cost of recycling drywall

Although there is little doubt that the real cost drywall recycling has often been under-analyzed, it is fair

to say that the fluctuating cost of fuel to transport the drywall waste from the National Capital Region to

Oakville (the only accessible facility until 2007), has been one of the biggest deterrent to recycling

drywall.

However, thanks in part to the commitment of the task group, regional contractors who take the time to research, communicate effectively and revise their construction waste management plan to include source separation would now find that diverting drywall from the waste stream is no more expensive than irresponsibly allowing it to become waste. This noted, it is important to note that even at the highest costs based on services available in the

national capital region, allowing for comfortable margins (based on averages) a client and contractor

should keep pricing in perspective. For instance, the incremental cost to recycle the drywall waste

generated from the construction of a new 2,000 square foot home on a construction project might truly

be $ 20 to $ 35 per house. Or, a 50, 000 square foot new office building of costing approximately $ 8.75

million to build, generating about 16 metric tons of drywall waste, might have an incremental additional

cost of only $880.00, representing 0 .01005 % of the overall project budget.

IMPORTANT COST CONSIDERATION: If a building of this size is in Ontario, O. Regulations 102/94 & 103/94 apply and the owner, contractor is obligated to recycle the drywall, along with other recyclables. And as readers can see from the figures below, failure to comply would pale in comparison to a fine under the Environmental Protection Act. While MOE’s recent efforts have focused on compliance assessment, compliance promotion and education/outreach, the Ministry does have a range of compliance and enforcement tools that it uses to ensure compliance with legislative requirements. These could include Voluntary Abatement Plans, Provincial Officers Orders, Summonses and referring the matter to the Investigations and Enforcement Branch of the Ministry. The Environmental Protection Act provides fines up to $50,000 per day per individual and $250,000 per day for a corporation for first offenses. Fines increase for subsequent offenses. A Provincial Officer can also choose to issue a “ticket” for such offences with a maximum fine of $500. On June 28, 2010, Ottawa Councilor Shad Qadri presented a motion to the City Council and Standing Committee which, if passed, would in essence enforce recycling of C&D waste to all projects . See details at http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2010/07-05/22%20-%20ACS2010-CCS-PEC-0024%20-%20Qadri%20-%20ICI%20Waste%20Recycling%20Initiatives.htm For municipalities, true cost consideration should also include that of a new landfill which would be well over 200,000 Million or an expansion at well over $50,000 Million, plus all other associated costs related to social or environmental impacts.






30

Clarify the LEED Rating System and Submittals

The LEED Green Building Rating System is voluntary, consensus-based, and matter driven. Based on

existing and proven technology, it evaluates environmental performance from a whole building

perspective over a building’s life cycle, providing a definite standard for what constitutes a green

building design, construction, and operations.

While not every building will be registered for LEED certification, its popularity is growing, but

unfortunately, so is the greenwashing; leaving many confused by some of the intents and requirements.

LEED is not intended to override building codes or regulations.

The following notes are intend to clarify some of the common myths.

Construction Waste Management – Divert 50% to 75% from Landfill

This is a credit and not a pre-requisite, which means that it is not mandatory

This credit applies to the waste produced on site and diverted from landfill, any landfill

Burning is not considered diversion

Stockpiling may or may not be considered diversion

Obtain supporting documents if using as soil amendment

The regional priority credit in the LEED 2009 might be used for construction waste

diversion. However, LEED users should understand that this strategy might meet the

requirements, only if the region has a landfill that cannot be expanded and thus is

shipping waste far away.

The general contractor is usually responsible for signing the LEED letter template. In

case of audit during the certification process, the contractor would also have to provide

a Waste Management Plan for the project, highlighting recycling and salvage

requirements and, calculations on end project recycling rates, salvage rates, and landfill

rates demonstrating the final percentage diverted. It is therefore in the opinion of this

task group that when a transfer station is involved, the contractor may want to take

precaution and ask for the gate receipts to be provided by the recycler as well as the

construction waste company.

Resource Reuse

Refers to material being used from another site than the one which is being built

Understand that while demountable or moveable partitions will help in future

disassembly and will allow material to be reused, new systems on a LEED project would

not be considered for points.




31

Recycled Content Credit in Materials and Resources

• Recycled Content relates to the new materials used on the project, which have a

recycled content in accordance to the FTC (Federal Trade Commission) 16CFR 260.7 (e)

or CAN/CSA-ISO 14021-00

• Recycled Content formula: post-consumer + ½ post-industrial

• Manufacturer documentation should clearly indicate whether the material contains

post-consumer or post-industrial recycled or both, and what percentage respectively by

weight.

• The percentage given to obtain 1 or 2 points for the MR credit refers to the total sum of

all materials; not the percentage of the post-industrial or post-consumer content within

any specific product.

Drywall board with a high percentage of post-industrial (pre-consumer) content, also known as

synthetic gypsum, or ‘industrial gypsum’, FGD (Flu Gas Desulphurised Gypsum) & DSG (Desulphurised

Gypsum) is produced in part when using ‘scrubbers’ of lime (Ca) in coal fired power plants to clean the

smoke from sulfate (SO). This process produces a high quality drywall / gypsum board. In some areas,

availability is decreasing as oil and gas are replacing coal as an energy source for the power plant. Some

standards of acceptance limit the use of synthetic gypsum for some products (i.e. fire resistant board).

Drywall board with a high percentage of post-consumer content uses gypsum coming from recyclers, in

a closed-loop manner.

Investigate and challenge “Greenwashing”

Greenwashing is a term used to describe the practice of companies disingenuously spinning their

products and policies as environmentally friendly, such as by presenting cost cuts as reductions in use of

resources. It breeds cynicism, damages green credibility and is a deceptive use of green PR or green

marketing. *

While much more investigation would be required to investigate countless seemingly great claims and

products found through our research months, greenwashing concerns arose at many levels, leaving this

as a future daunting task, as some would merit further investigation, such as:

A ‘Fact Sheet’ titled ‘Landfill Gas’ issued January 2008, notes: ‘Landfill gas is not clean, green or

renewable and shouldn’t be considered as such. Allowing landfill gas to count in green energy

programs like Green-e has enabled energy marketers and utilities to sell products that are 95%

landfill gas and only 5% wind to customers who assume they’re getting mostly wind power.

Since landfill gas is cheaper than wind, allowing both technologies to compete evenly within

green pricing programs and renewable energy mandates means landfill companies will gain

where wind power would otherwise benefit’

Collecting a recyclable material with a commitment to recycled into a specific closed loop or at a

specific plant, and not fulfilling that commitment by either sending elsewhere or not at all

without knowledge of the client is a deceptive practice.




32

Many product manufacturers (drywall and others) claim having a recycled content but are

either completely silent or vague about the percentage as well as if it is post-industrial or post-

consumer. The information should be clear as to which standard it is based on, the percentage

by weight, the type of content. Having attestation that the information has been verified by a

recognized independent third party can also be a helpful tool. In the case of drywall board, be

mindful that while a company may have the highest recycled content in one specific board type,

this does not automatically mean that it is the highest for all other board types. Another factor

is that some specialty boards (as other product types) may not be available, or may require

large quantities be ordered for small project requirement.

The drywall board industry in general, has long adopted the use of high recycled content paper

and as this is the lightest portion of the weight of the product, it is somewhat irrelevant.

In a ‘Green Paper’ by TerraChoice Environmental Marketing titled ‘The Seven Sins of Greenwashing -

study of Environmental claims in North American Consumer Markets’ the following were identified

seven patterns as follows:

1. Trade-Off

2. No proof

3. Vagueness

4. Irrelevance

5. Fibbing

6. Lesser of Two Evils

7. Logos

8. False labels

For more details on greenwashing, download the free 2009 report at

http://sinsofgreenwashing.org/findings/greenwashing-report-2009/

Review specifications and/or standard construction waste management plan Regardless whether waste diversion a building certification (i.e. LEED® or Green Globe) is being pursued,

consultants should reviewing specifications on construction waste management plan is highly advisable.

And to ensure a fair bidding process, contractors should inform the consultant if specifications need to

be corrected.

http://sinsofgreenwashing.org/findings/greenwashing-report-2009/




33

• All consultants working for a client or on a project which is covered by the IC&I regulations should

reference the Ontario regulations 102/94 & 103/94 in the specifications. These include: Sector Triggering Threshold

Large Construction Projects one or more buildings with a floor area = 2,000 m2

Restaurants = $3 million in gross sales for all restaurants operated by the owner in

Ontario in the 2 preceding years

Hotels/Motels > 75 units

Hospitals classified as a Class A, B or F hospital in Reg. 964

Large Manufacturing Establishments > 16,000 hours worked by persons employed at the site per month during

the 2 preceding years

Retail Shopping Establishments a floor area =10,000 m2

Retail Shopping Complexes stores with a combined floor area =10,000 m2

Educational Institutions > 350 students enrolled

Office Buildings a floor area = 10,000 m2

• Specifications section 01 74 21 – Construction / Demolition Waste Management and Disposal should

be edited and included within every project manual. Unfortunately, the existing NMS section does

not include information for gypsum recycling which will require the specification editor to include

such requirements. For an approach to easily include gypsum recycling, the task group proposes a

number of amendments, which can be found on Appendix ‘A’

• Also, a reminder that specifying materials with high recycle content is extremely important for a

better built environment. Refer back to Recycling Drywall and Recycled Content in new Drywall.

• Recycling into soil, compost or bio-solids should be supported by professionals, standards and

guidelines.

On smaller private sector, invitational only projects, designers may include specifications directly on the

drawings as General Notes (versus preparing a complete NMS specification). Should the designer choose

to follow this practice, an example of General Notes is attached.

Update / Amend CCA 81, 2001

The Canadian Contractor’s Association (CCA) has ‘A Best Practice Guide to Solid Waste Reduction’

document CCA 81, 2001, which was prepared for guidance. While this includes a valuable 3Rs Checklist,

and includes the recycling of drywall, as well as other materials, the industry and services available or

infrastructure has evolved substantially since this document was issued. Also, the document was

released before LEED was established in Canada, and the examples for waste audits would not be

sufficient for LEED projects. Those still using this document as their principal guideline would benefit

from a full review of today’s data and available services, especially if working on a LEED project.

One of the recycling difficulties as one might imagine, is on site. Either foreman or workers education

of what can be diverted and what cannot. Therefore, ensuring to the site foreman updated and accurate

information, as well as joining Environmental Goals to ‘Worker Orientation for Safety’ may help. Proper

signage is essential, and the following is a sample of a brief awareness note which could form part of a

worker’s agreement:




34

<This project’s sustainable goals are to support the achievement of LEED (Leadership in Energy

and Environmental Design) high Gold level certification, and educate. All site visitors and

workers will therefore respect all best management and construction practices, including but not

limited to the sedimentation and erosion control measures, the potable water usage for

construction activities, the 95% construction waste diversion target by sorting and recycling in

the dedicated bins, the zero tolerance and any other indicated measures.>

Also refer to Appendix ‘C’ for a complete but generic waste management specification sample

Enforce LEED Project documentation

As many other Canadian cities, Ottawa City Council approved a Green Building Policy for the

Construction of Corporate Buildings – Corporate Policy, adopting LEED (Leadership in Energy and

Environmental Design) in September 2005 to have all of their buildings certified at a minimum, with

most building in fact reaching for Silver level certification. In a most recent report to the Corporate

Services and Economic Development, it was found that not only does project team now have the

discretion to reach for Gold, but that some credits such as the Construction Waste Management are not

optional to the design team, this credit must be attained.

In order to satisfy the requirements of the Construction Waste Management credit of LEED projects, the

builder or other responsible party must develop and implement a waste management plan, quantifying

material diversion goals. Calculations can be done by weight or volume, as long as they are consistent.

There are many examples of Construction Waste Management Plans available and many builders

already have them in place. For some, it is simply a matter of upgrading the diversion rate.

Any waste management company should be able to provide statements and or gate receipts, allowing

the builder to track the weights of construction waste land-filled or recycled. For each material

recycled, from the project, request:

• Amount (in tons or cubic yards – but be consistent) of material recycled from the project

• Date removed from the job site

• Receiving party

• Transportation cost

• Amount of any money paid or received for the recycled material

• Attach manifests, weight tickets, receipts and invoices




35

Additional recommendations:

All industrial, commercial and institutional building owners and facility managers, general contractors or

construction managers, architects, designers and specifiers, etc. should familiarize themselves with the

Ministry of Ontario 3Rs Regulation:

O. Reg. 102/94 requires that regulated entities conduct waste audits and prepare, post and

update waste reduction workplans.

O. Reg. 103/94 requires that source separation programs are in place and sets out the types of

waste to be separated from the waste stream for specified sectors.

Given that compliance rate in the C&D sector was still a poor 13% in 2008, increased only to

22% in 2009/2010, and the pressure put on governments to deal with solid waste, it is

reasonable to expect that inspections by ministry staff on site may become more frequent and

companies could face significant fines.

Contractors should consider either “The Toolbox for Contractor’s Seeking LEED Certification” or

the LEED Green Associate Accreditation

Manufacturers might consider:

The LEED Green Associate Accreditation for all their sales representatives

Clarify / Simplify product literature: Intended use, recycled content (post industrial & / or post-

consumer content) manufacturing location, etc.

A review of their current green purchasing and construction waste management policies

Product Life Cycle Assessment is quickly becoming extremely important for product

manufacturers. Data collection is the only way to assess one’s environmental impact and

improve its performance. Therefore, manufacturers should be able to quantify their

resource, water and energy consumption as well as air emissions, in order to effectively

implement reduction plans while improving their social and economic positions, as the rest

of the world is quickly surpassing north American manufacturers on this

The ISO 14000 family addresses various aspects of environmental management. The very

first two standards, ISO 14001:2004 provides the requirements for an Environmental

Management Systems (EMS) and ISO 14004:2004 gives general EMS guidelines. The other

standards and guidelines in the family address specific environmental aspects, including:

labeling, performance evaluation, life cycle analysis, communication and auditing. With a

drive to move away from product labeling, Manufacturers should pay close attention to ISO

14000 ISO 14021 Self-declared Environmental Claims, ISO 14025 Environmental Labels &

Declarations, ISO 14040 Environmental Management LCA Principles & Framework, as well as

ISO 21930 Sustainability in Building Construction Environmental Declaration of Building

products

Careful review of the From Waste to Worth: The Role of Waste Diversion in the Green Economy,

Minister’s Report on the Waste Diversion Act 2002 Review: This report discuses how

manufacturers will likely soon be faced with a framework based on the principles of Extended




36

producer responsibility (EPR) EPR is premised on making those who put products and packaging

into marketplace responsible for managing the waste associated with them. In the Potential

long-term waste diversion schedule, drywall in listed as a material which would be considered in

the short term – 2 years.

Consider up and coming recommended design strategies such as Design for Disassembly (DfD/A)

Owners might consider

Defining project in terms of the triple bottom line; identify the economic, ecological & social

values

Apply LCA to project & establish budget for the entire lifespan of the building (not only capital /

construction cost)

Select Consultants knowledgeable & engaged in sustainable building

Consider open / flexible spaces instead of closed single purpose room to meet program needs

Allow for enough time and money during the design phase for Consultants to coordinate a

modular approach for design and source appropriate material

Establish project Waste Management Goals and ensure that they are included in project

documentation & implementation

Integrated Design Process

Construction Waste Managers might consider

Understand the value of the material as much as environmental impacts in landfill

Do not use painted drywall as soil amendment or in excessive quantities without proper

consultation or documentation

Avoid stock piling

Help raise awareness

Improve infrastructure

Support task group integration concept

Other Considerations

Stakeholders might consider alliances to facilitate recycling and control costs. i.e.:

o Suppliers might have drop off bins for their clients

o Training at trade schools and with local union chapter

o Lobby for regional municipal governments to respond to this call to action.

o Working closely with consultants to assist in green purchasing and waste management

policies

Awards and recognition for most responsible and innovative individual, companies or

organization

Working closely with all concerned regulatory bodies to ban from landfills, in Ontario, Canada

and USA

All organizations should familiarize themselves with existing and upcoming regulations and

standards, to inform their own respective members

CSA Guidelines




37

o Guidelines for Design for Disassembly and Adaptability in Buildings (Z782-06) was

approved by the technical committee on sustainable buildings in November 2006. This

guideline provides a framework for reducing building construction waste through

design for disassembly and adaptability (DfD/A) principles.

o The CSA is now embarking on another guideline project: Guideline for Deconstruction.

In conclusion, we recognize that improving our performance will not be easy and there is no doubt this

will represent work and vigilance. There will be synergies, trade-offs and contradictions. Consultant fees

and waste management costs might be slightly higher, but design strategies could bring other savings.

This of course, will depend greatly on the project delivery method, expertise of the design team,

commitment of the contractors, etc.

And for our region, it will require that important mind shift, learning from each other and working

together. By, taking actions now, we could in fact show the most improvement in the shortest amount

of time, demonstrating true environmental stewardship.

“Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it's

the only thing that ever has.“ … Margaret Mead




38

APPENDIX A: TASK GROUP DETAILS Task Group Contacts Email address Telephone Renée Gratton, LEED A.P. RG INTEGRATION 1609 Donald B Munro Carp, ON K0A 1L0

[email protected] (613) 795-4632

Guy Beaudoin, LEED A.P. ED BRUNET & ASSOCIÉS 9 rue Dumas Hull, QC J8Y 2M4


Chris Lance CASC (Construction Administration & Specification Consultant) 35 Calaveras, Ottawa, ON K2J 4Z4


Lori Gadzala, LEED A.P. Executive Director Ottawa Region Chapter (ORC) Canada Green Building Council Stn B, P.O. Box 723 Ottawa, ON K1P 5P8


Mark Gray Architect, LEED A.P. Director ORC CaGBC 100 – 171 Slater St Ottawa, ON K1) 5H7


Deidre Ellis Architect, LEED A.P. Ottawa Regional Society of Architects CSV Architects 402 – 1066 Somerset St W Ottawa, ON K14 4T3

[email protected] (613) 564-8118 ext 117

Serge Desjardins, Minto Communities 200 – 180 Kent St Ottawa, ON K1P 0B6


Ann Callaghan, ARIDO, LEED A.P. Association of Registered Interior Designers of Ontario Eastern Ontario Chapter 211 – 2141 Thurston Dr. Ottawa, ON K1G 4Z1


Mark Lucuik, P. Eng., LEED A.P. Morrison Hershfield Consulting Engineers, LEED Technical Committee 2440 Don Reid Dr Ottawa, ON K1H 1E1


Marc Desormeaux MM Interior 136 Billings Av. Ottawa, ON K1H 5K9


For more information, or to share information on this matter…

Visit www.constructionrecycling.ca

Or e-mail [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]










http://www.constructionrecycling.ca/





39

CRI task group Next Steps:

The task group recognizes that while great stewardship may raise awareness, it alone cannot provide

the important sustainable business case, essential to the success of this initiative. In the short term

research and lobbying efforts along with and education stakeholder organizations will certainly

continue. The more challenging next phase will be that of creating and implementing measures that will

ensure this initiative does not fail as too many others have.

Both of course will require time and resources, without which it is therefore impossible to make a

specific timeline commitment. Therefore, the most that can be done at this time is work will advance as

time and resources will allow. And, to that effect, the Ottawa Region Chapter of the Canada Green

Building Council is now accepting sponsorship specifically to advance the drywall recycling efforts.




40

APPENDIX B: LIST OF CRI TASK GROUP SPONSORS

Sponsor name Website

Lafarge North America www.lafarge-na.com

Ottawa Regional Society of Architects (ORSA) www.orsa.ca

Construction Specifications Canada – Ottawa Chapter www.cscottawa.ca

Ottawa Region Chapter, Canada Green Building Council http://ottawachapter.cagbc.org

Minto Communities www.minto.com

Walls and Ceilings Contractors Association www.wacca.ca

Hay Design Inc. www.haydesign.ca

Tomlinson Environmental Services www.tomlinsongroup.com

Arborus Consulting www.arborus.ca

CGC Inc. www.cgcinc.com

http://www.lafarge-na.com/

http://www.orsa.ca/

http://www.cscottawa.ca/

http://ottawachapter.cagbc.org/

http://www.minto.com/

http://www.wacca.ca/

http://www.haydesign.ca/

http://www.tomlinsongroup.com/

http://www.arborus.ca/

http://www.cgcinc.com/




41

APPENDIX C: SAMPLE OF RESOURCES USED IN CREATING THIS WHITE

PAPER • Interviews with: NWGR (www.nwgypsum.com), local drywall suppliers and manufacturers

representatives & local waste management companies

• Clean Air World Organization www.cleanairworld.org/topicDetails.asp?parent=2

• Ottawa Stakeholder Advisory Committee (SAC) – Minutes, Meetings 1-4

• Ottawa city reports: IC&I Waste Characterization Report IC&I 3Rs Strategy Project 5 June 2007

• Ottawa Planning and Environment Committee – Minutes 52, Tuesday, 14 April, 2009 & Minutes

8 April, 2010

• Ottawa Diversion 2015 Strategy

(http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2009/04-14/4-ACS2009-ICS-SWS-

0004%20-%20EN%20-%20ICI%20Waste%20Diversion.htm )

• Comments on Gypsum Waste Disposal problems by BC Research for NWGR (May 5, 1987)

• Commission’s Staff Agrologist’s report on the BAWMP (best agricultural waste management

plan) for Windridge Farm (December 11, 1996)

• New Release, Province of British Columbia, Ministry of Environment, Lands & Parks (April 15,

1992)

• A Strategic Analysis of Waste Gypsum Wallboard Reprocessing in British Columbia by BC

Environment (July, 1991)

• Hydrogen Sulphide: Human Health Aspects

(http://www.inchem.org/documents/cicads/cicads/cicad53.htm)

• Scientists Modify Chemical Scrubber

(http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/5381)

• Sulphide (as H2S)

• Landfill Gas Basics http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/landfill/html/ch2.html

• Fact Sheet: Landfill Gas www.EnergyJustice.net

• OSHA Fact Sheet: Hydrogen Sulphide (as H2S) www.osha.gov

• Landfill Gas, by H. Moore, April 2008

• A Best Practice Guide to Solid Waste Reduction (2001) CCA 81

• Environment Protection Act – Ontario Regulation 102/94 (http://www.e-

laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_940102_e.htm)

• Environment Protection Act – Ontario Regulation 103/94 (http://www.e-

laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_940103_e.htm)

• Chinese Drywall info (http://www.neirelo.com/index.cfm?objectid=F919A48E-B0D0-DE64-

E74FF1A5CD6F68AE); www.chinesedrywall.com;

(http://www.journalofcommerce.com/article/id33586)

• LEED Reference guide, Canada NC

• Leachate: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leachate)

• EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) (www.epa.gov/industrialmaterials)

• California Integrated Waste Management Board www.ciwmb.ca.gov/ConDemo/Specs/

http://www.nwgypsum.com/

http://www.cleanairworld.org/topicDetails.asp?parent=2

http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2009/04-14/4-ACS2009-ICS-SWS-0004%20-%20EN%20-%20ICI%20Waste%20Diversion.htm

http://www.ottawa.ca/calendar/ottawa/citycouncil/pec/2009/04-14/4-ACS2009-ICS-SWS-0004%20-%20EN%20-%20ICI%20Waste%20Diversion.htm

http://www.inchem.org/documents/cicads/cicads/cicad53.htm

http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/5381

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_940102_e.htm




http://www.neirelo.com/index.cfm?objectid=F919A48E-B0D0-DE64-E74FF1A5CD6F68AE

http://www.neirelo.com/index.cfm?objectid=F919A48E-B0D0-DE64-E74FF1A5CD6F68AE

http://www.chinesedrywall.com/

http://www.journalofcommerce.com/article/id33586

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leachate

http://www.epa.gov/industrialmaterials




42

• Whole Building Design Guide www.wbdg.org/design/index/php?cn=4.3.4&cx=0

• NMS – National Master Specifications

• CMS – Canadian Master Specifications

• Quality Management and Safety Engineering (BSc) - MST 326

http://www.tech.plym.ac.uk/sme/mst324/MST324-05%20Azapagic.htm#AP

Note: the above list is only a sample of the materials referenced to produce this document. Should you

wish more information please contact the CRI.




43

APPENDIX D: A GENERIC WASTE MANAGEMENT SPECIFICATION SAMPLE

EXAMPLE GENERAL NOTES for inclusion on INTERIOR FIT-UP PROJECT ONLY

Editing NOTES:

1. Edit all items within square brackets [] to suit project.

2. Loosely based on Section 01 74 21 Construction/Demolition Waste Management and Disposal

– but edited to be:

a) applied directly to an Interior Fit-up Project, General Notes portion of drawings and

b) to offer one approach to incorporate waste management procedures with an emphasis on

recycling of drywall for construction, not agricultural, re-use. It is advisable to retain the

services of a professional when pursuing LEED certification. If you are not seeking LEED

remove references.

1.0 Sustainable Design General Notes:

[The Client is seeking Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) for Commercial Interiors

(CI) [ Certified, Silver, Gold or Platinum Level] certification with the Canada Green Building Council for

this Project. ]

2.0 Waste Management Objectives

2.1.0. Minimize the amount of solid waste generated by construction, renovation and demolition (CRD)

activities.

2.2.0. Of the inevitable waste that is generated, maximize the amount diverted from landfill by reusing

or recycling waste materials.

2.3.0. Comply with applicable Environmental Protection Act regulations relating to construction waste

management (including Ontario Regulation 102/94 and Ontario Regulation 103/94)

2.4.0 [Interior Designer] to prepare list of CRD waste, complete with suggested sites and methods for

disposal, [for review with Contractor].

Editing Note: If the Contractor is not experienced in recycling we often find it is more successful if

Interior Designer prepares the CRD list for review with Contractor as opposed to the Contractor

preparing the list for review with the Interior Designer.

Typical list may include:

Acoustic tile (90%), acoustical insulation (100), carpet (100), concrete, masonry, stone

(100), steel stud framing (100), steel doors and frames (100), metals (100), wood (100),

drywall (85), cardboard (80), plastic (80), glass (75), furniture (80), mechanical

equipment and ductwork (100)]




44

Editing NOTE: target diversion % rates are listed in brackets(). Edit the above list to suit your project.

2.5.0. For each waste material item listed on CRD list:

2.5.1. Provide the amounts reused, recycled and sent to landfill (by weight [and/or] volume). Weigh bills and letter of material acceptance from recycling facilities must be provided for all materials identified in CRD waste list. [In addition the Contractor may be requested to complete a Waste Audit (WA)by compiling all the documentation listed above and in the Submittals Section [3.0] and issue a complete audit analyzing:

1. total tonnage of waste generated. 2. total tonnage of waste sent to landfill 3. description and total tonnage of each item recycled 4. description and total tonnage of each item re-used]

2.5.2. If supplier take-back program is implemented, provide data on volume [and/or] weight of

packaging or other materials taken back by suppliers.

2.5.3. Provide the costs/revenue associated with disposal (including transportation costs and

tipping fees)

2.5.4. Refer to Submittals Section [3.0]

3.0 Submittals:

3.1.0 Waste Management Objectives:

3.1.1. Maintain all receipts and documentation of waste transfer from the site including tipping fees and

revenues from salvaged and recycled materials. Documentation must confirm all materials have been

transported to required locations. Obtain weights of materials diverted from landfill.

3.1.2. [Provide regularly updated reports summarizing the total amount of solid waste generated by

the project, the waste quantities diverted from landfill and the means by which the diversions were

achieved. Clearly indicate the percentage of total solid waste materials diverted from landfill.]

Editing NOTE: Interior Designer may also want to link progress payments to receipt of weigh bills,

acceptance letters and summaries. i.e. funds may be withheld until requested material is received.

This may sound harsh but it is in everyone’s (including the Contractor’s best interest as this

information is easy to provide if contractor and Interior Designer keep on top of the documentation

required. It is very difficult or almost impossible to obtain this information after the project is

completed.)

Editing NOTE: Protection of drywall is not required for recycling as the condition of the gypsum waste

(wet, dry, broken etc) does not affect the recycling process.




45

Editing NOTE: Interior Designer may wish to include a list of waste management facilities with drywall

recycling capabilities serving the Ottawa Region (refer to the Example Specification Section 01 74 21

Section 1.12.2 and 1.13.1.1 for recycling processing sites)

4.0 Recycled Content Drywall

4.1.0. Drywall to be [specify manufacturer]and to be certified as manufactured by the [indicate nearest

plant location which can provide the drywall board that meets your project requirements] drywall to be made of

[indicate highest content available industry which meets project’s requirements i.e. 16%] post-consumer recycled

content and [indicate highest content available industry which meets project’s requirements i.e. 83%] post-

industrial recycled content.

Note that as manufacturers increase research and development, and as more and more recycled gypsum available,

availability will increase. However, until then, in ongoing review is highly recommended and the specifications may or

may not depend on consultant’s ability to sole source.




46

APPENDIX E: CARLETON UNIVERSITY DESIGN PROJECT The following is a project by students of Carleton University – Department of Civil and Environmental

Engineering. While figures have not been verified, it is interesting to see how a marginal investment

might get us a recycling facility in our very own region. While there would still be transportation involved

to bring the recycled goods to large markets, we could then move to further study with Agricultural

Colleges and University (such as Kemptville or Guelph) and possibly sooner than later be able to establish

guidelines in order to properly and safely include in agricultural, compost or other markets. This alone

could be a major opportunity to develop green jobs for our sector.

The goal of this project was to design a gypsum recycling facility that handles gypsum waste that is

produced in Eastern Ontario and Western Quebec. This facility was designed to handle 50 000 tonnes

per year of waste gypsum wallboard.

Gypsum wallboard is a common building material that comes from two main sources, a byproduct of

flue-gas desulphurization and from virgin gypsum. To make gypsum wallboard the gypsum must first

become calcined to remove up to 75% of its water content. This calcined gypsum is called stucco. It is

then mixed with water and other additives typically starch, to create a slurry. This is then spread

between two sheets of paper to create a continuous strip of gypsum board. This board is then dried

back to its uncalcined state and cut to size. The goal of a gypsum recycling facility is to separate the

paper and gypsum portions of the wallboard into two separate streams and send each to be recycled

into new material.

Currently gypsum is typically disposed of in landfills, with small quantities of gypsum being recycled.

Disposal of gypsum in landfills is not a favorable disposal method because anaerobic decomposition of

the drywall waste can occur which releases significant quantities of toxic hydrogen sulphide gas. It also

causes the permeability of the landfill clay liner to increase. This can allow pollutants to leach into the

groundwater and contaminate local water resources. Due to these significant operational concerns,

many municipal landfills have started to ban gypsum waste. With an increase in landfills that do not

allow gypsum disposal it became more evident that landfilling waste gypsum wallboard was not a viable

long-term solution.

To support a gypsum recycling solution, the Ontario Government has regulations (O.Reg 102/94 & O.Reg

103/94) that govern how large construction projects are allowed to dispose of their waste materials.

These regulations require that construction and demolition projects with an area of 2000m2 and larger

source separate materials for disposal.

The project that is being proposed carries a service life requirement of 30 years. This will ensure that

there is a solution in place to handle waste gypsum for a significant amount of time. This facility uses a

proven gypsum recycling process, the Andela Systems AGBR-11.

Using the ABGR-11, the facility, located in Cornwall ON, will produce about 45 000 tonnes of powdered

gypsum that will be shipped to a wallboard manufacturing facility in Montreal. The majority of the

gypsum to be processed will come from new construction projects due to the high availability and low




47

contamination nature of the waste post processing, the material is separated into gypsum and paper

streams. The gypsum is stored and shipped to Montreal the paper stream is immediately baled and then

transported to an undetermined paper recycler.

To complete the project a rudimentary cost analysis has been completed. A tabulated version of the

analysis is completed below:

Item Quantity Unit Price Total

AGBR-11 3 $700,000.00 $2,100,000.00

PW3650 1 $100,000.00 $100,000.00

Land 2 Acre $20,000.00 $40,000.00

Front End Loader 1 $50,000.00 $50,000.00

Fork Lift 1 $10,000.00 $10,000.00

Conveyor Belts 240 m $984.30 $236,232.00

Air Pollution Control 1 $81,000.00 $81,000.00

Miscellaneous 1 $500,000.00 $500,000.00

Building 1 $2,405,000.00 $2,405,000.00

Total $5,522,232.00

Table 1 - Capital Costs

Annual Revenue Quantity Price Total

Gypsum 50000 $35.00 $1,750,000.00

Waste Paper Sales 4500 $43.00 $193,500.00

Total $1,943,500.00

Expenses Quantity Price Total

Waste Gypsum 46000 $10.00 $460,000.00

O&M 1 $350,740.00 $350,740.00

Employee Salary 10 $50,000.00 $500,000.00

Trucking 1000 $375.00 $375,000.00

Total $1,685,740.00

Net $257,760.00

Table 2 - Revenue & Expenses

This project was completed on estimated cost assumptions from manufacturers and textbook sources,

and was completed by:

Michael Beaudoin Sean Kerwin Greg Sabourin

613-866-4875 613-986-7326 613-601-6752

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]





48

APPENDIX F : EXAMPLE SPECIFICATION Section 01 74 21 October 8, 2009 CONSTRUCTION/DEMOLITION WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL NMS Template of 53 Note to Specifier: The following specification Section 01 74 21 – Construction/Demolition Waste Management and Disposal has been edited to offer one approach to incorporate waste management procedures for any Project with an emphasis on the recycling of drywall for construction, not agricultural, re-use. It is advisable to retain the services of a professional when pursuing LEED® certification. This Section utilizes the header and sub-header organization of the National Master Specification, but has replaced the content with concise comments for a Specifier to edit their respective Waste Management Specification Section accordingly. This Section is numbered in accordance with MasterFormat 2004 and formatted in accordance with PageFormat 2008.

1 GENERAL

1.01 RELATED SECTIONS

.1 Any Division 01 Sections required for project (ie. 01 33 00, 01 35 21, etc…)

.2 Any Sections containing drywall (ie. 09 21 16, 09 21 99, etc…)

1.02 REFERENCES

.1 Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED®), Green Building Rating System™ certified by Canada Green Building Council (CaGBC), or other rating / certification system if possible.

.2 Ontario Regulations: (these are provincially mandated regulations which require the separation and recycling of certain construction debris – in particular drywall)

.1 Ontario Regulation 102/94, Waste Audits And Waste Reduction Work Plans

.2 Ontario Regulation 103/94, Industrial, Commercial And Institutional Source Separation Programs

.3 Other classifications, municipal or provincial regulations or waste management references required for project.

1.03 DEFINITIONS

.1 As required for project. Specific definitions should be provided for waste management process(es) implemented and specific terms the specification writer deems appropriate to further clarify terminology (ie. what is recycled material, landfill waste, etc…).

1.04 DOCUMENTS

.1 On-site documentation is required for continuous updates to the waste management process as separation and collection of materials is done in-situ. All items requested in 1.05 Submittals should be included within this heading.




49

Appendix F – Example Specification Section 01 74 21 October 8, 2009 CONSTRUCTION/DEMOLITION WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL NMS Template Page 2 of 53 1.05 SUBMITTALS

.1 As a minimum, the following should be requested for each project:

.1 Waste management facility or the location to which waste materials will be shipped for final separation and collection, unless stipulated by Specifier within this Section

.2 Tonnage and type of materials to be disposed of in landfill

.1 Location of landfill and weigh bills for transport from site to waste management facility and transport from facility to landfill if in different location.

.3 Tonnage, weigh bills and letters of material acceptance from recycling facilities for each material required to be recycled as indicated in Part 3 of this Section.

.4 Final report to be issued at the completion of the Project indicating all landfill sites and recycling facilities shipped to for Project specific waste. A compiled list of the complete Project waste tonnage for landfill, re-used, and recycled materials.

1.06 PAYMENT PROCEDURES (new heading which may or may not be included)

.1 As additional emphasis on the importance of the waste management process, the Consultant may request that the Project cost breakdown incorporate costs identified with waste management.

.2 Funds may be withheld from monthly project claims should the appropriate documentation requested in 1.05 - Submittals not be provided.

1.07 WASTE AUDIT (WA)

.1 Include as required for Project.

1.08 WASTE REDUCTION WORKPLAN (WRW)


1.09 DEMOLITION WASTE AUDIT (DWA)


1.10 COST/REVENUE ANALYSIS WORKPLAN (CRAW)


1.11 MATERIALS SOURCE SEPARATION PROGRAM (MSSP)


1.12 WASTE PROCESSING SITES (existing heading which may be deleted if not used)

.1 Only edit this header as a means of waste management quality control. If required, the name and location of local, qualified waste management facilities may be stipulated to ensure that appropriate procedures may be implemented. Delete this header in its entirety should the Contractor be responsible for sourcing and submitting a waste management facility for the Project.




50

Appendix F – Example Specification Section 01 74 21 October 8, 2009 CONSTRUCTION/DEMOLITION WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL NMS Template Page 3 of 53

.2 As an example, following is a list of waste management facilities with drywall recycling capability serving the Ottawa region:

.1 Goulbourn Sanitation, 106 Westhunt Dr, Carp, Ontario

.2 Tomlinson Environmental, 7720 Springhill Rd, Ottawa, Ontario

.3 Waste Services Inc. (WSI), 3354 Navan Rd, Ottawa, Ontario

1.13 RECYCLING PROCESSING SITES (new heading which may or may not be included)

.1 Similar to 1.12 above, this header can be implemented to ensure that an appropriate recycling facility is utilized. If required, include the name and location of recycling facilities qualified to accept and recycle certain materials in accordance with the requirements of this Section.

.1 For the recycling of drywall, the following facility currently accepts shipments from Ottawa waste management facilities:

.1 New West Gypsum Recycling (NWGR), Toronto, Ontario.

1.14 STORAGE, HANDLING AND PROTECTION

.1 Edit as required for project. Note that protection of drywall board is not required for recycling as the condition of the drywall waste (wet, dry, broken, etc…) does not affect the recycling process.

1.15 DISPOSAL OF WASTES

.1 Edit as required for project.

1.16 USE OF SITE AND FACILITIES


1.17 SCHEDULING


2 PRODUCTS

2.01 NOT USED

.1 Not Used.




51

Appendix F – Example Specification Section 01 74 21 October 8, 2009 CONSTRUCTION/DEMOLITION WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL NMS Template Page 4 of 53 3 EXECUTION

3.01 SELECTIVE DEMOLITION

.1 When the Project involves demolition, edit this section to include a list of all removed materials required for recycling. As it is unrealistic to expect 100% separation of certain materials for recycling or re-use, the Specifier should stipulate a minimum percentage of content to be recycled. For example:

.1 Drywall board – minimum 85% (it is likely that some removed products have adhered drywall finishes which would not be feasible to attempt and separate. It is the Specifier’s judgment based on a particular project to set a realistic, achievable target for recycling)

.2 Please note that the target % values should be used as a means of emphasizing the degree of effort required only. It is not feasible to quantify the full extent of each material on a project prior to, and during, removal. The ultimate success of a project will be reflected in comparing the total tonnage of containers removed from site to the total tonnage of material re-used or recycled.

3.02 APPLICATION

.1 Edit as required for project

3.03 CLEANING

.1 Edit as required for project

3.04 PACKAGING MATERIALS (new heading which may or may not be included)

.1 It may be mandated that all packaging material from delivered products (ie. wood pallets, plastic wrapping, cardboard, etc…) be separated and recycled by the waste management facility or returned to the vendor / manufacturer for re-use and / or recycling. Ensure appropriate means of verification are requested to ensure that materials are in fact being re-used and / or recycled.

3.05 ON-SITE SEPARATION OF WASTE (new heading which may or may not be included)

.1 In order to facilitate the waste management process to ensure that appropriate materials will be re-used or recycled, source separation should be implemented as much as possible. Depending on the size of project, type and extent of materials being used, following is a list of separate containers which could be requested be available on-site:

.1 Land clearing debris

.2 Asphalt

.3 Concrete / Masonry / Stone

.4 Metals

.5 Wood

.6 Drywall

.7 Cardboard

.8 Plastic

.9 General waste which does not include any of the products listed above.




52

Appendix F – Example Specification Section 01 74 21 October 8, 2009 CONSTRUCTION/DEMOLITION WASTE MANAGEMENT AND DISPOSAL NMS Template Page 5 of 53

3.06 DIVERSION OF MATERIALS

.1 Following is an example of materials which should be required for waste diversion by means of recycling or re-use for most Projects. It is recommended to remove the Actual Diversion column from the NMS content as the actual amounts should be requested in heading 3.07 – Waste Audit. Please note that the target values should be used as a means of emphasizing the degree of effort required only. It is not feasible to quantify the full extent of each material on a project prior to, and during, removals. The ultimate success of a project will be reflected in comparing the total tonnage of containers removed from site to the total tonnage of material re-used or recycled.

.2 General waste: Material Type Target Diversion (%)

Acoustic Tile 90

Acoustical Insulation 100

Concrete, masonry and stone 100

Carpet 100

Gypsum 85

Steel stud framing 100

Steel Doors and Frames 100

Glass 75

Electrical Equipment and wiring 80

Furnishings 80

Wood products 100

Mechanical Equipment & ductwork 100

Miscellaneous Metals 100

3.07 WASTE AUDIT (WA)

.1 The contractor may further be requested to complete a waste audit by compiling all documentation requested in heading 1.05 – Submittals and issue a complete audit analyzing:

.1 Total tonnage of waste generated.

.2 Total tonnage of waste sent to landfill.

.3 Description and total tonnage of each item recycled.

.4 Description and total tonnage of each item re-used.

.2 It cannot be emphasized enough that proper documentation substantiating the type and weight of materials received and processed at the end source (ie. recycling plant) be submitted to support all quantities within the waste audit.

3.08 WASTE REDUCTION WORKPLAN (WRW)

.1 Recommend deleting this header and utilizing 3.07 only.

3.09 DEMOLITION WASTE AUDIT (DWA)

.1 Recommend deleting this header and utilizing 3.07 only.

END OF SECTION




53

© 2010 Construction Recycling Initiative (CRI) – All rights reserved

The information contained in this report is provided in good faith and has been derived from sources believed to be

reliable and accurate. No warranty as to accuracy or completeness of the information is given and no responsibility

accepted by any of the participants for any loss or damage arising from reliance on the information provided..

This position paper is for informational purposes only. THE CRI TASK GROUP MAKES NO WARRANTIES, EXPRESS,

IMPLIED, OR STATUTORY, AS TO THE INFORMATION IN THIS DOCUMENT.

Complying with all applicable copyright laws is the responsibility of the user. Without limiting the rights under

copyright, no part of this document may be reproduced, stored in or introduced into a retrieval system, or

transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise), or for any

purpose, without the express written permission of the Construction Recycling Initiatives (CRI) Task Group .