CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 82Municipal Solid Waste ManagementRecycled Aggregate Concrete PerformanceLandfill Environmental Impact Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

A Review of Construction and Demolition Debris Regulations in the United States

Clark, Corrie, Jambeck, Jenna, Townsend, Timothy·2006·Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology
DOI 10.1080/10643380500531197
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Construction and demolition (C&D) debris comprises a significant portion of the solid waste stream in the United States. Because C&D debris is largely regulated at the state level, the requirements for C&D debris disposal facilities vary from state to state. A review of state regulations was conducted to determine C&D debris disposal facility requirements, including specific requirements for liners, leachate collection, groundwater monitoring, location restrictions, operator training, waste spotters, final cover, financial assurance, and recycling. This review found that little consistency exists in the regulation of C&D debris facilities among states. Twenty-three states require liners, while 27 require groundwater monitoring. Seventeen states reported having regulations pertaining to recycling C&D debris. Several states are currently in the process of reviewing and updating their C&D debris regulations, an indication of the greater recognized importance of this fraction of the solid waste stream.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10643380500531197

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The construction industry produces up to 40% of the total waste stream, excluding excavation waste.

    “produces up to 40% of the total waste stream (excluding the excavation waste) (Clark et al., 2006; Defra, 2019; Eurostat, 2019; UNEP, 2015)”

    From Components reuse in the building sector – A systematic review (2020) · cites this paper as Clark et al., 2006

Citations

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 64

  1. 2002, ADEM Admin. Code R. 334–13-x-.xx
  2. 2002, Solid waste management 18 AAC 60
  3. 2002, Solid waste management 18 AAC 13
  4. 1995, Regulation 22 Solid Waste Management
  5. 2002, Title 27, Environmental Protection Division 2, Solid Waste
  6. 2002, Regulations Pertaining to Solid Waste Disposal Sites and Facilities 6 CCR 1007-2.
  7. 1991, Solid Waste Management Plan
  8. 2002, Solid Waste Regulations: Sections 3 and 6
  9. 1998, Management and Disposal of Lead Based Paint Debris; Proposed Rule, 63
  10. 2003, Criteria for Classification of Solid Waste Disposal Facilities and Practices and Criteria for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills: Disposal of Residential Lead-Based Paint Waste, 68
  11. 2001, Chapter 62-701 Solid Waste Management Facilities
  12. 1998, Characterization of building-related construction and demolition debris in the United States
  13. 1998, Characterization of municipal solid waste in the United States: 1997 Update
  14. 1997, Solid Waste Management
  15. 2003, Report of findings and recommendations on the use and management of asbestos
  16. 1999, Hawaii administrative rules chapter 11-58.1: Solid waste management control
  17. 2002, Minimizing construction and demolition waste
  18. 2002, 58.01.06, Solid waste management rules and standards
  19. 1999, 35.G.I.I.807: Solid waste
  20. 2002, Title 329 of the Indiana Administrative Code Solid Waste Management Board Article 10 Solid Waste Land Disposal Facilities
  21. 2002, Iowa administrative code 567 Title 8: Solid waste management and disposal
  22. Jambeck, J., Townsend, T. and Ylinen, S. 2003. Recycling of construction debris at the job site: Case studies in Minnesota and Florida. Proc. 14th Annual Waste Reduction, Recycling and Composting and 7th Annual Collection and Transfer Symposium, Solid Waste Assocaition of North America. February24–252003, Orlando, FL. pp.89–96.
  23. 2002, Title 28 of the Kansas Administrative Regulations Article 29: Solid Waste
  24. 2002, 401 KAR 48: Standards for Solid Waste Facilities
  25. Kibert C., 2000, Implementing deconstruction in Florida: Materials reuse issues, disassembly techniques, economics and policy
  26. Lee S., 2000, Landfill gas composition at Florida construction and demolition debris facilities
  27. 2002, Title 33 Enviromental regulatory code Part VII: Solid waste
  28. 1999, 38-401: Maine solid waste management rules—Landfill siting, design and operation
  29. 2002, 26.04.07: Solid waste management
  30. 2001, 310 CMR 19.000: Solid waste management
  31. 1999, Solid Waste Management Act: Administrative rules promulgated pursuant to Part 115 of the Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, 1994 PA 451, as amended
  32. 2001, Chapter 7035 Minnesota Pollution Control Agency: Solid waste
  33. 1996, Nonhazardous solid waste management regulations
  34. 1998, Rules of Department of Natural Resources: Division 80 Solid waste management: Chapter 4 Demolition landfill
  35. 1997, Chapter 50: Solid waste management sub-chapter 5: Refuse disposal
  36. 2003, Title 132 Integrated solid waste management regulations, Chapter 5: Criteria for construction and demolition water disposal area
  37. 2002, Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) Chapter 444—Sanitation (Solid waste disposal)
  38. 2003, New Hampshire Code of Administrative Rules Env-Wm 100-300, 2100-3700 Solid waste rules
  39. 2002, New Jersey Administrative Code 7:26
  40. 2001, Technical manual for Class B recycling center approvals
  41. 1995, Title 20 New Mexico Administrative Code Chapter 9.1
  42. 1999, Solid waste management facilities
  43. 2003, Part 1 Subchapter 13B: Solid waste management
  44. 1999, North Dakota Administrative Code Article 33-20 Solid waste management and land protection
  45. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. 2002.OAC Chapter 3745-400: Construction & demolition debrishttp://www.epa.state.oh.us/dsiwm/pages/3745-400.html(January 9, 2003)
  46. 2002, 252:515 Solid waste management
  47. 2002, Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter 340, Divisions 93 and 95: Solid waste
  48. 2003, Title 25 Part I Article VII: Municipal waste Chapter 277: Construction/demolition waste landfills, 2001
  49. 2001, Solid Waste Regulation Numbers 1, 2, and 7
  50. 2000, 2000 Annual Solid Waste Report
  51. 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-025X(2000)4:3(111) · DOI
  52. 2003, 61-107.11. Solid waste management: Construction, demolition and land-clearing debris landfills
  53. 1998, Administrative Rules of South Dakota Article 74:27 Solid Waste
  54. 2002, Rules of Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation Division of Solid Waste Management Chapter 1200-1-7: Solid waste processing and disposal
  55. 2000, Chapter 330 Subchapter D: Classification of municipal solid waste facilities
  56. 2000, A Guide to deconstruction: An overview of deconstrucrtion with a focus on community development opportunities
  57. 1995, Background document for CESOG
  58. 2002, R315. Environmental quality, solid and hazardous waste
  59. 1999, Solid waste management rules
  60. 2003, Chapter 173-304 WAC minimum functional standards for solid waste handling
  61. 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9372(2002)128:3(237) · DOI
  62. 1999, Title 33 Series 1: Solid waste management rule
  63. 1997, Chapter NR 500 General solid waste management requirement
  64. 2003, Solid and Hazardous Waste Division rules and regulations: Solid waste management

Cited by

Sorted by citations

  • Components reuse in the building sector – A systematic review

    Rakhshan, K., Morel, J.-C., Alaka, H., & Charef, R. (2020) · Waste Management & Research: The Journal for a Sustainable Circular Economy · doi:10.1177/0734242x20910463 · Cited by 167

    “…et al., 1996; Herczeg et al., 2014; World Steel Association, 2012), produces up to 40% of the total waste stream (excluding the excavation waste) (Clark et al., 2006; Defra, 2019; Eurostat, 2019; UNEP, 2015) and generates around 39% of the world’s greenhouse gas emissions (Abergel et al., 2017).”
    Background

Metadata

Authors
Clark, C., Jambeck, J., & Townsend, T.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • University of New Hampshire (US)
  • University of Florida (US)
ORCID
Venue
Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2006-03
Volume
36
Issue
2
Pages
141-186
ISSN
  • 1064-3389 (ISSN-L)
  • 1547-6537
DOI
10.1080/10643380500531197
OpenAlex
W2064383924
Cited by
82
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
FWCI
5.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Critical Reviews in Environmental Science and Technology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Municipal Solid Waste Management
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Building and Construction › Recycled Aggregate Concrete Performance
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Waste Management and Disposal › Landfill Environmental Impact Studies
Keywords
construction and demolition waste, state-level regulation, leachate collection, groundwater monitoring, financial assurance, final cover, operator training, recycling, solid waste management, regulatory consistency

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review