See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284727258

LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF CONSTRUCTION

AND DEMOLITION WASTES FROM SMALL
GENERATORS

Conference Paper October 2015

CITATIONS READS

0 96

3 authors, including:

Carmenlucia S. G. Penteado Lais Peixoto Rosado

University of Campinas University of Campinas
16 PUBLICATIONS 12 CITATIONS 4 PUBLICATIONS 4 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

LIFE CYCLE INVENTORY OF WASTE ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT IN SO PAULO STATE
View project

Life Cycle Assessment of Construction and Demolition Waste Management in the Municipalities from
PCJ Watershed, So Paulo State, Brazil View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Carmenlucia S. G. Penteado on 27 November 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT OF
CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION
WASTES FROM SMALL GENERATORS

C.S.G. PENTEADO*, L. P. ROSADO*, A. A. LOPES**

* Graduate Program in Technology, School of Technology, University of
Campinas. Limeira, Brazil.
** Environmental Sanitation Department, Instituto Federal Goiano Rio Verde,
Brazil.

SUMMARY: This paper presents a life cycle assessment of C&DW produced by small
generators, in a medium sized municipality in Brazil. The life cycle inventory was performed
considering a functional unit of 0.8 t of waste, primary data from field survey and secondary data
from Ecoinvent version 2.2, and the literature. The method CML 2 baseline 2001 was used to
evaluate the impacts of the current scenario (10% of C&DW used as paving material and 90%
disposed of), and the impacts of four proposed scenarios, which considere different percentages
of use as paving material, landfilling and sorting and recycling. Normalized results for the
studied scenarios show the largest participation of the categories GWP, AP and EP, mainly
related to transport emissions, while GWP also accounts the energy input required in sorting and
recycling processes. These results are very important for the C&DW management planning,
given that the scenarios that consider long distances between the generation sources and the
recycling units have the highest values for GWP, AP e EP.

1. INTRODUCTION

In a global context, construction and demolition waste (C&DW) generation has progressively
increased in recent years; when not properly managed, these wastes may severely impact the
environment, economy and social activities (Marzouk and Azab, 2014; Yuan et al., 2012; Ortiz
et al., 2010; Duan et al., 2015). Data from public cleaning services, show that Brazilian
municipalities collected 117,000 t.day-1 of C&DW in 2013 (ABRELPE, 2014); these quantities
represent an average of 60% of the total mass of municipal solid waste (MSW) in medium and
large-sized cities (. Waste generation occurs diffusely, and approximately 70% of C&DW is
produced by small generators and the remaining 30% by the formal construction sector (So
Paulo; Sinduscon, 2012).
In general, C&DW is considered as non-hazardous waste, and its environmental impacts are
related to the high generation rates (Karpinsk et al., 2009). However, it may comprise hazardous
wastes, such as inks, oils, solvents, etc. (USEPA, 2004); leaching tests of C&DW produced in
recent and old construction and demolition works presented trace concentrations of
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PHAs), also, higher
concentrations of chromium were found both in masonry as in recycled aggregates samples
(Butera et al., 2014; Galvn et al., 2014).

Proceedings Sardinia 2015, Fifteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium
S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Italy; 5 9 October 2015
2015 by CISA Publisher, Italy
 Sardinia 2015, Fifteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium

Aiming to minimize and avoid C&DW risks and impacts, the Brazilian Environmental
Council (CONAMA) enacted Resolution 307:2002, establishing criteria, guidelines and
procedures for C&DW management (Brazil, 2002); this regulation was updated by Resolutions
348:2004, 431:2011 and 448:2012 (Brazil, 2004; 2011a; 2012b). Despite the force of these
regulations, from the 5,565 Brazilian municipalities, only 4.17% have met their requirements
(Marques Neto and Murakawa, 2013). A major factor is the shortage of technical and financial
resources, and the lack of inspection (Scremin et al., 2014). Therefore, it is usual in most
Brazilian municipalities to adopt corrective measures in C&DW management, resulting in high
costs to the public sanitation systems (Marques Neto, 2009).
With the enactment of Federal Law 12,305:2010, which established the National Policy of
Solid Waste (NPSW), Brazilian municipalities are required to adopt targets and programs to
reduce the volumes of solid waste disposed of in landfills. These targets were announced in
2012, in the preliminary version of the National Solid Waste Plan (NSWP), which states that by
2027, the southeastern region of Brazil is expected to recycle 100% of C&DW (Brazil, 2010;
Brazil, 2011b).
The recycling targets of NSWP are used in this study, to propose C&DW management
scenarios for the city of Limeira, located in southeastern Brazil. These scenarios were
constructed in order to study the environmental impacts related to the management of small
volumes through Life Cycle Assessment (LCA).
Currently there are many tools for environmental impact assessment, however, life cycle
assessment (LCA) has been increasingly used to identify the best scenarios for waste
management, which may prevent or minimize negative impacts on ecosystems and natural
resources and human health (Clift et al., 2000; McDougall et al., 2001; Ekvall et al., 2007; Saner
et al., 2012; Laurent et al., 2014).
Pasqualino et al. (2008) used LCA to compare three C&DW management scenarios (landfill,
incineration and recycling), in Barcelona, Spain. In this study, the global warming potential
(GWP) in the landfill scenario has the highest impact, while incineration and recycling present
benefits due to the energy and material valorization. Blengini (2009) investigated the LCA of a
residential building demolished in 2004, in Turin, Italy, and concluded that C&DW recycling is
feasible, economically and environmentally. In other study in the same location, Blengini and
Garbarino (2010) analyzed the environmental aspects of recycling, and concluded that for all
impact categories considered, the contribution of landfilling is high. However, with the
exception of aquatic and terrestrial ecotoxicity, in all other categories (land use, global warming,
non-renewable energy and mineral extraction), recycling presented more impacts than benefits.
Ortiz et al. (2010) used LCA to evaluate landfilling, recycling and incineration scenarios in
C&DW management. The functional unit was defined as the total amount of waste produced in
the construction studied (2.06E+02 kg/m2). Regarding to GWP, the best scenario was recycling,
followed by incineration and landfilling. When the transport distances from the generation
source to the treatment unit are considered, incineration and recycling are the best options, even
in the cases where the distances are large. This information is valid for most wastes, with the
exception of the aggregates, which should be recycled near the construction sites. Mercante et al.
(2012) evaluated the life cycle inventory of a C&DW management system, and concluded that
transport is crucial for recycling, and, the negative impacts may be reduced by improving waste
sorting in its generation source. Coelho and Brito (2012) analyzed the life cycle impacts of a
building, for different materials options, traditional and selective demolition practices and waste
management, and found that selective demolition not always result in lower environmental
impacts.
 Sardinia 2015, Fifteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium

In the above presented review of literature, LCA studies on C&DW management consist of
case studies related to wastes produced in specific construction and demolition works
(Pasqualino et al., 2008; Blengini, 2009; Ortiz et al., 2010; Coelho and Brito, 2012), e recycling
processes (Blengini and Garbarino, 2010; Coelho and Brito, 2013). Given the scarcity of
researches on C&DW produced diffusely by small producers, and whereas they may represent
up to 70% of the total waste produced in a municipality, the overall objective of this study was to
compare management scenarios, through LCA, taking as a case study, a medium-sized city in
Brazil.

2. MANAGEMENT OF C&DW FROM SMALL GENERATORS

In Brazil, according to current regulations, large C&DW generators (e.g. building contractors)
are responsible for waste management; however, municipalities must have registered and
licensed areas for delivering, sorting and temporary storage of small volumes of such wastes.
Therefore, points of delivery of small volumes (PDSV) of C&DW were created (Figure 1).
These sites are classified as transshipment and sorting areas, where population may delivery
small volumes of C&DW, as well as bulky waste, free of charge (ABNT, 2004). Generally,
before the implementation of a PDSV, the municipality carries out a quantitative survey of the
largest irregular disposal of outbreaks, and then, the points are designed and implemented in
order to solve environmental, social and economic impacts related to improper C&DW disposal.
This study was conducted in Limeira, a medium-sized city located in southeastern Brazil,
with a population of 282,391 inhabitants, distributed over an area of 580.771 km (IBGE, 2013;
SEADE, 2013). In 2013, each inhabitant produced 0.560 kg.day-1 of MSW (PML, 2013); these
wastes are disposed of in the municipal landfill, located approximately 10 km from the
downtown area. The door to door collection of recyclables covers only 7.5% of neighborhoods.
From 2005 to 2011, C&DW accounted for 60% of the waste collected in Limeira (Figure 2).
Currently, 90% of the total volume of C&DW is landfilled and 10% is used as paving material in
the access roads of the municipal landfill. However, there are two private recycling plants
installed in the municipality (only one is in operation), serving large and medium-sized
construction companies from the region. The local government plans to use the existing
infrastructure to recycle a portion of the C&DW produced by small generators, by 2016.

Figure 1. Schematics of a point of delivery of small volumes.

 Sardinia 2015, Fifteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium

Figure 2. Characterization of solid waste produced in Limeira.

As well as other municipalities, Limeira also has irregular disposal areas, totaling 32
registered points (PML, 2013). In order to eliminate improper disposal, eleven PDSV were
installed into five priority areas (Figure 3). These points serve only small generator and receive
up to 1m of C&DW per inhabitant per day; bulky waste, recyclables and waste pruning and
weeding are also accepted. In 2013, the PDSV collected 83,660.80 tons C&DW, representing
45% of the total managed by the municipality.

Figure 3. Schematic location of PDSV, inert landfill, and recycling units.

3. LIFE CYCLE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

Life Cycle Assessment is a structured, internationally standardized method that quantifies the
resources consumption, relevant emissions and impacts on environment and human health,
associated with products, processes or services (Manfredi and Pant, 2011). Thus, this
methodology is recommended to assist both municipal solid waste (MSW) and construction and
demolition waste management (Finnveden, 1999; Arena et al., 2003; Cleary, 2009; Manfredi et
al., 2011; Blengini and Garbarino, 2010; Ortiz et al., 2010; Yay, 2015). In this study, LCA was
performed following all the steps stated in ISO 14040: 2006 and ISO 14044: 2006 standards.
 Sardinia 2015, Fifteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium

3.1 Defining goal and scope

The goal of present study is to provide an environmental assessment of C&DW discarded into
the eleven points of delivery of small volumes, located in the city of Limeira, Brazil. Moreover,
the life cycle of alternative scenarios to the current management system, including the steps of
sorting and recycling and the benefits of using recycled material, is also evaluated (Figure 4).

Figure 4. System boundaries of the C&DW management for the LCA.

According to the waste characterization in PDSV, 80% is inert material (Figure 5), and is
effectively considered as C&DW; from this total 10% is used as paving material in the access
roads in the municipal landfills and 90% is disposed of in an inert landfill (scenario 0); no
sorting and recycling is performed. Thus, the functional unit was defined as 0.8 t of C&DW
managed in a year. Regarding to the remaining 20%, wood is grinded and composted, and the
organics are disposed of in a landfill. Based on the goals of the National Solid Waste Plan
NSWP (Brazil, 2011b) four other scenarios are proposed (Table 1).

Table 1. Studied C&DW management scenarios.

Base year - Paving material Landfilling Sorting and
Scenario
BSWP (PV) (LD) Recycling (RC)
- 0 10% 90% 0%
2015 1 10% 40% 50%
2019 2 10% 20% 70%
2023 3 10% 5% 85%
2027 4 0% 0% 100%

Environmental impacts were calculated taking into account the distances from the eleven
PDSVs to the two recycling units (RC-01 e RC-02) and to the inert landfill. The total distances
were obtained considering round trips and the fact that C&DW is collected twice a day in each
PDSV, 24 days in a month (Table 2). As Scenario 0 is set as the baseline, environmental
improvement brought by sorting and recycling can be obtained quantitatively.
 Sardinia 2015, Fifteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium

Figure 5. Waste characterization in PDSV (Maxi Obra, 2013).

Table 2. Distances from the PDSV to the recycling units and landfill.
Distances (km) Total distance transported (km.year-1)
PDSV
Landfill RC-01 RC-02 Landfill RC-01 RC-02
1 8 5 14 9,216 5,875 16,128
2 11 7 14 12,672 8,179 16,128
3 8 5 17 9,216 5,184 19,008
4 6 7 14 6,912 7,834 16,013
5 10 9 14 11,520 10,714 16,474
6 13 11 15 14,976 12,557 16,704
7 17 14 9 19,584 15,782 9,792
8 15 16 11 17,280 18,432 12,211
9 16 14 8 18,432 15,782 9,446
10 15 15 12 17,280 17,050 14,054
11 12 12 13 13,824 13,363 14,400
Total 131 114 139 150,912 130,752 160,358

3.2. Life Cycle Inventory (LCI)

The inventory data used in the present study consist of primary data (C&DW characterization
and management), provided by the municipal department of environment and by PDSV and inert
landfill operators, in 2013; and, secondary data were obtained from the Ecoinvent v. 2.2 and
other specific sources.
Emissions from oil consumption for C&DW transport were calculated based on the study of
Spielmann et al. (2007), and emissions into the air, water and soil from final disposal were
calculated based on the Ecoinvent v 2.2. According to Doka (2009), there is no direct emission
from C&DW, and for that reason, the generation of leachate was considered as negligible. Thus,
the emission data correspond to the process-specific impacts related to energy, land use and
infrastructure. Environmental impacts from sorting and recycling were evaluated according to
electricity consumption, considering the Brazilian electric mix (Table 3), with a consumption of
0.0037 kWh.kg-1 of sorted C&DW (Ecoinvent Centre, 2010) and 0.0221 kWh.kg-1 of recycled
C&DW (Blengini et al., 2007). Environmental benefits of recycling were calculated in basis of
the avoided impacts from the use of recycled aggregates, instead of conventional materials, with
a consumption of 0.0375 kWh.kg-1 of manufactured grit (Kellenberger et al., 2007).
 Sardinia 2015, Fifteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium

Table 3. Electric mix in Brazil (Ecoinvent Centre, 2010).

Generation rate Percentage (%)
Hydropower 83.76
Natural gas 4.67
Biomass 3.44
Oil 2.89
Nuclear 2.46
Hard coal 1.56
Industrial gas 1.20
Wind power 0.02

3.3. Life Cycle Impact Assessment (LCIA)

The assessment of the impacts of the life cycle of the C&DW management was performed by
applying the factors proposed by the method CML2 baseline 2001 (CML, 2001) to the selected
impact categories, resulting in the following environmental indicators: abiotic depletion of
resources (ADP, in kg of Sb eq.); global warming potential (GWP, in kg of CO2 eq.); ozone
layer depletion (ODP, in kg CFC-11 eq.); human toxicity (HTP, in kg of 1,4-DCB eq.);
freshwater aquatic ecotoxicity (FAETP, in kg of 1,4-DCB eq.); terrestrial ecotoxicity (TETP, in
kg of 1,4-DCB eq.); photochemical oxidation (POCP, in kg of C2H2 eq.); acidification potential
(AP, in kg of SO2 eq.); eutrophication potential (EP, in kg PO43- eq.). In order to compare the
impact categories, the results were normalized in terms of population equivalent (year.capita), as
suggested by Guine et al. (2001).
The functional unit (0.8 t) was adjusted for the scenarios described in Table 1; taking into
account the distances from the PDSV to the recycling units and to the inert landfill, the transport
functional unit (t.km) was obtained (Table 4).

Table 4. Functional units for the studied scenarios.

Sorting and Recycling
Paving Material Landfilling
Scenarios RC-01 RC-02
Transport Transport Transport Transport
CDW(t) CDW (t) CDW (t)
(t.km) (t.km) (t.km) (t.km)
0 0.08 12,073 0.72 108,657 0.00 0 0
1 0.08 12,073 0.32 48,292 0.40 52,301 64,143
2 0.08 12,073 0.16 24,146 0.56 73,221 89,800
3 0.08 12,073 0.04 6,036 0.68 88,911 109,043
4 0.00 0 0.00 0 0.80 104,602 128,286

4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Following the LCA methodology, the environmental impacts of C&DW management from
small generators were evaluated. Four scenarios were compared to the current scenario,
considering different percentages of waste recycling and landfilling. Impacts related to transport
were also considered.

4.1. Impact Assessment of Transport

Considering the transport from the eleven PDSV to the recycling units and the inert landfill, it
was found that GWP category is the most relevant due to CO2, N2O and CH4 emissions,
followed by acidification, due to NH3, SO2 and NOX emissions, and eutrophication, also related
 Sardinia 2015, Fifteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium

to the same emissions (Figure 6). The transport for recycling unit 2 (RC-02), presents the highest
impacts, except for the PDSV 7, 8, 9 and 10, for which the distances are smaller. By the other
hand, the strategic location of recycling unit 1 (RC-01) results in the lowest impacts, except for
PDSV 4, that is located near the inert landfill.
Mercante et al. (2011) also concluded that the transport phase is crucial in order to make
recycling environmentally beneficial. Ortiz et al. (2010) recommend that the high density
C&DW be sorted and recycled at the construction site, or at least in nearby units; for the light
fractions, recycling is a good option even for long distances.

Figure 6. Environmental profile of transport from PDSV to landfill and recycling units.

4.2 Impact Assessment for Selected the Management Options

Considering the management options selected for this study (landfilling, sorting and
recycling) and the avoided impacts for the use of recycled aggregate, excluding the impacts
related to transport, recycling is the best alternative for all impact categories (Figure 7).
Analyzing the benefits of using the recycled aggregate, a reduction of 20% in GWP and
terrestrial ecotoxicity, 15% in human toxicity, and less than 10% in the other impact categories
was observed.
Coelho and Brito (2013) conducted a study on energy consumption and CO2 emissions from
C&DW recycling units, and concluded that the avoided impacts from the replacement of natural
materials for recycled aggregates may be up to ten times in terms of CO2 eq., and eight times for
the primary energy consumption.

Figure 7. Environmental profile of management options and avoided impacts.

 Sardinia 2015, Fifteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium

4.3 Impact Assessment for the Proposed Scenarios

Individual analysis for each impact category in relation to the evaluated scenarios, shows that
for abiotic resources depletion (ADP) and ozone depletion potential (ODP) categories, the
scenarios with the highest recycling rates showed negative values (avoided impacts). Scenarios 3
and 4, for recycling units, result in benefits for ADP impact category, due to the high recycling
rates and use of recycled aggregate. The other impact categories (GWP, HTP, POCP, AP, EP e
FAETP) present more significant impacts for all scenarios that include RC-02, highlighting the
transport influence on the total impacts of a waste management system (Figure 8).
Finally, after normalization of the results (Table 5), it is observed the largest participation of
categories of GWP, AP and EP, mainly related to transport emissions, while GWP also accounts
the energy input required in sorting and recycling processes, as highlighted in Figure 9. These
results are very important for the C&DW collection and transportation planning, given that the
scenarios that consider long distances between the PDSV and recycling units have the highest
values for GWP, AP e EP.

Table 5. Normalized impacts for all impact categories in the proposed scenarios.
Impact Scenarios
Category
Current A (RC-01) B (RC-01) C (RC-01) D (RC-01) A (RC-02) B (RC-02) C (RC-02) D (RC-02)
ADP 2,26E-03 9,12E-04 3,75E-04 -2,84E-05 -1,84E-04 9,15E-04 3,79E-04 -2,30E-05 -1,78E-04
GWP 1,38E+01 1,29E+01 1,25E+01 1,23E+01 1,20E+01 1,43E+01 1,44E+01 1,46E+01 1,47E+01
ODP 1,68E-05 6,98E-06 3,04E-06 9,15E-08 -9,91E-07 6,98E-06 3,04E-06 9,15E-08 -9,91E-07
HTP 8,73E-02 8,13E-02 7,89E-02 7,71E-02 7,53E-02 8,98E-02 9,08E-02 9,16E-02 9,24E-02
POCP 4,49E-02 4,18E-02 4,06E-02 3,97E-02 3,88E-02 4,62E-02 4,68E-02 4,71E-02 4,76E-02
AP 5,31E+00 4,95E+00 4,81E+00 4,71E+00 4,60E+00 5,47E+00 5,54E+00 5,59E+00 5,64E+00
EP 3,20E+00 2,99E+00 2,90E+00 2,84E+00 2,78E+00 3,30E+00 3,34E+00 3,37E+00 3,40E+00
FAETP 2,73E-01 2,54E-01 2,46E-01 2,41E-01 2,35E-01 2,81E-01 2,84E-01 2,86E-01 2,89E-01
TETP 6,37E-04 4,32E-04 3,51E-04 2,89E-04 2,54E-04 4,72E-04 4,06E-04 3,57E-04 3,33E-04

Besides helping to eliminate the irregular disposal of C&DW, the PDSV should serve as an
area for previous sorting and temporary storage of small volumes, which represent 45% of total
C&DW managed by the municipality of Limeira. Thus, the PDSV will be efficient from the
moment that the sorting process is performed suitably, allowing that only the C&DW potentially
recyclable (e.g. masonry, concrete, bricks) be transported to the recycling, preventing emissions
from unnecessary loads.
However, currently some PDSV receive C&DW mixed with other waste categories (e.g.
organic wastes, plastic, paper and even some hazardous materials), thereby reducing the
potential for recycling, resulting in additional environmental impacts and economic investments.
In order to prevent this practice, effective communication regarding which types of waste can be
delivered at these points, and the correct disposal sites for those wastes not covered by the
regular municipal collection system (e.g. bulky waste) is essential.
 Sardinia 2015, Fifteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium

Figure 8. Normalized induced and avoided impacts in the life cycle scenarios.
 Sardinia 2015, Fifteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium

Figure 9. Normalized impacts for GWP, AP and EP in proposed scenarios.

5. CONCLUSIONS

In this study LCA was used to evaluate the impacts of the operation and management of
eleven points of delivery of small volumes of C&DW, in the city of Limeira, Brazil. These
delivery sites help to prevent improper disposal of wastes, especially in the peripheral areas of
the city. The financial costs of management of C&DW wastes and operation and maintenance of
PDSV are integrally covered by the municipality, and, in order to make C&DW recycling
profitable and an environmentally sound alternative, the LCA results affirm that:

- The C&DW transport is the largest responsible for environmental impacts, and then, when the
distances from the collection points to the recycling units are considered, recycling is not always
beneficial.

- In order to minimize impacts from small volumes of C&DW management, it is essential to

adopt preventive practices for reducing materials losses; reuse, sort and recycle materials in the
construction sites; mobile recycling units is recommended in such cases.

- Considering that C&DW present a high potential for recycling (in general up to 80% of the
total amount produced in a construction site), when the benefits of using the recycled aggregate
was analysed in this study, a reduction of 20% in GWP and terrestrial ecotoxicity, 15% in human
toxicity, and less than 10% in the other impact categories was observed.
- By comparing the results of the impact assessment of the management options, it was
confirmed the importance of avoiding the disposal of C&DW in landfills.

The use of LCA in this study concluded that the development of its four phases constitute a
relevant tool for the knowledge of the environmental profile of the C&DW management system,
and allows the projection and comparison of scenarios, providing of a set of data useful for
decision making. Finally, these results should be used to encourage the municipalities to evaluate
more carefully the areas for implementation of PDSV and recycling facilities. Usually, the
recycling unit sites are randomly chosen, depending on available low-cost areas. It is strongly
recommended that specific planning tools be used, such as geographic information systems
(GIS), which allow previously, outline the transport routes and, along with LCA, assess and
evaluate the environmental impacts before the recycling units are implemented.
 Sardinia 2015, Fifteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium

AKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors gratefully acknowledge the technical support of the Polytechnic Institute of Viana
do Castelo (IPVC) and the University of Aveiro, Portugal, during the LCA study, and the
Environmental Department of the Municipality of Limeira, Brazil for providing primary data
used in this study. Moreover, the authors would like to acknowledge CAPES Coordination for
the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel, Brazil for providing a Masters Scholarship for
one of the authors (Rosado, L.P.).

REFERENCES

ABNT (Brazilian Association of Technical Standards), 2004. NBR 15.112: Construction waste
and bulky waste - areas transhipment and sorting - guidelines for design, implementation and
operation. 7p. Brazilian Association of Technical Standards: Rio de Janeiro. (in Portuguese).
ABRELPE (Brazilian Association of Public Cleaning and Waste Companies), 2014. Panorama
of solid waste in Brazil. So Paulo: Brazilian Association of Public Cleaning and Waste
Companies Press. (in Portuguese).
Arena, U., Mastellone, M.L., Perugini F., 2003. The environmental performance of alternative
solid waste management options: a life cycle assessment study. Chem Eng J 96, 207222.
Blengini, G., 2009. Life cycle of buildings, demolition and recycling potential: A case study in
Turin, Italy. Build Environ 44, 319330.
Blengini, G.A., Garbarino, E., Zavaglia, K., 2007. Sustainability evaluation of natural and
recycled aggregates through. In: Proceedings of the CIB Co-sponsored SBSE07 Turin on
Sustainable Building South Europe, Turin, 7-8 June, pp. 299306, Italy.
Blengini, G.A., Garbarino, E., 2010. Resources and waste management in Turin (Italy): the role
of recycled aggregates in the sustainable supply mix. J of Clean Prod 18, 10211030.
Brazil, 2002. National Council of Environment (CONAMA). Resolution n 307 of July 5th,
2002. Rules on the management of construction waste. Braslia: Official Journal Publication
of the Federative Republic of Brazil. (in Portuguese).
Brazil, 2004. National Council of Environment (CONAMA). Resolution n 348 of August 16th,
2004. Changes the Resolution n 307, of July 5th, 2002, including asbestos in hazardous
waste class. Braslia: Official Journal Publication of the Federative Republic of Brazil. (in
Portuguese).
Brazil, 2010. Law n 12.305. Establishes the National Policy on Solid Waste, changes the Law
n. 9,605, of February 12th, 1998, and other measures. Braslia: Official Journal Publication
of the Federative Republic of Brazil. (in Portuguese).
Brazil, 2011a. National Council of Environment (CONAMA). Resolution n 431 of May 24th,
2011. Changes the art. 3 of Resolution n 307, of July 5th, 2002. Braslia: Official Journal
Publication of the Federative Republic of Brazil. (in Portuguese).
Brazil, 2011b. National Solid Waste Plan. Ministry of the Environment.
<http://www.mma.gov.br/estruturas/253/_publicacao/253_publicacao02022012041757.pdf>.
(in Portuguse).
Brazil, 2012a. Ministry of the Environment. Solid waste management plans: Guidance Manual.
Braslia, DF.
Brazil, 2012b. National Council of Environment (CONAMA). Resolution n 448 of January 19,
2012. Changes the arts. 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11 of Resolution n 307, of July 5th, 2002.
 Sardinia 2015, Fifteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium

Braslia: Official Journal Publication of the Federative Republic of Brazil. (in Portuguese).
Butera, S., Christensen, T.H., Astrup, T.F., 2014. Composition and leaching of construction and
demolition waste: Inorganic elements and organic compounds. J Hazard Mater 276, 302311.
Cleary, J., 2009. Life cycle assessments of municipal solid waste management systems: A
comparative analysis of selected peer-reviewed literature. Environ Int 35, 12561266.
Clift, R., Doig, A., Finnveden, G., 2000. The application of life cycle assessment to integrated
solid waste management Part 1 - Methodology. Trans IChemE, 78 (4), 270287.
CML (Centre for Environmental Studies), 2001. University of Leiden, CML 2 baseline method.,
<http://www.leidenuniv.nl/cml/index.html>.
Coelho, A., Brito, J., 2012. Influence of construction and demolition waste management on the
environmental impact of buildings. Waste Manage 32, 532541.
Coelho, A., Brito, J., 2013. Environmental analysis of a construction and demolition waste
recycling plant in Portugal - Part I: Energy consumption and CO2 emissions. Waste Manage
33 (5), 12581267.
Doka, G., 2009. Life Cycle Inventories of Waste Treatment Services. Part II Landfills
Underground deposits - Landfarming. Ecoinvent report n 13. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle
Inventories, Dbendorf.
Duan, H., Wang, J., Huang, Q., 2015. Encouraging the environmentally sound management of
C&D waste in China: An integrative review and research agenda. Renew Sust Energ Rev 43,
611 620.
Ecoinvent Centre, 2010. Ecoinvent v 2.2. Database, version 2.2. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle
Inventories.
Ekvall, T., Assefa, G., Bjrklund, A., Eriksson, O., Finnveden, G., 2007. What life-cycle
assessment does and does not do in assessments of waste management. Waste Manage 27 (8),
989996.
Finnveden, G., 1999. Methodological aspects of life cycle assessment of integrated solid waste
management systems. Resour Conserv Recy 26, 173187.
Galvn, A.P., Ayuso J., Garca I., Jimnez J.R., Gutirrez, F., 2014. The effect of compaction on
the leaching and pollutant emission time of recycled aggregates from construction and
demolition waste. J Clean Prod 83, 294304.
Guine, J.B., Gorre, M., Heijungs, R., Huppes, G., Kleijn, R., Koning, A. et al., 2001.
Handbook on life cycle assessment: an operational guide to the ISO standards. Dordrecht.
692p.
IBGE (Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics), 2013. Limeira: Infographics - General
data of the municipality. Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics. (in Portuguese).
International Organization for Standardization, 2006. ISO 14040 International Standard. In:
Environmental Management Life Cycle Assessment Principles and Framework. ISO,
Geneva, CH.
International Organization for Standardization, 2006. ISO 14044 International Standard. In:
Environmental Management Life Cycle Assessment Requirements and Guidelines. ISO,
Geneva, CH.
Karpinsk, L.A., Pandolfo, A., Reinehr, R., Kurek, J., Pandolfo, L., Guimares, J., 2009.
Differentiated management of construction waste: an environmental approach. 163p. Porto
Alegre: EDIPUCRS Press. (in Portuguese).
Kellenberger, D., Althaus, H.J., Jungbluth, N., Knniger, T., Lehmann, M., Thalmann, P., 2007.
Life Cycle Inventories of Building Products. Final report ecoinvent Data v 2.0 n. 7. EMPA
 Sardinia 2015, Fifteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium

Dbendorf, Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories. Dbendorf.

Laurent, A., Clavreul, J., Bernstad, A., Bakas, I., Niero, M., Gentil, E., Christensen, T.H.,
Hauschild, M. Z., 2014. Review of LCA studies of solid waste management systems Part II:
Methodological guidance for a better practice. Waste Manage 34, 589606.
Manfredi, S., Pant, R., 2011. Supporting Environmentally Sound Decisions for Construction and
Demolition (C&D) Waste Management. European Commission. Joint Research Centre (JRC),
Institute for Environment and Sustainability (IES), Sustainability Assessment Unit,
<http://sa.jrc.ec.europa.eu/uploads/waste-Guide-to-LCTLCA-for-C-D-waste-management-
Final-ONLINE.pdf>.
Manfredi, S., Tonini, D., Christensen, T.H., 2011. Environmental assessment of different
management options for individual waste fractions by means of life-cycle assessment
modelling. Resour Conserv Recy 55, 9951004.
Marques Neto, J.C., 2009. Study on Municipal Management of Construction and Demolition
Wastes in the Turvo Grande Watershed (URGHI-15). Thesis doctoral, Environmental
Engineering Sciences - College of Engineering of So Carlos, University of So Paulo. (in
Portuguese).
Marques Neto, J.C., Murakawa, C.S., 2013. Integrated plans Construction Waste Management:
Current implementation status in Brazilian municipalities. In: XXI Congress Scientific
Initiation, So Carlos: UFSCar. (in Portuguese).
Marzouk, M., Azab, S., 2014. Environmental and economic impact assessment of construction
and demolition waste disposal using system dynamics. Resour Conserv Recy 82, 4149.
Maxi Obra, 2013. Environmental licensing for inert waste landfill in Limeira Sanitary Landfill.
So Paulo, Brazil: Maxi Obra Engenharia Ltda. Limeira. (in Portuguese).
McDougall F., White P., Franke, M., Hindle P., 2001. Integrated Solid Waste Management: a
Life Cycle Inventory, pp. 513, 2nd edition. Blackwell Science.
Mercante, I.T., Bovea, M., D., Ibez-Fors, V., Arena, A., P., 2012. Life cycle assessment of
construction and demolition waste management systems: a Spanish case study. Int J Life
Cycle Assess 17, 232241.
Ortiz, O., Pasqualino, J. C., Castells, F., 2010. Environmental performance of construction
waste: Comparing three scenarios from a case study in Catalonia, Spain. Waste Manage 30,
646654.
Pasqualino, J., Ortiz, O., Castells, F., 2008. Life cycle assessment as a tool for material selection
and waste management within the building sector. In: 25th Conference on Passive and Low
Energy Architecture. Dublin, 22-24 October, Irland.
PML (Municipal Government of Limeira), 2013. Municipal Sanitation Plan of Limeira/SP.
Volume 5 - Urban Sanitation and Solid Waste Management. City of Limeira. (in Portuguese).
Saner, D., Walser T., Vadenbo, C.O., 2012. End-of-life and waste management in life cycle
assessment. Int J Life Cycle Assess, 17, 504510.
So Paulo (State). Sinduscon (Industry Union of So Paulo State Civil Construction), 2012.
Waste of Construction and the State of So Paulo. So Paulo, Brazil. (in Portuguese).
Scremin, L.B., Castilhos Junior, A.B., Rocha, J.C., 2014. Expert system that managemently of
construction and demolition waste for small municipalitily. Engenharia Sanitria Ambiental
19 (2), 203206. (in Portuguese).
SEADE (System Foundation Data Analysis of State), 2013. Municipal profile Limeira.
Foundation State System Analysis. Department of Planning and Economy,
<http://www.seade.gov.br/produtos/perfil/perfilMunEstado.php>. (in Portuguese).
 Sardinia 2015, Fifteenth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium

Spielmann, M., Bauer, C., Dones, R., Tuchschmid, M., 2007. Transport Services. Ecoinvent
report n. 14. Swiss Centre for Life Cycle Inventories. Dbendorf.
USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), 2004. RCRA in focus. Solid Waste and
Emergency Response (5305W), EPA-530-K-04-005,
<http://www.epa.gov/osw/inforesources/pubs/infocus/rif-cd.pdf>.
Yay, A.S.E., 2015. Application of life cycle assessment (LCA) for municipal solid waste
management: a case study of Sakarya. J Clean Prod 94, 284293.
Yuan, H., Chini, A. R., Lu, Y., Yuan, L. S., 2012. A dynamic model for assessing the effects of
management strategies on the reduction of construction and demolition waste. Waste Manage
32 (3), 521531.

View publication stats