Life-Cycle Energy and 

GHG Emissions for New 

and Recovered Softwood 

Framing Lumber and 

Hardwood Flooring 

Considering End-of-Life 

Scenarios

Richard D. Bergman

Robert H. Falk

James Salazar

Hongmei Gu

Thomas R. Napier

Jamie Meil

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Forest

Products

Laboratory

Research

Paper

FPL–RP–672
April 2013

Bergman, Richard D.; Falk, Robert H.; Salazar, James; Gu, Hongmei; 

Napier, Thomas R.; Meil, Jamie. 2013. Life-cycle energy and GHG emissions for new and recovered softwood framing lumber and hardwood 

flooring considering end-of-life scenarios. Research Paper FPL-RP-672. 

Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 33 p.

A limited number of free copies of this publication are available to the 

public from the Forest Products Laboratory, One Gifford Pinchot Drive, 

Madison, WI 53726–2398. This publication is also available online at 

www.fpl.fs.fed.us. Laboratory publications are sent to hundreds of libraries 

in the United States and elsewhere.

The Forest Products Laboratory is maintained in cooperation with the 

University of Wisconsin. 

The use of trade or firm names in this publication is for reader information 

and does not imply endorsement by the United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) of any product or service.

The USDA prohibits discrimination in all its programs and activities on the 

basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability, and where applicable, 

sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion, sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a part 

of an individual’s income is derived from any public assistance program. 

(Not all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities 

who require alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA’s TARGET 

Center at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250–9410, or call (800) 795–3272 

(voice) or (202) 720–6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity provider 

and employer.

Abstract

Within the green building fields is a growing movement 

to recover and reuse building materials in lieu of demolition and land fill disposal. However, they lack life-cycle 

data to help quantify environmental impacts. This study 

quantifies the primary energy and greenhouse gas (GHG) 

emissions released from the production of wood recovered 

from an old house and from new wood harvested from the 

forest and produced in a sawmill with both products ending 

up installed in a new house. In addition, the study quantifies the primary energy and GHG emissions released if the 

recovered wood is not reused but instead is either burned to 

replace coal or natural gas to generate electricity, landfilled 

with or without landfill gas capture equipment, ground into 

mulch, or some combination.

Keywords: energy, carbon emissions, reuse, softwood framing lumber, hardwood flooring, life-cycle, life-cycle inventory, LCI, end-of-life, EOL 

Acknowledgments

U.S. Forest Service Global Change Research (Agreement 

No. 09-JV-11111133) funded this work. The authors thank 

the following reviewers: James L. Bowyer (Professor 

Emeritus, Department of Bioproducts and Biosystems 

Engineering, University of Minnesota), Brad Upton 

(Principal Research Engineer, National Council on Air 

Stream Improvement), and Dirk Wassink (President, 

Second Use Building Materials).

Contents

Executive Summary............................................................1

 Comparison of Processes to Make New Wood 

 Products and Recovered Products...................................2

 Energy and Emissions for Discarded Old Wood 

 Products at Their End-of-Life.........................................2

Introduction.........................................................................3

Background.........................................................................3

 Construction and Demolition Waste Management .........4

 Life-Cycle Assessment....................................................4

 Environmental Assessment Tools ...................................5 

Methodology.......................................................................6

 Part 1—Cradle-to-Gate LCIs..........................................6

 Part 2—End-of-Life Scenarios .......................................9

Results and Discussion ..................................................... 12

 Part 1—Cradle-to-Gate LCIs........................................ 12

 Part 2—End-of-Life Scenarios ..................................... 13

Conclusion ........................................................................ 16

References......................................................................... 17

Appendix 1—Survey Instrument ...................................... 20

 Part I—Wood Flooring.................................................. 20

 Part I—Wood Flooring (Soft-Strip).............................. 20

 Part II—Framing Lumber ............................................. 22

 Part II—Framing Lumber (Full Deconstruction).......... 22

Appendix 2—Landfill Gas (LFG) Equations ................... 24

Appendix 3—Assumptions and Limitations..................... 25

Appendix 4—Simapro Inputs........................................... 27

Appendix 5—LCI Flows................................................... 31

Conversion Table

English unit Conversion factor SI unit

board feet 0.0023597 m3 (nominal)

mile (m) 1.6093 kilometer (km)

British thermal unit (Btu) 0.00105506 megajoule (MJ)
Life-Cycle Energy and GHG Emissions 

for New and Recovered Softwood 

Framing Lumber and Hardwood Flooring 

Considering End-of-Life Scenarios

Richard D. Bergman1, Research Forest Products Technologist

Robert H. Falk1, Research General Engineer

James Salazar2, LCA Professional

Hongmei Gu1, Research Forest Products Technologist

Thomas R. Napier3, Research Architect

Jamie Meil2, Senior Associate

1Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wisconsin

2Athena Sustainable Materials Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

3Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC), Champaign, Illinois

Executive Summary

Within the green building and sustainable construction fields 

is a growing movement to recover and reuse building materials in lieu of demolition and landfill disposal. Building 

materials reuse has several benefits including reducing carbon footprint, conserving resources, extending landfill life, 

and minimizing pollution. Additionally, recovering building materials for reuse in construction typically provides 

greater economic benefits than any alternative use. Building 

professionals including architects, materials specifiers, and 

contractors are more interested in mitigating the environmental impact of the buildings they create. However, they 

lack life-cycle data that will help quantify the environmental 

impact of the building materials they specify as well as the 

project’s overall impact, including contribution to global 

climate change. 

The goal of this study was to use life-cycle assessment 

(LCA) to quantify greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and 

primary energy use of new and reused wood products with 

additional information on end-of-life (EOL) options. At the 

end, we compare the impact on GHG emissions for two 

alternatives: reusing old wood in recovered products or 

discarding old wood with the attendant end-of-life emissions and making new products. We use existing life-cycle 

inventory (LCI) data and develop new LCI data from reusing two recovered wood products, softwood framing lumber 

and solid-strip hardwood flooring, production of new wood 

products, and disposal of old wood products. Life-cycle 

stages for new products include harvesting (i.e., resource extraction or deconstruction), resource transportation, primary 

product production, and product transportation. For reusing 

recovered wood, the environmental burdens associated with 

recovery include decay of waste wood generated, transportation, production, and product transportation. For disposal 

of old wood, the EOL burdens include demolition, waste 

transport, and processing of waste wood whether burning it 

to replace fossil fuels for generation of electricity, mulching 

it, or landfilling it. 

This study involved two parts. The first developed life-cycle 

data for the two recovered wood products and compared 

these data with life-cycle data for their new wood product 

counterparts. LCI data for new products are from forest 

cradle to installation in a new building. LCI data for recovered products includes the deconstruction process through 

to installation in a new building. The second part estimates 

emissions for various EOL scenarios when old wood is discarded from old structures (i.e., burning to generate electricity, grinding for mulch, landfilling without methane capture, 

and other disposal options for wood removed from old 

buildings). The second part also compared GHG emissions 

for cases where old wood is reused for products to cases in 

which old wood is discarded to various EOL dispositions 

and new products are produced. 

The LCI for recovered wood excluded the environmental 

impacts associated with the previous product production 

of those products. The processes that were excluded from 

the initial product system include raw material extraction, 

resource transportation, product manufacturing, product 

transportation, construction, and use. The focus of this 

analysis was on comparing impacts of making new products 

compared with making recovered wood products.

The study methodology followed ISO 14040 and 14044 

guidelines. The present study used allocated emissions using 
Research Paper FPL–RP–672

2

an economic screen and mass allocation to assign emissions 

to wood products and waste co-products. Emissions were 

allocated on the basis of mass to primary products and coproducts if they each had some economic value (as is the 

case for new products). If the waste has no economic value, 

then all emissions are assigned to the primary products (as 

is the case for recovered/reused products). Primary (annual 

production) data for reused products were collected on the 

residential sector from 13 deconstruction companies spread 

across the United States in 2009. Using production weightaveraged survey data, our study estimated emissions per 

functional unit, which was 1 m3 of final product at the construction site where the reused product was installed. 

Evaluation of the emissions associated with discarding 

old wood products used a base case EOL scenario and five 

alternate scenarios. The base case approximates current 

practice and was comprised of burning the wood for energy 

to replace coal power (30%), grinding for mulch (10%), and 

disposal in a construction and demolition landfill (C&D) 

without methane capture (60%). In landfills, wood breaks 

down anaerobically into biogenic methane and biogenic 

carbon dioxide. C&D landfills, unlike municipal solid waste 

(MSW) landfills, typically do not have methane capture 

technology installed. Biogenic methane, a potent GHG if 

captured from landfills, avoids the necessity of producing 

natural gas, although not all biogenic CH4 that is generated 

can be captured. In the present study, the captured landfill 

methane was burned to generate electricity to replace natural 

gas. The Global Warming Potential (GWP) for EOL GHG 

emissions was calculated using the International Panel on 

Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 100-year time horizon. 

LCI data for recovered wood products includes cumulative 

cradle-to-gate energy use and emissions obtained from the 

survey of demolition/reuse businesses and from the U.S. 

LCI Database. Fossil energy used to recover softwood framing lumber and hardwood flooring was 418 and 859 MJ/m3, 

respectively. Crude oil was the largest energy component 

due mostly to resource and product transportation with values of 178 and 437 MJ/m3, respectively. No biomass energy 

was used to make recovered products.

Comparison of Processes to Make New 

Wood Products and Recovered Products

Fossil and biomass energy used to make new softwood 

framing lumber and hardwood flooring was 6,440 and 

7,750 MJ/m3, about 15 and 9 times, respectively, the amount 

used to make recovered wood products. One-half or more of 

the energy used to make new softwood framing lumber 

and hardwood flooring was from biomass: 4,360 and 

3,880 MJ/m3, respectively. 

Of the life cycle stages examined for both new and recovered wood products, the highest energy consumed was associated with new wood product production. Most energy for 

new wood products came from burning of on-site biomass 

(i.e., mill residues) to generate thermal energy. Burning biomass such as mill residues emits biogenic CO2.

Fossil CO2 emitted for new framing lumber and new hardwood flooring were about four times greater than for recovered softwood framing lumber (109 vs 23.9 kg/m3) and 

recovered hardwood flooring (228 vs 49.7 kg/m3). Primary 

drivers for the higher fossil CO2 emissions for new products 

were from new wood product production and transportation. New wood products typically travel much further to 

their markets, urban centers, than recovered wood products. 

Recovered wood products are primarily produced in urban 

centers and have low transportation environmental burdens. 

When biogenic CO2 emissions are added to fossil emissions, 

the total new products’ CO2 emissions were 8 to 10 times 

the emissions for the recovered products. 

When estimating GWP, it is standard protocol not to include 

biogenic CO2 emissions, as they are assumed to be recovered by forest carbon sequestration over time. GWP without 

biogenic CO2 emissions is lower for recovered wood products than for the new wood products. GWP without biogenic 

CO2 emissions is also lower for recovered products if disposal of wood waste during deconstruction is not 

considered. 

Energy and Emissions for Discarded Old 

Wood Products at Their End-of-Life

EOL scenarios for old wood products can result in large 

negative energy use and fossil CO2 emissions if discarded 

wood is used to displace coal or natural gas in producing 

electric power. In the base case EOL scenario, where 30% of 

the discarded wood replaces coal power, the displaced coal 

energy consumption was –2,300 and –2,920 MJ/m3 for the 

discarded softwood framing lumber and hardwood flooring, respectively. To put this into perspective, this negative 

energy amount would offset 53% (2,300/4,360) and 75% 

(2,920/3,880) of biomass energy consumed to make the new 

softwood framing lumber and hardwood flooring. 

Five other EOL scenarios that examined various alternatives 

included 1) burning wood as a replacement for natural gas 

to generate electricity, 2) turning 100% wood waste into 

mulch, 3) disposing 100% to construction, and 4) demolition landfills with or 5) without methane capture and energy 

recovery into electricity. When 100% of wood replaces 

natural gas to generate electricity, energy use and GWP were 

also negative but less negative than when offsetting coal. 

All other EOL scenarios result in positive energy and GWP 

values. 

For the base case EOL scenario (approximate current practice) where we assumed making new products would require 

discard of old wood to the current mix of proportions to 

energy, landfills, and mulch, the reuse of both softwood 

lumber and hardwood flooring produces less GWP than 

making new products. The GWP benefit is greatest for reusing hardwood flooring instead of making of new flooring. 
Life-Cycle Energy and GHG Emissions for New and Recovered Softwood Framing Lumber and Hardwood Flooring Considering End-of-Life Scenarios

3

This is true for GWP estimates that either exclude or include 

biogenic CO2 emission. However, if we consider GWP that 

excludes biogenic CO2 emissions (standard LCA practice), 

reuse could be notably worse (higher GWP) than new wood 

if all old wood could be burned to offset coal or natural gas 

in making electric power. Reuse could be slightly worse 

than new for softwood lumber if all old wood could be used 

as mulch (unlikely if wood is contaminated). So a key point 

is that if wood cannot be reused for products, the next best 

step is to keep it out of landfills and use it for either energy 

(top priority) or mulch (lower priority). There is a greater 

benefit from keeping hardwood out of landfills than keeping 

softwood out of landfills. 

Introduction

The role of carbon emissions on global climate and the projected negative impact on ecosystem sustainability and the 

general health of our planet have never been more elevated 

in the public’s consciousness. This awareness is particularly 

evident in the building construction field where green building concepts are becoming more prevalent. Green building 

is defined as the practice of increasing the efficiency with 

which buildings use resources—energy, water, and materials—while reducing building impacts on human health and 

the environment. This is done through better siting, design, 

material selection, construction, operation, maintenance, 

and removal throughout the complete building life cycle. 

Building professionals, including architects, materials specifiers, and contractors, are more interested in mitigating the 

environmental impact of the buildings they create. However, 

they lack life-cycle data that will help quantify the environmental impact of the building materials they specify and a 

given project’s contribution to global climate change. 

Within the green building and sustainable construction fields 

is a growing movement to recover and reuse building materials in lieu of demolition and landfill disposal. Building materials reuse has several benefits including reducing carbon 

footprint, conserving resources, extending landfill life, and 

minimizing pollution (Smith and others 2001, Falk 2002, 

Ericksson and others 2005, Heilmann and Winkler 2005, 

Olofsson and others 2005, Thorneloe and others 2007). In 

spite of these benefits, there is currently no easy way for 

building professionals to quantify the environmental impact 

of incorporating reused building materials in new building 

or remodeling construction.

The goal of this study was to use life-cycle analysis to 

quantify greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and primary energy use of new and reused wood products with additional 

information on end-of-life (EOL) options or scenarios. 

Incorporating existing and developed life-cycle inventory 

(LCI) data, the environmental consequences of reusing two 

recovered wood products—softwood framing lumber and 

solid-strip hardwood flooring—relative to the virgin 

counterparts were evaluated. A study by Bergman and 

others (2010) developed cradle-to-gate LCI data for these 

two recovered wood products and compared these data 

with corresponding cradle-to-gate LCI data of their new 

wood product counterparts (Puettmann and Wilson 2005, 

Puettmann and others 2010). These studies found that the 

new wood products consumed more energy and emitted 

more GHGs than did the recovered wood products; however, those results considered neither product transportation 

for the new wood from the manufacturing facility to the 

construction site nor transportation of the recovered wood 

from the resale facility to the construction site.

The results presented here include new wood product transportation to the construction site. In addition, various EOL 

scenarios (i.e., burning for energy, grinding for mulch, and 

other disposal options) for the two wood products removed 

from old buildings were studied to evaluate the impact on 

global warming potential (GWP).

Background

The recovery and reuse of building materials from woodframed building removal is becoming more widely recognized as a positive environmental alternative to demolition 

and landfilling. Using “deconstruction,” or dismantlement, 

a building can be selectively dismantled and usable materials recovered for reuse in construction (Falk 2002, Falk 

and Guy 2007, Kibert 2003). This deconstruction and reuse 

strategy is consistent with resource conservation efforts, 

waste reduction, and green building certification programs. 

Examples of such programs are United States Green 

Building Council’s (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and 

Environmental Design (LEED), and the Green Globe Green 

Building Initiative (GBI).

Using conventional demolition, the wood-framed building is 

cleared from the site by the most expedient means possible, 

typically using a “track-hoe” or other heavy machinery 

to reduce the building to the smallest pieces possible for 

easy loading and transport to a construction and demolition 

(C&D) landfill. This process is by its nature destructive to 

the building materials and typically results in nearly all 

of the building ending up as unusable for reuse in new 

construction. 

As for deconstruction, two approaches are typically used in 

salvaging building materials. At its simplest level, a nonstructural approach is taken (also known as “soft-stripping”) 

and focuses on the recovery of easier to remove components, such as finish flooring, wall finishes, doors, windows, 

and other finish materials. A more involved approach, often 

called “full deconstruction,” involves the dismantling of the 

structural components of a building. As a result, it is more 

time intensive. The material recovered typically includes 

roof, wall, and floor framing, sheathing, and other building 

frame components. Unusable wood material goes typically 

to a local C&D landfill.
Research Paper FPL–RP–672

4

Construction and Demolition Waste 

Management 

In 2003 (latest figures), the United States produced about 

164 million metric tons of C&D waste from building-related 

activities (EPA 2009a, 2012a). Of this, about 69 million 

metric tons comes from residential construction (primarily wood framed). Because wood contributes between 25% 

and 40% of a C&D landfill (EPA 1995, NWMOA 2009, 

Falk and McKeever 2012), potentially a significant amount 

of reusable wood building materials can be diverted and 

reused. Better materials management strategies for C&D 

waste would result in conservation of natural resources, 

reduced landfill requirements and associated pollution, 

and GHG emissions that result from such facilities. In the 

United States, landfills are the third largest source of methane behind intestinal fermentation and natural gas systems 

(EPA 2011).

Three recent events illustrate the importance of the need for 

such strategies:

1) The USEPA has declared carbon dioxide and other 

GHG emissions as air pollutants (EPA 2009b). 

2) A requirement for 50% C&D waste diversion by 2015 

for Federal agencies (Executive Order (EO) 13514, 

Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and 

Economic Performance). 

3) A requirement for Federal agencies to set goals in the 

areas of energy efficiency, acquisition, renewable energy, 

toxics reductions, recycling, sustainable buildings, electronics managements, fleets, and water conservation (EO 

13423 Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, 

and Transportation Management).

Not surprisingly, many studies indicate that increasing the 

reuse and recycling of C&D materials results in corresponding lower levels of landfilling. Additionally, this utilization 

lowers the need for new product production, lowering overall energy consumption and environmental impact (Blengini 

2009, Smith and others 2001, Eriksson and others 2005, 

Heilmann and Winkler 2005, Sunberg and others 2004, 

Thorneloe and others 2007). 

Reusing, or otherwise diverting, building materials fated 

for landfills can help reduce energy use and mitigate GHG 

emissions (e.g., biogenic methane) released from landfills 

(EPA 2011). Thorneloe and others (2007) indicates that for 

a typical U.S. landfill accumulating 437,000 tonnes/y with 

a recycling rate of 40% saved almost 8.44 million GJ 

(8,000 trillion (1012) Btu (TBTU)) of energy compared to a 

recycling rate of 30%, which saved about 2.11 million GJ 

(2,000 TBTU) of energy. This effect seems counter-intuitive. Nevertheless, improving the recycling rate affects materials that may be more difficult to remove but require more 

energy to produce as new. As a result, higher recycling rates 

create higher energy savings per percentage increase.

Recycling and reuse have different environmental impacts 

depending on types of materials recycled and reused, transportation distances, and the remanufacturing processes 

(Thorneloe and others 2007). Life-cycle research can play 

an important role by examining various scenarios for their 

environmental trade-offs (Borghi and others 2009).

Life-Cycle Assessment

Life-cycle assessment (LCA) is comprised of four stages 

(phases) as defined by the International Organization for 

Standardization (ISO). These are 1) goal and scope definition, 2) inventory analysis, 3) impact assessment, and 

4) interpretation (Fig. 1). A LCA study includes all stages 

but a LCI study does not include stage 3, the impact assessment (SAIC 2006, ISO 2006a,b). 

LCA is a well-established method for evaluating the environmental impacts of processes and products. Among other 

attributes of environmental performance, LCA quantifies the 

carbon impact of products. Performing a unit process based 

LCA of a product is a detailed, data-intensive process. A 

LCA is composed of life-cycle stages. Life-cycle stages for 

building products include resource extraction, transportation, product manufacturing, construction, use, and final 

disposition (i.e., EOL) (Fig. 2). 

Each life-cycle stage is evaluated by conducting LCIs. LCIs 

quantify the material and energy inputs as well as the environmental burdens within carefully defined system boundaries for a given product, process, or service in relation to a 

functional unit (ISO 2006a,b). LCIs track all the inputs and 

outputs including emissions of a single life-cycle stage such 

as harvesting or product manufacturing across the system 

boundary (ISO 2006a). While LCAs have typically been 

Figure 1. Life-cycle assessment phases.
Life-Cycle Energy and GHG Emissions for New and Recovered Softwood Framing Lumber and Hardwood Flooring Considering End-of-Life Scenarios

5

used to evaluate the environmental impact of producing virgin materials, they can also be used to evaluate the environmental impacts of reusing recovered materials. For example, 

a study by Blengini (2009) indicated that the total energy 

and GHG emissions associated with the reuse of recovered 

building materials from a residential building shell located 

in Italy are 29% and 18%, respectively, of the environmental 

burdens of similar virgin materials. 

Environmental Assessment Tools

Research on assessing the environmental impact of final 

product disposition for wood products draws on and must 

integrate diverse literature, available U.S. LCI data for 

virgin wood products, and analysis of various disposal 

scenarios. 

For LCA practitioners, obtaining transparent and consistent U.S. LCI datasets on wood products was difficult until 

the mid-2000s. As part of an on-going effort, the National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) working with LCA 

experts manages a publically available LCI database called 

the U.S. LCI Database. To aid in populating the U.S. LCI 

Database, the Consortium for Research on Renewable 

Industrial Materials (CORRIM) is developing critically reviewed LCI datasets on forestry and forest products for the 

U.S. LCI database (CORRIM 2010, USDA 2013).

In the various geographical regions of the United States, 

CORRIM has constructed cradle-to-gate LCI data based on 

individual gate-to-gate LCIs for many new wood products 

(Puettmann and Wilson 2005, Puettmann and others 2010). 

The U.S. LCI Database has become a repository of many 

wood building materials. Other environmental tools, such as 

the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Waste 

Reduction Model (WARM) are available to evaluate materials for their carbon emissions and energy use.

Initial work on broad categories of waste disposal, including 

dimensional lumber, are being evaluated through WARM 

that was developed using a streamlined LCA approach (EPA 

2012b). WARM’s streamlined LCA is limited to an inventory of GHG emissions, carbon sinks, and energy impacts. 

The model does not evaluate human health impacts or air, 

water, or other environmental burdens that do not have 

a direct impact on climate change. In addition, WARM 

simplifies the determination of emissions from life-cycle 

stages that occur before a material reaches its end-of-life 

(EPA 2010). WARM calculates GHG emissions and energy 

benefits of baseline and alternative waste management practices. Another LCA tool for building products, the ATHENA 

Impact Estimator (IE, Athena 2012), includes evaluation of 

several LCA impact categories including primary energy 

consumption, air pollution index, water pollution index, 

and GWP. 

Napier and others (2007) used both the WARM and 

ATHENA IE tools in a study to evaluate the GHG impact 

of recovering wood products from deconstructed military 

facilities. Results were limited to the effects of diverting 

materials from landfills and did not include end-of-life effects. Results indicated that 15,000 tonnes of recovered dimensional lumber that was reused instead of being landfilled 

Figure 2. Complete life-cycle from regeneration of trees to disposal of wood materials 

(based on Fava and others (1994)).
Research Paper FPL–RP–672

6

reduced carbon emissions by 3,257 tonnes of CO2 equivalents and reduces energy use by approximately 8,750 GJ. As 

for the ATEHNA IE, results did indicate significant reduction for all six impact categories when recovering framing 

lumber for reuse. These results suggested that a comparative 

assessment of the environmental impacts of substituting 

recovered wood for new wood building material in construction could be made. This could include not only GHG 

effects of the manufacturing process and transportation but 

EOL effects as well. 

Methodology

The first step in this study was to develop cradle-to-gate unit 

process life-cycle data for the two recovered wood products 

and compare these data with cradle-to-gate life-cycle data of 

their new wood product counterparts. No burdens of the previous life for the recovered wood products were assigned. 

For recovered wood, the old building from which the 

lumber was recovered was the cradle, whereas the forest 

was the cradle for new wood products. Therefore, the location from where the wood products are extracted is a critical 

distinction between products because the old building from 

which reused wood was removed was once built with new 

wood harvested from forests. To further emphasize that the 

LCI data developed was modular in nature, this study assigned impacts to each product as they happened, not for 

any future impacts. The gate is defined as the installation 

at the construction site for both new wood and recovered 

wood. For recovered wood products, a transportation distance of 25 miles was assumed between the deconstruction site and the resale facility. For new wood products, 

data from the United States Department of Transportation 

(USDOT) were used to calculate an average transportation 

distance from a manufacturing facility to a local wholesale 

facility. For both new products, the transportation from the 

sale facility to the construction site was assumed to be 

24 km (15 miles). 

The second part of this study evaluated various EOL scenarios of old wood products discarded from old buildings (i.e., 

burning to generate electricity, grinding for mulch, and other 

disposal options) and their environmental impacts. 

Emission profiles per functional unit of products were estimated using SimaPro 7 modeling software. Input data 

averages from the survey of demolition and recovery businesses were production weighted and additional secondary 

data used from U.S. LCI Database (PRé Consultants 2013, 

USDA 2013). The modeling software provided a list of raw 

materials consumed during the cradle-to-gate production 

(i.e., LCI flows) that was used to calculate cumulative (primary) energy consumption. The study estimated the GWP 

in kg CO2 equivalent using the IPCC 2007 100-year Method 

(PRé Consultants 2013, IPCC 2007). Calculating values for 

GWP typically does not include biogenic CO2 emissions, as 

they are part of the natural carbon cycle and thus are 

excluded as standard LCA practice. However, new wood 

production burns wood waste (i.e., mill residue), a byproduct of making new wood products, thus emitting biogenic 

CO2. Therefore, GWP with and without biogenic CO2 was 

calculated to provide insight on overall CO2 emissions in 

relation to new and recovered wood products. 

Part 1—Cradle-to-Gate LCIs

New Softwood Framing Lumber and Hardwood 

Flooring

An analysis of the energy consumption and associated emissions of new wood products was made by using the LCA 

framework from cradle-to-gate and existing information 

from the U.S. LCI Database and other resources. The two 

products were evaluated for their environmental impact 

from harvesting through manufacturing to product transportation to the construction site. 

Figure 3 highlights the system boundaries for a cradle-togate LCI for new framing lumber and hardwood flooring, 

respectively. Within each system boundary, the individual 

unit processes were identified for greater transparency and 

identifying environmental “hot spots.” Unit processes for 

producing softwood framing lumber include log yard, sawing, drying, and planing operations (Milota and others 2005, 

Bergman and Bowe 2010). 

Assumptions of this analysis include that new wood material transport from the manufacturing site to a wholesale 

location occurs by rail and truck. Because wood products 

production is regionally located in the United States, and 

new lumber must be transported long distances to local 

markets, an average distance of travel from manufacturer 

to wholesaler based on data from USDOT (2010) for softwood framing lumber (NAICS 321) and hardwood flooring 

(NAICS 337) was calculated. Table 1 shows transportation 

data for moving the new product from the manufacturing site to wholesaler to the construction site. For product 

transportation, we assumed a distance of 24 km (15 miles) 

from wholesaler to construction site for the new lumber and 

the same distance for moving the recovered wood products 

from the resale facility to the construction site. 

Recovered Softwood Framing Lumber and Hardwood 

Flooring

An analysis analogous to the new wood products was performed for the recovered products, however, because LCI 

information did not exist for the recovery process, a survey 

of the deconstruction industry was performed to collect necessary primary data (Appendix 1—Survey Instrument). The 

resultant survey data were weight-averaged before entering 

into the LCA modeling software for estimating the emission 

profile and raw material usage for the recovered material 

deconstruction process. 

Figure 4 shows system boundaries for recovered softwood 

framing lumber and hardwood flooring cradle-to-gate LCI. 
Life-Cycle Energy and GHG Emissions for New and Recovered Softwood Framing Lumber and Hardwood Flooring Considering End-of-Life Scenarios

7

The process begins with extraction of the installed material (the raw material) from a building (i.e., the cradle), and 

includes transportation of the recovered material to storage 

and processing if necessary (product refurbishing) as well 

as transportation of the final product to the construction site 

(i.e., the gate). This cradle-to-gate analysis included everything within the “system boundary” that covers raw material 

extraction and product manufacturing (refurbishing) with 

the associated transportation up to but not including the use 

phase. Unit processes upstream of extraction such as storage 

of the recovered material were included in this analysis and 

the storage LCI data were the same for storing new material. 

For recovered wood, survey data provided the basis for 

transporting the material from storage facility to construction site along with secondary sources (see Table 11 for new 

wood products) and expert opinion assuming recovered 

material reused locally. Surveying 13 U.S. building 

deconstruction companies that regularly recover lumber and 

wood flooring provided the primary (2009 annual production) data. LCA modeling software using weight-averaged 

production data along with secondary data from the U.S. 

LCI Database estimated emissions and raw material usage. 

Survey data included information as a basis for calculating 

materials transportation from extraction (deconstruction 

site) to resale location. The distance from resale location 

to construction site was assumed to be the same as for new 

wood products. In addition, because the deconstruction 

process generated wood waste, estimated material lost were 

17% and 11% for softwood framing lumber and hardwood 

flooring, respectively. The deconstruction wood waste (i.e., 

unusable wood) was transported to a C&D landfill with no 

methane capture.

Many laboratory and field studies have focused on decomposition of wood (i.e., biomass) disposed in a landfill. 

Figure 3. Cradle-to-gate system boundaries for new softwood framing lumber and hardwood flooring.
Research Paper FPL–RP–672

8

The question pertains to what percentage of wood actually 

breaks down to generate biogenic CO2 and biogenic CH4. 

The IPCC (2006) recommends a carbon loss for wood products of 0.5 in a landfill. Wang and others (2011) reported 

a range of 0%–19.9% wood decomposition for a laboratory study conducted on solid wood and engineered wood 

products. An Australian study (Ximenes and others 2008) 

indicated that after 46 years, hardwoods and softwoods under different waste management schemes lose on average 

about 18% and 17%, respectively, of their original carbon 

content. A study by Skog (2008) states an average 23% carbon loss for wood products disposed of in the landfill and is 

the basis for this study. A portion (23%) of this waste wood 

was assumed to decompose anaerobically (in the absence of 

oxygen) and be released as landfill gas in the LCI analysis 

whereas the remaining wood remained in the landfill as is. 

This study assumed that both types of landfills examined 

(MSW and C&D) passed through the four typical phases 

of a landfill over time but spent the vast majority of time 

in phase IV where biogenic methane and biogenic carbon 

dioxide are produced. Anaerobic conditions prevent the full 

decomposition of wood, unlike aerobic conditions. Wood 

material completely breaks down in aerobic conditions such 

as the forest floor and generates biogenic carbon dioxide and 

water as a result (ATSDR 2001, Staley and Barlaz 2009)). 

Future work will evaluate this phenomenon. In addition, we 

assumed that landfills captured the biogenic methane during 

decomposition and avoided natural gas production on 1:1 

energy basis and was used to generate electricity. Biogenic 

methane is a GHG included in calculating GWP because it 

is human-made.

Deconstruction (extraction of recovered materials)—This 

unit process begins with installed softwood framing lumber 

(structural deconstruction) and installed hardwood flooring 

Figure 4. System boundaries for recovered framing lumber and hardwood flooring.
Life-Cycle Energy and GHG Emissions for New and Recovered Softwood Framing Lumber and Hardwood Flooring Considering End-of-Life Scenarios

9

(non-structural deconstruction) and includes the following 

operations:

Recovered softwood framing lumber unit processes 

•	 Transporting workers to the deconstruction site. 

•	 Transporting forklifts, bobcats, or other energyconsuming equipment to the jobsite.

•	 Removing surface materials such as roofing, drywall, 

subflooring, and insulation that would interfere with 

removal of framing lumber, either by hand or with machinery.

•	 Removing actual framing.

•	 Denailing framing, either by hand or pneumatic tool 

(i.e., denailer).

•	 Loading framing onto trucks, either by hand or with 

equipment.

•	 Transporting framing to a storage facility (i.e., resale 

facility).

•	 Unloading and storing the material until sold.

Recovered solid-strip hardwood flooring unit processes

•	 Transporting workers to the deconstruction site.

•	 Removing any furniture or other materials such as 

moulding that would interfere with the removal of 

the flooring.

•	 Sawing floor to ease removal.

•	 Removing the wood flooring board by board (Fig. 5)

•	 Denailing the flooring, either by hand or pneumatic tool 

(i.e., denailer).

•	 Loading the wood flooring onto trucks, either by hand or 

with equipment.

•	 Transporting the wood flooring to a retail facility.

•	 Unloading and storing the material until sold

Inputs include transportation fuel for worker vehicles and 

for material, fuel to run generators providing on-site electricity and/or grid electricity for tools to remove framing 

lumber and flooring, and fuel to run heavy equipment used 

for structural deconstruction and unloading material at storage facility. Outputs include recovered softwood framing 

lumber and recovered hardwood flooring. Emissions include 

solid (wood) waste produced during the removal process, air 

emissions from grid electricity, on-site generators, and other 

equipment, and non-wood waste such as nails and drywall. 

Solid waste was transported to a C&D landfill.

Part 2—End-of-Life Scenarios

Various EOL strategies were also evaluated to assign the 

environmental burdens for cases where wood is not reused. 

EOL scenarios included burning wood for electric power 

production (decreases fossil emissions), grinding for mulch, 

and landfilling (without or with methane capture for energy 

production). A base-case scenario assumed that 30% of the 

wood not reused would be burned to replace coal to generate 

electricity, 10% would be ground for mulch, and the remaining 60% would be disposed of in a C&D landfill without 

methane capture. Additional scenarios were evaluated that 

extend the work done by Bergman and others (2012) and 

Winistorfor and others (2005).

Table 1. New wood product transportation data

Transportation

Wood productsa

Softwood framing 

lumber Hardwood flooring

tkm/m3 b tm/Mbfc tkm/m3 b tm/Mbfc

Gate to wholesaler, by diesel truck 233 258 813 1,314

Gate to wholesaler, by rail 96 107 4 6

Wholesaler to construction site, by diesel truck 14 16 17 26 a

Softwood framing lumber and solid strip hardwood flooring are 1.63 and 2.36 m3/thousand board feet (Mbf), 

respectively.

b

tkm/m3 is tonne-kilometer per cubic meter of wood. c

tm/Mbf is ton-mile per thousand board feet of wood.

Figure 5. Hardwood flooring boards being removed during 

deconstruction.
Research Paper FPL–RP–672

10

Figure 6 indicates expected EOL scenarios for wood materials (Bergman and others 2012). Equations that estimate 

landfill emissions of biogenic CH4 and biogenic CO2

from anaerobic decomposition of wood are provided in 

Appendix 2—Landfill Equations.

The base case was comprised of burning the wood for coal 

power substitution (30%), grinding the wood into mulch 

(10%), and landfilling the wood without methane capture 

(60%). This distribution of wood to energy and landfills is 

in line with recent U.S. practices (Salazar and Meil 2009, 

Kaplan and others 2009, EPA 2011). Roughly 30% of C&D 

wood is burned for energy recovery: 11.2 million tons out of 

39.4 million tons (EPA 2009c, EPA 2012b). C&D landfills 

contain much more wood than a MSW landfill on a volume 

basis (25% to 40% vs 6%), according to the EPA (2011). In 

addition, methane is not captured in C&D landfills. In alternate scenarios, we considered biogenic methane captured 

from C&D landfills and burning it to generate electricity to 

replace natural gas. Table 2 shows the base case scenario 

and the five alternatives scenarios. 

Analysis Considerations

Reuse—This study evaluated the direct effects of reusing 

recovered wood products. Sathre and Gustavsson (2006) 

conducted a somewhat broader study that evaluated energy 

and carbon from a series of cascading uses where cascading 

wood is the sequential use (i.e., reuse) for different purposes 

and assumed that wood quality declines over time. In the 

present study, no decline in wood quality was assumed. 

This study also assumed that the lumber and flooring were 

used in the same application for which they were originally 

manufactured. We assume reused wood will be graded and 

this tends to assure that its performance will be the same as 

virgin wood that could have been used instead. 

We assumed that carbon storage in recovered wood is the 

same as carbon stored in virgin wood. The benefits of reusing recovered wood relative to use of virgin wood include 

avoiding the environmental burdens associated with production of virgin wood and avoiding the generation of biogenic 

methane from the decay of discarded wood in landfills 

(Salazar and Meil 2009). 

Forest Carbon Sequestration—We assumed that the use 

of wood harvested on a sustainable basis does not alter the 

carbon storage of forests in the long run. The USFS Forest 

Inventory Analysis indicates that forest area in the United 

States has been relatively constant since 1910 (USFS 2011, 

Oswalt and others 2009, Smith and others 2009). According 

to the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) GWP 

Figure 6. End-of-life disposal options for recovered wood materials.
Life-Cycle Energy and GHG Emissions for New and Recovered Softwood Framing Lumber and Hardwood Flooring Considering End-of-Life Scenarios

11

method found in SimaPro 7.3 (PRé Consultants 2013, IPCC 

2007), the characterization factor for biogenic CO2 emissions was not assigned a value in the calculation for GWP. 

This approach also follows the ISO 14067 standard (ISO 

2012). In addition, the issue of how to properly account for 

the carbon in harvested wood products has not been developed in a consensus-based standard. Therefore, the system 

boundary assumed for this study starts at the harvesting of 

the tree and extends to the time where new or reused material would be placed in a new use. This temporal end-point 

is assumed to include all EOL emissions for wood that is 

discarded when it is not reused. 

Data Collection and Treatment—Building material recovery and reuse data were collected for the United States only. 

Primary data of deconstruction companies were collected 

across the entire United States. Primary mill data for deconstruction and reuse businesses were production-weightaveraged as required by CORRIM research guidelines to 

maintain confidentiality of surveyed facilities (CORRIM 

2010). The following tasks are part of a standard LCA research protocol.

Validation of Data—The reused wood materials considered 

in this study were tracked through the entire process to ensure validation of raw and LCI data. No physical changes 

occurred in the softwood framing lumber and hardwood 

flooring recovered for reuse in new construction.

Data Quality Statement—Primary data quality was high 

because of expert knowledge and complete responses obtained from the extensive and comprehensive survey of 

industry (Appendix 1—Survey Instrument). Annual production data were collected for the years 2008 and 2009 from 

deconstruction facilities across the United States that used 

average technologies and produced 362 m3 (230,000 bf) 

of recovered softwood framing and 25.4 thousand m2 (273 

thousand ft2) of recovered hardwood flooring. Statistics for 

total production of recovered softwood framing and hardwood flooring for the same time period were not available at 

the time of completion of this study. 

Aggregation—Primary data on environmental burdens per 

unit of reused wood were weighted as in previous CORRIM 

reports (Milota and others 2004) using 

where Pweighted is the weighted average of the survey values 

reported by the mills, Pi is the reported mill value, and 

xi is the ratio of the mill’s production to total production for 

all surveyed facilities. 

Modeling Procedure Including Allocation—The weightedaverage primary data on environmental burdens was estimated per functional unit using SimaPro LCA software 

(PRé Consultants 2013). A wood mass balance and energy 

consumption verification for the necessary unit processes 

were performed and the weighted-average data were linked 

together into SimaPro for each unit process. Secondary data 

found in the U.S. LCI Database within SimaPro software 

provided additional life-cycle data. The additional life-cycle 

data includes generation and delivery of electricity and fossil fuel use and emissions. LCI outputs from SimaPro included raw material consumption, solid waste, and emission 

to air, water, and land. The mass allocation method was used 

to allocate environmental burdens to the primary product 

and co-products. 

The mass allocation method was chosen because the highest 

volume product had the highest economic value. Emissions 

were allocated based on mass to primary products and coproducts if they each had some economic value (as is the 

case for new products). If the waste has no economic value, 

then all emissions are assigned to the primary products (as is 

the case for recovered/reused products). The cradle-to-gate 

LCI data for recovered hardwood flooring and softwood 

framing lumber were developed using a functional unit of 

1 m3, the same functional unit as new wood products. 

Elementary Flows—Nearly all individual wood products 

flow through the system without changing shape. Softwood 

framing lumber and hardwood flooring that suffered physical damage during deconstruction were not reused and were 

sent as waste wood to a C&D landfill with no methane 

capture. 

Assumptions—Assumptions and limitations associated 

with making the LCI estimates are provided in 

Appendix 3—Assumptions and Limitations.

Table 2. End-of-life scenarios by type and percentage

End-of-life scenarios

Base case

(%)

Alt#1

(%)

Alt#2

(%)

Alt#3

(%)

Alt#4

(%)

Alt#5

(%)

Wood burned (substitute coal power) 30 100 0 0 0 0

Wood mulched 10 0 100 0 0 0

C&D landfill (no CH4 capture) 60 0 0 100 0 0

Wood burned (substitute gas power) 0 0 0 0 100 0

C&D landfill (CH4 capture) 0 0 0 0 0 100
Research Paper FPL–RP–672

12

Results and Discussion 

Part 1—Cradle-to-Gate LCIs

LCI data for cumulative cradle-to-gate materials use, energy 

use, and emissions per cubic meter of newly made softwood 

framing lumber and hardwood flooring were generated using SimaPro modeling. Additional data were obtained on 

energy and emissions per cubic meter for product transportation to the construction site from literature. LCI data were 

estimated using primary data from surveys and secondary 

data found in the U.S. LCI Database and literature. The 

surveyed facilities provided detailed data on mass flow, and 

energy consumption and emissions by type of fuel. Data 

from surveys were weighted by facility production and were 

input into SimaPro 7 to estimate average non-wood raw 

material use and emissions. Input data collected by survey 

are listed in Appendix 4—SimaPro Inputs. The total energy 

to produce 1-m3 framing lumber and hardwood flooring 

from new wood materials was 6,440 and 7,750 MJ/m3, respectively (Table 3). Based on information obtained, at least 

50% of the energy used to make new wood products came 

from woody biomass.

Table 4 shows the major GHG emitted in making new softwood framing lumber and hardwood flooring. Emissions 

were consistently greater per cubic meter to make hardwood 

flooring because of its higher density and greater energy 

requirements in product production (principally drying) than 

softwood framing lumber. Production of hardwood lumber 

emits about twice as much fossil CO2 (228 kg/m3) as does 

the production of softwood framing lumber (109 kg/m3). 

Appendix 5—LCI Flows shows detailed LCI results for 

newly made and recovered softwood lumber and hardwood 

lumber including raw materials used, solid waste generated, 

and emissions to air, water, and soil. 

Table 5 shows cradle-to-gate LCI energy use data for recovered softwood framing lumber and hardwood flooring 

per cubic meter of recovered wood and includes energy for 

product transportation to the construction site. Recovered 

softwood framing lumber and hardwood flooring consume 

418 and 859 MJ/m3 of energy, respectively. Included in the 

energy allocated to the recovered wood are those from wood 

lost during deconstruction process (i.e., waste wood) that 

was sent a C&D landfill with no methane capture. Crude oil 

was the largest energy component because of resource (i.e., 

raw material) and product transportation with values of 178 

and 437 MJ/m3, respectively. Coal consumption was next at 

145 and 235 MJ/m3. However, more energy was consumed 

during hardwood flooring recovery because the flooring was 

primarily stored in a closed, natural gas-heated building. 

No biomass was burned for energy in recovering old wood 

products for reuse. 

Table 6 shows cradle-to-gate major GHG emissions for recovered softwood framing lumber and hardwood flooring. 

Recovered hardwood flooring production emitted more fossil CO2 than recovered softwood framing lumber did. This 

was due to the higher wood density for hardwood versus 

softwood and because hardwood flooring was stored inside 

heated closed buildings unlike softwood framing lumber, 

which was stored covered outside. In addition, more biogenic CO2 was emitted for softwood framing lumber 

(24.8 kg/m3) than hardwood flooring (19.2 kg/m3) because 

more lumber was lost during the recovery process for softwood framing lumber than flooring. Therefore, a higher 

percentage of removed softwood framing lumber later 

Table 3. Cradle-to-gate cumulative energy requirements 

by fuel source allocated to 1 m3 new wood productsa

Softwood framing 

lumber Hardwood flooring

MJ/m3 % MJ/m3 %

Coal 462 7 816 11

Crude oil 826 13 1,980 26

Natural gas 592 9 790 10

Uranium 160 2 270 3

Biomass 4,360 68 3,880 50

Hydropower 37 1 12 0

Total 6,440 100 7,750 100 a

Energy values were determined using their higher heating values in 

MJ/kg: 54.4 for natural gas, and 20.9 for oven-dried wood, 26.2 for coal, 

45.5 for crude oil, and 381,000 for uranium.

Table 4. Cradle-to-gate major GHG emissions allocated to 1 m3

new wood products

Quantity emitted 

(kg/m3

)

Softwood framing 

lumber Hardwood flooring 

Carbon dioxide, fossil 109 228 

Methane, fossil 0.303 0.459 

Methane, biogenic 0 0 

Nitrous oxide 3.32 × 10–3 2.87 × 10–3

Carbon dioxide, biogenic 365 390 
Life-Cycle Energy and GHG Emissions for New and Recovered Softwood Framing Lumber and Hardwood Flooring Considering End-of-Life Scenarios

13

decomposed in a landfill. Biogenic methane has a much 

greater impact on climate change than carbon dioxide, 22 

to 1 when calculating GWP (non-biogenic methane has a 

GWP characterization factor of 25 for the IPCC 2007 100-

year time horizon) (PRé Consultants 2013, IPCC 2007). 

Bergman and others (2010) provided LCI data for recovered 

framing lumber and hardwood flooring without considering 

disposal of the unusable wood from deconstruction. Total 

methane production was 0.3 kg/m3 for both recovered wood 

products when the analysis did not include biogenic methane emissions generated after landfilling of unusable wood. 

Biogenic methane emissions from the decomposition of 

wood lost increased total methane emitted by a factor of 24 

(7.31/0.3) and 19 (5.59/0.3), respectively, a huge increase in 

GWP. Survey results estimated wood lost during removal at 

17% and 11% for recovered framing lumber and wood flooring, respectively. Wood decomposition in landfills was the 

source for all the biogenic CO2 and biogenic CH4 emitted in 

production of recovered wood products.

Tables 7 and 8 show that cradle-to-gate GWP including and 

excluding biogenic CO2 for products and recovered products. For new products, GWP with biogenic CO2 emissions 

included was two to four times greater than when biogenic 

CO2 emissions were excluded. For recovered wood 

products, GWP was marginally greater when biogenic CO2

emissions were included. Biogenic CO2 emitted came from 

the decomposition in the landfilled wood lost during the recovery process for recovered wood products. 

GWP for new products is substantially higher when biogenic CO2 is included because production includes burning onsite biomass (i.e., mill residues) to provide thermal energy 

for drying wood. Considerably lower GWPs were indicated 

when biogenic CO2 emissions were not considered (standard 

LCA practice). 

Tables 7 and 8 show cumulative energy requirements for 

the new framing lumber and flooring were 15 and 9.0 times 

greater, respectively, than for the equivalent recovered wood 

products. The GWP ratio between new and recovered products is much lower because it includes, for recovered products, the landfill methane emissions generated from wood 

lost during the recovery. 

When GWP excludes biogenic CO2 emissions (standard 

LCA practice), then GWP for new hardwood flooring is 

greater than for recovered flooring (ratio is 1.4). However, 

GWP is less for new softwood lumber than for recovered 

softwood lumber (ratio is 0.6). GWP that includes biogenic 

CO2 emissions is greater for new products than for recovered products by factors of 2.3 and 3.2 for softwood lumber 

and hardwood flooring, respectively. The doubling or more 

of GWP when including biogenic CO2 indicates the importance of what emissions are included for wood products 

production.

Part 2—End-of-Life Scenarios

The second part of this study examined various EOL scenarios for the case where wood is not recovered and estimated 

the associated cumulative energy use and GHG emissions. 

This portion of the study is intended to answer the question, 

“If recovered wood were not reused in construction and had 

a different fate (e.g., burned to generate electricity, ground 

for mulch, or landfilled), what would the impact be on environmental burdens?” In addition, we answer the question, 

“When are GHG emissions less for reuse of old wood compared to discard of old wood under several EOL scenarios 

and associated production of new products?” 

The base case EOL scenario assumes a mix of dispositions 

for discarded wood: burning wood for energy to replace 

coal power (30%), grinding for mulch with open air decay 

(10%), and disposal in a C&D landfill without methane capture (60%). All EOL analyses used data from the U.S. LCI 

Database. There are five alternate scenarios. 

Table 9 shows that for the base case (current U.S. practice) 

cumulative EOL energy is negative because of decreased 

coal burning with increased wood burning. Wood 

burning allows for coal energy decreases of –2,300 and 

–2,920 MJ/m3 of softwood framing lumber and hardwood 

flooring, respectively. To put this into perspective, 

Table 5. Cradle-to-gate cumulative energy 

requirements by fuel source allocated to 1 m3

recovered wood productsa

Softwood framing 

lumber

Hardwood 

flooring

MJ/m3 % MJ/m3 %

Coal 145 35 235 27

Crude oil 178 43 437 51

Natural gas 47 11 109 13

Uranium 43 10 70 8

Biomass 0 0 0 0

Hydropower 5 1 8 1

Total 418 100 859 100

a

Energy values were determined using their higher heating 

values in MJ/kg: 54.4 for natural gas and 20.9 for oven-dried 

wood, 26.2 for coal, 45.5 for crude oil, and 381,000 for 

uranium.

Table 6. Cradle-to-gate major GHG emissions allocated to 

1 m3

 recovered wood products 

Quantity emitted 

 (kg/m3

)

Softwood framing 

lumber 

Hardwood

flooring 

Carbon dioxide, fossil 23.9 49.7 

Methane, fossil 4.73 × 10–3 9.94 × 10–3

Methane, biogenic 7.31 5.59 

Nitrous oxide 3.32 × 10–3 7.99 × 10–3

Carbon dioxide, biogenic 24.8 19.2 
Research Paper FPL–RP–672

14

53% (2,300/4,360) and 75% (2,920/3880) of the biomass 

energy used in making new softwood framing lumber and 

hardwood flooring is displaced by burning the old wood 

at EOL to avoid coal power production. Wood burned for 

energy recovery at EOL has a considerable effect, although 

only 30% of the old wood is burned to replace coal. 

Table 10 shows that for the base case, some major GHG 

emissions were positive overall. Positive GHG emissions 

occurred even though cumulative energy at EOL was negative (Table 9). Negative fossil CO2 emissions correspond to 

negative energy consumption and result from the discarded 

wood being burned to displace coal to generate electricity. 

As a result, fossil CO2 values were –156 kg/m3 for softwood 

framing lumber and –193 kg/m3 for hardwood flooring. 

However, some positive GHG emissions occurred because 

of the release of biogenic CO2 and biogenic methane from 

wood burning and degradation. Wood degradation occurs 

from two sources: the spreading of mulch and the landfilling 

of the discarded wood. Biogenic CO2 generated from 

burning wood, mulch, and landfills was large for softwood 

framing lumber (317 kg/m3) and hardwood flooring 

(402 kg/m3). Biogenic methane emissions from landfills 

were 21.5 and 27.2 kg for softwood framing lumber and 

hardwood flooring, respectively. The discarded wood burned 

to replace coal to generate electricity substantially offsets 

fossil CO2 emissions but adds to biogenic CO2 emissions.

Tables 11 and 12 show cumulative energy use and GWP for 

the base case and five alternative EOL scenarios. GWP1 excludes biogenic CO2, the method consistent with TRACI 2 

Method (PRé Consultants 2013, Bare 2011). GWP2 includes 

biogenic CO2. Alternative scenario #1 (burn all the wood to 

replace coal to generate electricity) had the lowest levels of 

GWP1 and GWP2 across all the scenarios. Softwood framing 

Table 7. Summary environmental impact measures for producing 

softwood framing lumber

Environmental impact measures

(1)

New framing 

lumber

(2)

Recovered 

framing lumber

Ratio

(1)/(2)

Cumulative energy (MJ/m3) 6440 418 15

CO2 total (kg/m3) 474 48.9 9.7

CO2 less biogenic (kg/m3) 109 24.8 4.4

GWP including biogenic CO2

(kg CO2-e/m3)

a

483 211 2.3

GWP less biogenic CO2

(kg CO2-e/m3)

118 186 0.6

a

Global warming potential (GWP) when biogenic CO2 is given a characterization factor of 1.

Table 8. Summary environmental impact measures for producing 

hardwood flooring

Environmental impact measures

(1)

New 

hardwood 

flooring

(2)

Recovered 

hardwood 

flooring

Ratio

(1)/(2)

Cumulative energy (MJ/m3) 7,750 859 9.0

CO2 total (kg/m3) 618 79.4 7.8

CO2 less biogenic CO2 (kg/m3) 228 48.7 4.7

GWP including biogenic CO2

(kg CO2-e/m3)

a

630 195 3.2

GWP less biogenic CO2

(kg CO2-e/m3)

240 175 1.4

a

Global warming potential (GWP) when biogenic CO2 is given a characterization 

factor of 1.

Table 9. Cumulative end-of-life energy 

consumption by fuel source allocated to 1 m3

wood products (base-case scenarioa,b)

Softwood framing 

lumber Hardwood flooring

MJ/m3 % MJ/m3 %

Coal –2,300 106 –2,920 110

Crude oil 65 –3 173 –7

Natural gas 31 –1 41 –2

Uranium 32 –1 38 –1

Biomass 0 0 0 0

Hydropower 5 0 7 0

Total –2,170 100 –2,660 100

a

30% of wood waste from old structures goes to replace coal to 

generate electricity, 10% gets ground into mulch, and the 

remaining 60% transported to a construction and demolition 

landfill with no methane capture. b

Energy values were determined using their higher heating values 

in MJ/kg: 54.4 for natural gas and 20.9 for oven-dried wood, 26.2 

for coal, 45.5 for crude oil and 381,000 for uranium.
Life-Cycle Energy and GHG Emissions for New and Recovered Softwood Framing Lumber and Hardwood Flooring Considering End-of-Life Scenarios

15

lumber and hardwood flooring had GWP1 values of –592 

and –744 kg/m3, respectively. GWP2 values were –93 and 

–113 kg/m3, respectively.

Cumulative energy was negative and lowest for alternative 

scenario 1. Scenario 4 (burn wood to replace natural gas to 

generate electricity) followed closely behind the first alternative with values of –7,300 and –9,200 MJ/m3 for softwood framing lumber and hardwood flooring, respectively. 

Scenario 5 was next lowest but significantly behind. In 

Scenario 5, all wood goes to landfills and a small part is 

emitted as biogenic methane (i.e., landfill gas). Seventy-five 

% of the biogenic methane generated in the landfill was 

captured and burned to generate electricity to replace natural gas. Burning landfill methane generates biogenic CO2. 

The remaining 25% was considered fugitive emissions and 

was emitted to the atmosphere. These results are consistent 

with Kaplan and others (2009) who found burning wood for 

energy provides substantially lower (negative) GHG emissions than landfilling and burning the captured landfill methane for energy. When landfill methane is not burned as in 

Scenario 3, GHG emissions are much higher. For softwood 

lumber, the effect of not burning landfill methane for energy 

when all wood is landfilled was to increase GWP1 by a factor of four, from 199 to 808 kg CO2-equivalents/m3. The 

effect was similar for hardwood flooring. Thus, methane 

capture is critical for wood products when stored in a landfill to lower their impact on climate change.

Tables 13 and 14 compare GWP for cases where 1) old 

wood products are discarded (six EOL cases) and new products are made or 2) old wood is reused to make products. 

For the base case EOL scenario where we assume making 

new products would require discard of old wood to the current mix of proportions to energy, landfills, and mulch, then 

the reuse of both softwood lumber and hardwood flooring 

produces less GWP than making new products. The benefit is greatest for reuse of hardwood flooring (1,429/195 

vs 1,110/211). This is true for GWP estimates that either 

include or exclude biogenic CO2 emission. However, if we 

Table 10. Major GHG emissions for the end-of-life (base-case 

scenarioa

)

Quantity emitted 

(kg/m3

)

Softwood framing

 lumber 

Hardwood

GHG flooring 

Carbon dioxide, fossil –156 –193 

Methane, fossil –0.286 –0.353 

Methane, biogenic 21.5 27.2 

Nitrous oxide 1.78 × 10–3 2.40 × 10–3

Carbon dioxide, biogenic 317 402 

a

30% of wood waste from old structures goes to replace coal to generate electricity, 

10% gets ground into mulch, and the remaining 60% is transported to a construction and 

demolition landfill with no methane capture. 

Table 11. Cumulative energy and GWP for the various end-of-life scenariosa for softwood framing 

lumber

Environmental impacts Base case Alt#1 Alt#2 Alt#3 Alt#4 Alt#5 Reuse New

Cumulative energy (MJ/m3) –2,160 –8,100 471 329 –7,300 –1,420 418 6,440

GWP1 (kgCO2-e/m3)

g 310 –592 28 808 –379 199 186 118

GWP2 (kgCO2-e/m3

)

h 627 –93 980 928 120 394 211 483

a

Base case: 60% of wood waste into landfill with no methane capture/30% burned to replace coal power/10% ground into mulch; Alt#1: 

100% wood waste burned to replace coal power; Alt#2: 100% wood waste ground into mulch; Alt#3: 100% wood waste into landfill 

with no methane capture; Alt#4: 100% wood waste burned to replace natural gas power; Alt#5: 100% wood waste into landfill with 

methane capture; Global warming potential (GWP) with biogenic CO2 having a characterization factor of 1.

Table 12. Cumulative energy and GWP for the various end-of-life scenariosa for hardwood flooring

Environmental impacts Base case Alt#1 Alt#2 Alt#3 Alt#4 Alt#5 Reuse New

Cumulative energy (MJ/m3) –2660 –10,100 676 497 –9,200 –1,720 859 7,750

GWP1 (kgCO2-e/m3)

g 397 –744 40 1030 –475 257 175 240

GWP2 (kgCO2-e/m3)

h 799 –113 1,250 1180 156 504 195 630

a

Base case: 60% of wood waste into landfill with no methane capture/ 30% burned to replace coal power/ 10% ground into mulch; Alt#1: 

100% wood waste burned to replace coal power; Alt#2: 100% wood waste ground into mulch; Alt#3: 100% wood waste into landfill with no 

methane capture; Alt#4: 100% wood waste burned to replace natural gas power; Alt#5: 100% wood waste into landfill with methane capture;

Global warming potential (GWP) with biogenic CO2 having a characterization factor of 1.
Research Paper FPL–RP–672

16

consider GWP that excludes biogenic CO2 emissions (standard LCA practice) reuse could be notably worse (higher 

GWP) than new wood if all old wood could be burned to 

offset coal or natural gas in making electric power. Reuse 

could be slightly worse than new for softwood lumber if 

all old wood could be used as mulch (unlikely if wood is 

contaminated (186/146)). So a key point is that if wood 

cannot be reused for products the next best step is to keep it 

out of landfills and use it for either energy (top priority) or 

mulch (lower priority). There is a greater benefit from keeping hardwood out of landfills than keeping softwood out of 

landfills. 

Conclusion

Recovering softwood framing lumber and hardwood flooring for reuse instead of making new products displaces a 

considerable amount of production energy use and avoids 

some GHG emissions, particularly biogenic CO2. Reusing 

wood products for construction does not use biomass energy 

during its production, unlike new wood products. Including 

biogenic CO2 from burning biomass for energy adds considerably to the estimate of GWP for new wood products. 

Adding biogenic CO2 results in substantially higher GWP 

for new wood products because over 50% of its primary energy is from mill residues (i.e., wood). However, if biogenic 

CO2 is not included, then the GWP values for new products 

are lower and reuse of wood does not avoid as much GWP 

as new product production. 

GWP values change considerably for the different cases of 

discarding old wood (i.e., C&D waste). Standard GWP protocol excludes biogenic CO2 emissions whether generated 

from burning wood, decaying mulch, decomposing wood 

in landfills, or burning landfill methane. Biogenic CO2

emissions are assume to be balanced out by the carbon sequestration from trees over time as part of the natural carbon 

cycle. Standard U.S. waste disposal practice includes burning wood for energy to replace coal power (30%), grinding 

for mulch with open air decay (10%), and disposal in a 

C&D landfill without methane capture (60%). Therefore, 

the following hierarchy in this study shows the lowest to the 

highest GWP values for the six EOL scenarios investigated: 

1) burning wood to generate electricity to replace coal, 

2) burning wood to generate electricity to replace natural 

gas, 3) grinding wood into mulch, 4) installing methane 

capture equipment to capture most of the landfill methane 

and burning it to generate electricity to replace natural gas, 

5) current U.S. practice, and 6) storing the wood in a landfill without methane capture. The two cases of burning old 

wood to replace fossil fuels have greater GHG benefits than 

the two cases of landfilling the discarded old wood with or 

without methane capture with mulching the old wood falling 

in between. 

A downside to using C&D waste in energy generation to 

offset coal or natural gas emissions is that C&D waste typically contains contaminants unless the material is separated 

at the demolition or deconstruction site. Therefore, burning 

C&D waste can result in other air emissions and unknown 

materials that may require additional handling and associated energy consumption in the process than that already 

noted.

Greater environmental benefits tend to occur by keeping 

hardwoods out of landfills than keeping softwoods out of 

landfills. This is because hardwood flooring is produced 

from a dense wood species, and if kept out of landfills, 

could generate more energy per unit weight of wood than 

softwoods. Alternately, hardwoods that are kept out of 

Table 13. Scenariosa of GWP comparison of new softwood framing lumber plus the 

various end-of-life scenarios to recovered softwood framing lumber 

Environmental impacts Base casea Alt#1b Alt#2c Alt#3d Alt#4e

 Alt#5f Reuse

GWP1 (kgCO2-e/m3)

g 427 –474 146 926 –262 317 186 

GWP2 (kgCO2-e/m3

)

h 1,110 390 1,463 1,411 603 877 211 

a

Base case: 60% of wood waste into landfill with no methane capture/ 30% burned to replace coal power/ 10% ground 

into mulch; Alt#1: 100% wood waste burned to replace coal power; Alt#2: 100% wood waste ground into mulch; Alt#3: 

100% wood waste into landfill with no methane capture; Alt#4: 100% wood waste burned to replace natural gas power; 

Alt#5: 100% wood waste into landfill with methane capture; Global warming potential (GWP) with biogenic CO2

having a characterization factor of 1.

Table 14. GWP comparison of new hardwood flooring plus the various EOL scenariosa to recovered 

hardwood flooring 

Environmental impacts Base case Alt#1 Alt#2 Alt#3 Alt#4 Alt#5 Reuse

GWP1 (kgCO2-e/m3) 637 –504 280 1,270 –235 497 175 

GWP2 (kgCO2-e/m3) 1,429 518 1,880 1,810 787 1,134 195 

a

Global warming potential (GWP) with biogenic CO2 having a characterization factor of 1; Base case: 60% of wood waste into 

landfill with no methane capture/30% burned to replace coal power/10% ground into mulch; Alt#1: 100% wood waste burned to 

replace coal power; Alt#2: 100% wood waste ground into mulch; Alt#3: 100% wood waste into landfill with no methane capture; 

Alt#4: 100% wood waste burned to replace natural gas power; Alt#5: 100% wood waste into landfill with methane capture. 
Life-Cycle Energy and GHG Emissions for New and Recovered Softwood Framing Lumber and Hardwood Flooring Considering End-of-Life Scenarios

17

landfills and are then reused will avoid production of new 

hardwood flooring, which requires more energy for drying 

to a lower moisture content to improve dimensional stability 

and to avoid degrade than softwood framing lumber does. 

This translates to greater environmental benefits of keeping 

hardwoods out of landfills and reusing for flooring or using 

it for energy than can be realized by recovery of softwood 

species for reuse.

Product transportation can be a critical component of the 

cradle-to-gate LCI. For new products, transportation often 

requires long distances. For example, new wood flooring is 

primarily produced in the eastern United States. Therefore, 

transportation by both truck and rail is typically required to 

deliver products to wholesale locations on the West Coast. 

For reused wood products, transport distance can be shorter 

because wood is recovered in large urban centers and can be 

reused locally. 

References

Athena. 2012. Athena Impact Estimator for Buildings. 

Ottawa, Ontario: Athena Sustainable Materials Institute. 

http://www.athenasmi.org/our-software-data/impact-estimator/ (Accessed March 5, 2013).

ATSDR. 2001. Landfill gas primer—an overview for environmental health professionals. Chapter 2: Landfill gas 

basics. Agency for Toxic Substances & Disease Registry 

(ATSDR). http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/HAC/landfill/PDFs/

Landfill_2001_ch2mod.pdf (Accessed March 5, 2013)

Bare, J.C. 2011. TRACI 2.0: the tool for the reduction and 

assessment of chemical and other environmental impacts 

2.0. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy. 

13: 687–696.

Bergman, R.D.; Bowe, S.A. 2010. Environmental impact of manufacturing softwood lumber in northeastern 

and north central United States. Wood and Fiber Science. 

42(CORRIM Special Issue): 67–78.

Bergman, R.D.; Gu, H.; Falk R.H.; Napier, T.R. 2010. 

Using reclaimed lumber and flooring in construction: measuring environmental impact using life-cycle inventory 

analysis. Society of Wood Science and Technology 53rd 

International Convention. Geneva, Switzerland. October 

11–15, 2010. WS-11. 1–11.

Bergman, Richard D.; Gu, Hongmei; Napier, Thomas 

R.; Salazar, James; and Falk, Robert H. 2012. Life cycle 

primary energy and carbon analysis of recovering softwood framing lumber and hardwood flooring for reuse. 

In: Proceedings, Instruments for Green Futures Markets, 

American Center for Life Cycle Assessment XI Conference. 

October 4-6, 2011. Vashon, WA: 44–51.

 Blengini, G.A. 2009. Life-cycle of buildings, demolition 

and recycling potential: a case study in Turin, Italy. Building 

and Environment. (44): 319–330.

Borghi, A.D.; Gallo, M.; Borghi, M.D. 2009. A survey of 

life-cycle approaches in waste management. International 

Journal of Life Cycle Assessment. (14): 597–610.

CORRIM. 2010. Research guidelines for life-cycle inventories. Consortium for Research on Renewable Industrial 

Materials (CORRIM), Inc., University of Washington, 

Seattle, WA. Updated 2010. 47 p.

EIA. 2013. Independent statistics and analysis: Glossary 

(H). United States Energy Information Association. 

http://www.eia.gov/tools/glossary/index.cfm?id=H 

(Accessed March 5, 2013). 

EPA. 1995. Construction and demolition waste landfills. ICF 

Incorporated, Contract No. 68-W3-0008, February 1995. 

39 p. http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/generation/sqg/const/

cdrpt.pdf (Accessed March 5, 2013).

EPA. 2009a. Estimating 2003: building-related construction 

and demolition material amounts. Washington, D.C.: United 

States Environmental Protection Agency. 60 p. http://www.

epa.gov/osw/conserve/imr/cdm/pubs/cd-meas.pdf (Accessed 

March 5, 2013).

EPA. 2009b. 40 CFR Chapter I: endangerment and cause 

or contribute findings for greenhouse gases under Section 

202(a) of the Clean Air Act; Final Rule. Federal Register 

Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2009-0171. Washington, 

D.C.: United States Environmental Protection Agency. 52 p.

EPA. 2009c. Combustor survey database in support of the 

2009 proposal of the Commercial and Industrial Solid Waste 

Incinerator (CISWI) standards and the Industrial Boilers 

Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards, April 2009. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency.

EPA. 2010. WARM background and overview. http://epa.

gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/downloads/backgroundand-overview10-28-10.pdf (Accessed March 5, 2013). 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

25 p.

EPA. 2011. Inventory of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 

and sinks: 1990-2009, EPA-430-R-11-005. http://www.epa.

gov/climatechange/Downloads/ghgemissions/US-GHGInventory-2011.pdf (Accessed March 13, 2013) 470 p. 

EPA. 2012a. Materials characterization paper in support 

of the final rulemaking – identification of nonhazardous 

secondary materials that are solid waste construction and 

demolition materials–building-related C&D materials. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

15 p. http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EPAHQ-RCRA-2008-0329-1811 (Accessed March 5, 2013). 

EPA. 2012b. Waste reduction model. Updated February 

2012. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/calculators/Warm_home.html (Accessed March 5, 2013).
Research Paper FPL–RP–672

18

Eriksson O.; Reich, C.M.; Frostell B.;Björklund, A.; Assefa, 

G.; Sundqvist, J.-O.; Granath, J.; Baky, A.; Thyselius, L. 

2005. Municipal solid waste management from a system 

perspective. Journal of Cleaner Production. 13(3): 241–252.

Falk, R.H. 2002. Wood-framed building deconstruction: a 

source of lumber for construction? Forest Products Journal. 

52(3): 8–15.

Falk, R.H.; Guy B. 2007. Unbuilding: salvaging the architectural treasures of unwanted houses. Newtown, CT: The 

Taunton Press Inc. 248 p. 

Falk, R.H.; McKeever. 2012. Generation and recovery of 

solid wood waste. BioCycle. August 2012: 30–32.

Fava J.; Jensen A.; Lindfors L.; Pomper, S., De Smet, B., 

Warren J, Vigon B. 1994. Life-cycle assessment data quality: a conceptual framework. Society for Environmental 

Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) and SETAC 

Foundation for Environmental Education. 179 p. 

Heilmann, A.; Winkler, J. 2005. Influence of the source 

separation efficiency of recyclable materials on the environmental performance of municipal waste management 

systems. Proceedings Sardinia 2005, Tenth International 

Waste Management and Landfill Symposium; S. Margherita 

di Pula, Cagliari, 3–7 October 2005.

Hubbard, S.S.; Bowe S.A. 2010. A gate-to-gate life-cycle 

inventory of solid strip hardwood flooring in the eastern 

U.S. Wood and Fiber Science. 42(CORRIM Special Issue): 

79–89.

ISO. 2006a. Environmental management—life-cycle assessment—principles and framework. ISO 14040. Geneva, 

Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization. 

20 p.

ISO. 2006b. Environmental management—life-cycle assessment—requirements and guidelines. ISO 14044. Geneva, 

Switzerland: International Organization for Standardization. 

46 p.

ISO. 2012. ISO 14067 Carbon footprint of products (draft). 

ISO 14067. Geneva, Switzerland: International Organization 

for Standardization. 52 pp.

IPCC. 2006. 2006 IPCC guidelines for national greenhouse 

gas inventories. Prepared by the National Greenhouse Gas 

Inventories Programme, Eggleston H.S., Buendia L., Miwa 

K., Ngara T. and Tanabe K. (eds). Published: Institute 

for Global Environmental Strategies, Japan. Geneva, 

Switzerland: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

(IPCC).

IPCC. 2007. Climate change 2007: The physical science basis. In: Solomon S., Qin D., Manning M., Chen Z., Marquis 

M., Averyt K.B., Tignor M., Miller H.L. (eds.). Contribution 

of working group to the fourth assessment report of the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), 

Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 

996 p.

Kaplan, P.O.; DeCarolis, J.; Thorneloe, S. 2009. Is it better to burn or bury waste for clean electricity generation? 

Environmental Science and Technology. 43(6): 1711–1717.

Kibert, C.J. 2003. Deconstruction: the start of a sustainable 

materials strategy for the built environment. UNEP Industry 

and Environment. 26(2–3): 84–88.

Milota, M.R.; West, C.D.; Harley, I.D. 2004. Softwood lumber—Southeast Region. In CORRIM Phase I Final Report 

Module B. Life-cycle environmental performance of renewable building materials in the context of residential construction. Seattle, WA: University of Washington. 75 p.

Milota, M.R.; West, C.D.; Hartley, I.D. 2005. Gate-to-gate 

life inventory of softwood lumber production. Wood and 

Fiber Science. 37: 47–57.

Napier, T.R.; McKay D.T.; Mowry N.D. 2007. A life-cycle 

perspective on recycling construction materials (The most 

sustainable materials may be the ones we already have). 

In: Y.M. Chun, P. Claisse, T.R. Naik, E. Ganjian, eds. 

Proceedings of the International Conference: Sustainable 

construction materials and technologies, 11–13 June 2007 

Coventry. London: Taylor and Francis. ISBN 13: 978-0-415-

44689-1: 563–573.

NWMOA. 2009, Construction & demolition waste management in the northeast in 2006. A report of the Northeast 

Waste Management Officials Association (NWMOA), 

June 30, 2009. 65 p. http://www.newmoa.org/solidwaste/

CDReport2006DataFinalJune302009.pdf (Accessed 

March 5, 2013).

Ogden, C.L.; Fryar, C.D.; Carroll, M.D.; Flegal, K.M. 

2004. Mean body weight, height, and body mass index, 

United States. Advance Data No. 347, October 27, 2004. 

Hyattsville, Maryland: National Center for Health Statistics. 

18 p.

Olofsson, M.; Sunberg, J.; Sahlin, J. 2005. Evaluating 

waste incineration as treatment and energy recovery 

method from an environmental point of view. ASME 

Conference Proceedings, 2005, 175 (2005), DOI:10.1115/

NAWTEC13-3168. May 23–25, 2005. Orlando, Florida. 

175–192.

Oswalt S.N., Thompson M., Smith W.B. 2009. U.S. forest 

resource facts and historical trends (metric unit brochure). 

FS-901M. Revised September 2009. 60 p. http://fia.fs.fed.

us/library/brochures/docs/Forest%20Facts%201952-

2007%20English.pdf. (Accessed March 5, 2013).

PRé Consultants. 2013. SimaPro 7 Life-Cycle assessment software package, Version 7. Plotter 12, 3821 BB 

Amersfoort, The Netherlands. http://www.pre.nl. (Accessed 

March 5, 2013).
Life-Cycle Energy and GHG Emissions for New and Recovered Softwood Framing Lumber and Hardwood Flooring Considering End-of-Life Scenarios

19

Puettmann, M.E.; Wilson, J.B. 2005. Life-cycle analysis 

of wood products: cradle-to-grave LCI of residential wood 

building materials. Wood and Fiber Science. (37): 18–29.

Puettmann, M.; Bergman, R.; Hubbard, S.; Johnson, L.; 

Lippke, B.; Oneil, E.; Wagne, F.G. . 2010. Cradle-to-gate 

life-cycle inventories of U.S. wood products production – 

CORRIM Phase I and Phase II Products. Wood and Fiber 

Science. 42(CORRIM Special Issue): 15–28.

SAIC. 2006. Life-cycle assessment: Code and practices. 

Scientific Applications International Corporation (SAIC). 

EPA/600/R-06/060 May 2006. 80 p.

Salazar, J.; Meil, J. 2009. Prospects for carbon-neutral 

housing – the influence of greater wood use on the carbonfootprint of a single-family residence. Journal of Cleaner 

Production. 17 (17): 1563–1571.

Sathre, R.; Gustausson L. 2006. Energy and carbon balances of wood cascade chains. Resource, Conservation and 

Recycling 47(4): 332–355.

Skog, Kenneth E. 2008. Sequestration of carbon in harvested wood products for the United States. Forest Products 

Journal. 58(6): 56–72.

Smith, A.; Brown, K.; Ogilvie, S.; Rushton, K.; Bates, J. 

2001. Waste management options and climate change. Final 

report to the European Commission, DG Environment. 205 

p. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/pdf/climate_change.pdf (Accessed March 5, 2013).

Smith, B.W.; Miles, P.D.; Perry, C.H.; Pugh, S.A. 2009. 

Forest Resources of the United States, 2007. Gen. Tech. 

Rep. WO-78. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington Office. 336 pp.

Staley B.F.; Barlaz M.A. 2009. Composition of municipal 

solid waste in the United States and implications for carbon 

sequestration and methane yield. Journal of Environmental 

Engineering. 135(10): 901–909.

Sunberg, J.; Olofsson, M.; Sahlin, J. 2004. Evaluating waste 

incineration as treatment and energy recovery method from 

an environmental point of view. Final version 2004-05-13. 

Profu. Stockholm, Sweden. 81 p.

Thorneloe, S.A.; Weitz, K.A.; Jambeck, J. 2007. Application 

of the U.S. decision support tool for materials and waste 

management. Waste Management. 27(2007): 1006–1020.

USDA. 2013. Life-cycle inventory database project. 

Washington, D.C.: United Department of Agriculture. 

https://www.lcacommons.gov/nrel (Accessed March 5, 

2013).

USFS. 2011. National report on sustainable forests—2010. 

United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 

FS-979, June 2011. 214 p.

USDOT. 2010. Bureau of Transportation Statistics and U.S. 

Census Bureau, 2007 Economic Census. Transportation. 

2007 Commodity flow survey. United States Department of 

Transportation (USDOT). 68 pp. http://www.census.gov/

prod/2010pubs/ec07tcf-ex.pdf (Accessed March 5, 2013). 

Wang, X.; Padgett, J.M.; De la Cruz, F.B; Barlaz, M.A. 

2011. Wood biodegradation in laboratory-scale landfills. 

Environmental Science and Technolpgy. 45(16): 6864–6871.

Winistorfer, P.; Chen, Z.; Lippke, B.; Stevens, N. 2005. 

Energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions related 

to use, maintenance, and disposal of a residential structure. 

Wood and Fiber Science. 37(CORRIM Special Issue): 

128–139. 

Ximenes, F.A.; Gardner, W.D.; Cowie, A.L. 2008. The 

decomposition of wood products in landfills in Sydney, 

Australia. Waste Management. 28 (11): 2344–2354.
Research Paper FPL–RP–672

20

Appendix 1—Survey Instrument

Survey Instrument for Deconstruction Facility Operators 

and Managers

This questionnaire is comprised of two parts: 1. wood 

flooring and; 2. framing lumber. Some questions pertain to 

companies or individuals who do deconstruction/demolishing whereas some questions pertain to transportation to and 

around a resale facility. We are looking to evaluate your 

most current practices.

Part I—Wood Flooring

For this project, we are limiting our analysis to solid wood 

flooring, including tongue and groove (T&G) and plank 

flooring. We are not interested at this time in laminated (or 

engineered) wood flooring. The goal of this section is to 

determine all the energy inputs to remove, store, and sell the 

flooring. We are assuming that the following represents a 

typical sequence of flooring removal.

1. Transportation of workers to job-site.

2. Removal of any furniture or other materials such as 

molding that would interfere with removal of the flooring.

3. Removal flooring board by board.

4. Denailing of flooring either by hand or nail kicker. 

5. Loading of flooring onto truck either by hand or with 

equipment.

6. Transport the flooring to storage facility

7. Unload the wood flooring either by hand or equipment. 

8. Store the wood flooring in a facility until sold

9. Electricity and fuel used to keep facility lighted and 

heated. 

10. Selling of wood flooring to customers

Part I—Wood Flooring (Soft-Strip)

1. What is the typical distance your crew travels to a jobsite to remove flooring? ________ miles

2. How many days do you typically stay on a deconstruction job to remove wood flooring? ____ days

3. How many hours per day spent removing flooring? 

_____ hours

4. How many miles are driven per day while at the jobsite? 

That is, driving to lunch, to the hardware store, picking 

up equipment, back and forth from office, etc.

_______________ miles

5. Does your crew typically travel individually or as a 

group to the jobsite? Circle one: individual, group. 

6. If a group, how many typically ride in each vehicle? 

______persons

7. Estimate how many square feet of flooring each person 

can remove in an hour? _____sq.ft/hr/person

8. How many total sites (jobs) for wood floor removal are 

completed on annual basis?

9. List tools used to remove flooring?

If no tools use fuel or electricity, go to question 11, otherwise continue with question 10.

10. What tools do you use that require fuel or electricity, 

such as a Nail Kicker, electric saw/etc. in the flooring 

removal and denailing process? 

What do you typically use for a power source? Circle 

one: electrical outlet onsite or a jobsite generator

If you use a jobsite generator, what fuel does the generator use and how much fuel does it use per hour of operation? 

 ___________ gallons per hour gasoline 

 ___________ gallons per hour fuel oil 

 ___________ gallons per hour propane

11. Estimate how many square feet of flooring each person 

can denail and trim in an hour using the Nail Kicker or 

other electrical tools?____________ sq.ft./hr/person

12. If you use plug-in electricity for your tools, do you 

know how many Kw/hrs are used per square foot of 

flooring removed? 

____________ kw-hr/sq.ft. flooring

13. On average, how much flooring do you recover per 

site? ____________ sq.ft.

14. Estimate how much flooring you lose in the removal and 

trimming process? 5, 10, 25, 50%? ____%

15. What percentage of recovered flooring is hardwood or 

softwood? _______% hardwood ________% softwood

16. Estimate how much flooring you recovered in the last 

year? Please give your answer in square feet.

17. What is the average distance you must move the recovered flooring to your resale facility? _______miles

18. Average number of trips to move the recovered flooring 

to resale facility per job? ____

19. Please indicate what type of truck is used? Circle one: 

pickup truck, box truck, semi, etc.
Life-Cycle Energy and GHG Emissions for New and Recovered Softwood Framing Lumber and Hardwood Flooring Considering End-of-Life Scenarios

21

20. Estimate what percentage of the load (by weight) is 

flooring for a typical job? ______%

21. What type of fuel is used? Circle one: diesel or gas

22. We are trying to determine the energy costs associated 

with storing and selling the wood flooring you recovere. 

Can you estimate the holding costs (e.g., heating, light-

ing in BTU’s/KWH’s) associated with the retailing or 

wholesaling of wood flooring in your store? 

a. Store size _____________ sq. ft.

b. Typically, how much wood flooring is stored at one 

time? ______________ sq. ft.

c. What would you estimate the percentage of wood floor-

ing (by weight) is in your store compared to overall 

inventory _____%

d. Typically, how long is flooring stored before selling? 

________days or weeks or months

e. Annual fuel consumption to heat store

___________ gallons heating oil 

___________ gallons propane

___________1000 cubic feet natural gas

___________Kw-hr electricity

f. Annual electrical consumption for store (please provide 

at least two of the following items)

____________ kilowatt-hours

____________ cents/Kw-hr

____________ monthly electric bill

23. If you use equipment such as a forklift to move flooring 

around the facility, please list what type of equipment? 

24. If the equipment uses fuel, what type of fuel? Circle 

one: gas, diesel, LP, or electric

25. Estimate how much fuel (or electricity) is used per year 

to move wood flooring around the facility and for load-

ing onto a customer’s vehicle? ____________ gallons 

fuel / _______ kw-hr

26. If you sell, average selling price of wood flooring? 

___________$/sq.ft
Research Paper FPL–RP–672

22

Part II—Framing Lumber

Framing lumber is the structural support of a building, not 

the sheathing, trim, or other wood. In a house, it is usually 

2 × 4s, 2 × 6s, 2 × 8s, and 2 × 10s. Once again, we are looking to see what energy goes into removing, transporting, and 

selling the framing lumber. However, if other re-useable material is also removed when removing the framing lumber, 

please indicate that. We expect that heavier equipment might 

be used. We are assuming that the following represents a 

typical sequence of framing removal.

1. Transportation of workers to jobsite.

2. Transportation of forklift, bobcat, or other energy using 

equipment to jobsite.

3. Removal of surface materials such as roofing, drywall, 

subfloors, and insulation that would interfere with the 

removal of the framing lumber

4. Removal of actual framing.

5. Denailing of framing either by hand or nail kicker. 

6. Loading of framing onto truck either by hand or with 

equipment.

7. Transport the framing to storage facility

8. Unload the wood framing either by hand or equipment. 

9. Store the wood framing in a facility until sold

10. Electricity and fuel used to keep facility lighted and 

heated. 

11. Selling of framing lumber to customer

Part II—Framing Lumber (Full Deconstruction)

What is the typical distance your crew travels to a jobsite to 

remove framing? ________ miles.

1. How many miles are driven per day while at the jobsite? 

That is, driving to lunch, to the hardware store, picking up equipment, back and forth from office, etc. 

______________ miles 

2. Does your crew typically travel individually or as a 

group to the jobsite? Circle one: individual, group. 

3. If a group, how many typically ride in each vehicle? 

_____ persons

4. How many days do you typically stay on a deconstruction job to remove framing? _____days

5. How many hours per day spent removing framing? 

_____ hours

6. Estimate how many linear feet or board feet of framing 

each person can remove in an hour? 

 ______ linear ft/hr/person or board ft/hr/person

7. How many total sites (jobs) for framing removal are 

completed on annual basis?

8. List tools used to remove flooring.

If no tools use fuel or electricity, go to question 11, otherwise continue with question 10.

9. What tools do you use that require fuel or electricity, 

such as a power saw/etc. in the framing removal and 

denailing process? 

What do you typically use for a power source? Circle 

one: electrical outlet onsite or a jobsite generator

If you use a jobsite generator, what fuel does the generator use and how much fuel does it use per hour of 

operation? 

 ___________ gallons per hour gasoline 

 ___________ gallons per hour fuel oil 

 ___________ gallons per hour propane

10. Please estimate how many lineal feet, board ft. or tons 

of framing each person can denail and trim in an hour 

using the Nail Kicker or other electrical tools?

11. If you use plug-in electricity for your tools, do you 

know how many Kw/hrs are used per square foot of 

framing removed?

12. On average, how much framing do you recovere per 

site? ____________ board feet or lineal feet or tons

Can you estimate how much framing you loose in the removal and trimming process? 10% 25% 50%

13. Do you use heavy equipment to recovere and move 

framing, such as a telescoping forklift, Bob Cat, boom 

lift, or other equipment? If so, please indicate how 

many total hours you typically use each machine on 

each job and how much fuel it burns per hour.

Machine Type Hours used Fuel type Fuel use per hour

Forklift

Bobcat
Life-Cycle Energy and GHG Emissions for New and Recovered Softwood Framing Lumber and Hardwood Flooring Considering End-of-Life Scenarios

23

14. Can you estimate how much framing you recovered in 

the last year? Please give your answer in either board 

feet, lbs (tons), or lineal feet of each size.

15. What is the average distance you must move the recovered framing to your resale facility? _______miles

16. Average number of trips to move the framing lumber to 

resale facility per job? ____

17. Please indicate what type of truck is used? Circle one: 

pickup truck, box truck, semi, etc.

18. Estimate what percentage of the load (by weight) is 

framing for a typical job? _____%

19. What type of fuel is used in the truck? Circle one: diesel 

or gas

20. We are trying to determine the energy costs associated 

with storing and selling the wood framing you recovere. 

Can you estimate the holding costs (e.g., heating, lighting in BTU’s/KWH’s) associated with the retailing or 

wholesaling of wood framing in your store? 

a. Store size _____________ sq. ft.

b. Typically, how much wood framing is stored at one 

time? ______________ sq. ft.

c. Estimate the percentage of wood framing (by 

weight) is in your store compared to overall inventory _____%

d. Typically, how long is framing stored before selling? 

________days or weeks or months

e. Annual fuel consumption to heat store

___________ gallons heating oil 

___________ gallons propane

___________1000 cubic feet natural gas

___________kw-hr electricity

f. Annual electrical consumption for store (please provide at least two of the following items)

____________ kilowatt-hours

____________ cents/kw-hr

____________ monthly electric bill

21. If you use equipment such as a forklift to move flooring 

around the facility, please list what type of equipment? 

22. If the equipment uses fuel, what type of fuel? Circle 

one: gas, diesel, LP, or electric

23. Estimate how much fuel (or electricity) is used per year 

to move wood flooring around the facility and for loading onto a customer’s vehicle? ____________ gallons 

fuel / _______ kw-hr

24. If you sell framing lumber, average selling price of material broken down by size if possible?

Size Price ($ per bf)

2x4’s

2x6’s

2x8’s

2x10’s

2x12’s

3x3’s

3x4’s

4x4’s

6x6’s

Other ___________________

Other ___________________

Other ___________________

Other ___________________

Other ___________________

If you have more to add please make as many additional 

comments as necessary. We appreciate your time to help out 

on this important research project. Also, please call Rick 

Bergman (608) 231-9477 or email at rbergman@fs.fed.us if 

you have any questions. 

Please send the complete questionnaire to:

Rick Bergman

Mail: Forest Products Laboratory

 One Gifford Pinchot Dr.

 Madison, WI 53704

Fax: (608) 231-9508 (fax) 

Email: rbergman@wisc.edu
Research Paper FPL–RP–672

24

Appendix 2—Landfill Gas (LFG) Equations 

Equation 1: Where GHGDE is GHGs directly emitted to atmosphere (kg CO2-eq): 

            



 



      



   12

16 1 LFG GWP

12

44 GHG 1 LFG DE kg CO2 C kg CH4 C CH4 W C C D W C C D

Equation 2: Where GHGLFGR is GHG emitted from LFG energy recovery (kg CO2-eq): 

      



 



  12

44 GHGLFGR Wkg C D LFGC LFGR

Equation 3: Where GHGLFGF is GHG emitted from LFG flaring (kg CO2-eq): 

      



 



   12

44 GHGLFGF Wkg C D LFGC 1 LFGR

Equation 4: EOLFGR is the energy offset by LFG recovery (MJ/kg): 

          



 



 



 



    



  LFGR HHV kg C R CO2 CH4 12

16

12

44 EO LFG W C D LFG LFG C C

Wkg wood mass (kg) 

C carbon montent of mood = 50% 

D decomposition of mood in mandfill = 23% (Skog 2008) 

CCO2 carbon content of wood converted to CO2 at landfill surface= 55% 

CCH4 carbon content of wood converted to CH4 at landfill surface= 45% 

GWPCH4 global warming potential of CH4 = 25 

LFGC landfill gas capture efficiency = 75% 

LFGR landfill gas energy recovery efficiency = 70% 

LFGHHV landfill gas higher heating value = 15.8 MJ/kg 
Life-Cycle Energy and GHG Emissions for New and Recovered Softwood Framing Lumber and Hardwood Flooring Considering End-of-Life Scenarios

25

Appendix 3—Assumptions and 

Limitations

•	 The oven-dried (OD) density of solid-strip hardwood 

flooring was assumed to be 657 kg/m3 based on several 

hardwood species including hard maple, oak, cherry, ash, 

and beech (Hubbard and Bowe 2010). 

•	 Based calculation for the OD density of recovered framing lumber on a Southeast (SE) and Pacific Northwest 

(PNW) softwood lumber study done by Milota and others (2005). Milota and others reported 774 OD kg wood 

per 1.623 m3 planed dry western lumber and 883 OD kg 

per 1.623 m3 planed dry southwestern lumber. In addition, Milota and others reported approximately 21 million cubic meters annual lumber production in the PNW 

for Douglas fir and western hemlock and 36 million 

cubic meters in southern pine dimension lumber. 

Density value for recovered framing lumber estimated 

using weighted-averages as following: (774/1.623) ×

 (21/(21+36)) + (883/1.623)x(36/(21+36)) =519 kg/m3

•	 Based calculation for onsite electricity use during the 

reclaiming process on the assumption that the on-site 

grid electricity has the same value as the electricity 

per volume reclaimed material produced from on-site 

generators. During a physical visit to a demolition site 

(7/7/2009 in Madison, WI), data collected included time 

and power of the generator powered by gasoline. Using 

run-time data, results estimated the electricity used 

from the grid per volume of material recovered. 

Results estimated 20.09 kWh/Msf of flooring and 

27.08 kWh/Mbf of framing lumber recovered. Although 

removal of other materials such as wood doors, cast iron 

sink, etc. occurred during deconstruction, the study assigned all of the material and energy inputs to the old 

wood products. 

•	 HHV represents the energy content of a fuel with the 

combustion products such as water vapor brought to 

25o C (77o F), whereas lower heating value (LHV) ignores the energy produced by the combustion of hydrogen in fuel. HHV is the preferred method in the United 

States (EIA 2013).

•	 For transportation of workers and materials to/from the 

demolition site, survey results indicated transportation of 

five men during each building deconstruction daily with 

an average weight 86 kg per worker (Ogden and others 

2004).

•	 During deconstruction, survey results estimated weighted average of 17% and 11% material loss for softwood 

framing lumber and solid-strip hardwood flooring, respectively.

•	 During the transportation, assumed the recovered materials had 8% MC to account for the water weight. 

•	 U.S. LCI Database typically provided LCI data for materials and energy including electricity (USDA 2012). 

•	 The study modified a sanitary landfill process in the U.S. 

Ecoinvent database to alter waste and emissions to waste 

treatment based on U.S. specific data, named specific 

for our project: Disposal, wood untreated, 20% water, 

to sanitary landfill/CH with U.S. electricity U – USLCI. 

To create a U.S.-specific process, removed all processes 

associated with burning of sludge from wastewater treatment of short-term leachate.

•	 Assumed 1kg of disposal wood produce 0.314 of LFG, 

and 45% of it was methane at the surface on a molar 

basis and the rest was CO2. On a mass basis, the landfill 

emits 0.072 kg CH4/kg and 0.242 kg CO2/kg. In addition, assumed approximately 75% of methane captured 

leaving the landfill and the remainder emitted directly to 

the atmosphere. Of the LFG, collected, assumed 

30% flared (without energy recovery) and 70% burned 

for energy recovery (Salazar and Meil 2009). 

•	 Assumed landfill methane has the same characteristics as 

natural gas.

•	 Survey questionnaire collected primary data on an annual basis across the United States for 2009.

•	 Collected primary mill data through a critically reviewed 

questionnaire in accordance with ISO 14040 and 14044 

standards (2006a,b). Missing values were not weightedaverage for a particular process in accordance with ISO 

standards.

•	 Background information1: recycled maple floor can 

be sold for $1.50/ft2, Oak floor for $1.00/ft2, Birch for 

$1.25/ft2, and Douglas-fir for $1.25/ft2.

•	 Ideal reclaimed material cost is 50–75% of virgin 

materials.

•	 Size of the deconstruction industry is unknown.

•	 Changed wood conversion to electricity process in U.S. 

LCI Database because less electricity was produced from 

wood from steam turbine (standard U.S. practice) than 

gasification systems provided in the dataset. Estimations 

provided by actual wood power plants lowered the value 

from 2.17 to 1.14 kWh/kg OD wood, a more conservative but realistic value. Calculation assuming HHV of 

20.9 MJ/kg OD wood and 20% conversion of wood 

to electricity confirmed the value of 1.14 kWh/OD kg 

wood.

•	 Assumed energy use to store the virgin and recover 

wood material the same on a per unit basis.

•	 The study derived new framing lumber and new wood 

flooring transportation data from USDOT (2010). 

1 Frank Bryne, Madison Restore, July 20, 2009
Research Paper FPL–RP–672

26

Assumed transportation data on Wood product manufacturing (NAICS code 321) estimated virgin wood framing and Furniture and related product manufacturing 

(NAICS code 337) estimated new solid-strip hardwood 

flooring.

•	 Future work will examine regional effects because insufficient data were available.
Life-Cycle Energy and GHG Emissions for New and Recovered Softwood Framing Lumber and Hardwood Flooring Considering End-of-Life Scenarios

27

Appendix 4— SimaPro Inputs revised_appendix_4a.xls

Recovered wood framing lumber

Composite Recovered Softwood Framing Lumber for the United States

Removal

Output Amount Unit

Recovered softwoodframing lumber, at deconstruction site 519 kg 83%

Disposal, wood untreated, 20% water, to santitary lanfilled/CH with US 

electricty - US LCI 106 kg 17%

Input

Installed softwood framing lumber, at deconstruction site 625 kg

Transport, Single unit truck, gasoline powered/US 0.62 tkm materials

Transport, Single unit truck, diesel powered/US 0.51 tkm materials

Gasoline, combusted in equipment/US 1.53 liter

Electricity, at grid, US/US 14.3 kWh

Storage

Output Amount Unit

Recovered softwood framing lumber, at storage facility 519 kg

Input

Recovered framing lumber, at deconstruction site 519 kg

Transport, combination truck, gasoline powered/US 0.67 tkm to storage facility

Transport, combination truck, diesel powered/US 0.55 tkm to storage facility

Electricity, at grid, US/US 2.86 kWh lighting

Residual fuel oil, combusted in industrial boiler/US 0.22 liter heating

Natural gas, combusted in industrial boiler/US 9.0E-05 m3 heating

Gasoline, combusted in equipment/US 1.44 liter transporting on-site

Product Transportation

Output Amount Unit

Recovered softwood framing lumber, at construction site 519 kg

Input

Recovered framing lumber, at storage facility 519 kg

Transport, single unit truck, diesel powered/US 12.5 tkm to construction site

LCI Inputs R 4/22/2013
Research Paper FPL–RP–672

28

revised_appendix_4a.xls

New wood framing LCI Inputs

Composite Softwood Framing Lumber Mill for the United States

Output Amount Unit

Surfaced dried lumber, at planer mill, US AVG, at mill 519 kg

Input

Surfaced dried lumber, at planer mill, US SE/kg/US - Modified 328 kg 63.2%

Surfaced dried lumber, at planer mill, US SE/kg/US - Modified 191 kg 36.8%

Storage

Output Amount Unit

Surfaced dried lumber, at planer mill, US AVG, at storage facility 519 kg

Input

Surfaced dried lumber, at planer mill, US AVG, at mill 519 kg

Transport, single unit truck, diesel powered/US 233 tkm to storage facility

Transport, train, diesel powered/US 96 tkm to storage facility

Electricity, at grid, US/US 2.86 kWh lighting

Residual fuel oil, combusted in industrial boiler/US 0.22 liter heating

Natural gas, combusted in industrial boiler/US 9.0E-05 m3 heating

Gasoline, combusted in equipment/US 1.44 liter transporting on-site

Product Transportation

Output Amount Unit

Surfaced dried lumber, at planer mill, US AVG, at construction site 519 kg

Input

Surfaced dried lumber, at planer mill, US AVG, at storage facility 519 kg

Transport, combination truck, diesel powered/US 14 tkm to construction site

LCI Inputs V 4/22/2013
Life-Cycle Energy and GHG Emissions for New and Recovered Softwood Framing Lumber and Hardwood Flooring Considering End-of-Life Scenarios

29

Appendix 4b Flooring Recovery LCI - input for SimaPro.xls

Recovered solid strip wood flooring

Composite Recovered Hardwood Flooring the United States

Removal

Output Amount Unit

Recovered hardwood flooring, at deconstruction site 657 kg 89%

Disposal, wood untreated, 20% water, to santitary lanfilled/CH with US 

electricty - US LCI 81 kg 11%

Input

Installed hardwood flooring, at deconstruction site 738 kg

Transport, Single unit truck, gasoline powered/US 2.86 tkm materials

Transport, Single unit truck, diesel powered/US 3.84 tkm materials

Gasoline, combusted in equipment/US 4.57 liter

Electricity, at grid, US/US 18.6 kWh

Storage

Output Amount Unit

Recovered hardwood flooring, at storage facility 657 kg

Input

Recovered hardwood flooring, at deconstruction site 657 kg

Transport, combination truck, gasoline powered/US 2.86 tkm to storage facility

Transport, combination truck, diesel powered/US 3.84 tkm to storage facility

Electricity, at grid, US/US 1.17 kWh heating

Residual fuel oil, combusted in industrial boiler/US 1.12 liter heating

Natural gas, combusted in industrial boiler/US 0.659 m3 heating

Liquefied petroleum gas, combusted in industrial boiler/US 0.831 liter heating

Electricity, at grid, US/US 7.55 kWh lighting

Electricity, at grid, US/US 0.558 kWh transporting on-site

Gasoline, combusted in equipment/US 2.47 liter transporting on-site

Product Transportation

Output Amount Unit

Recovered hardwood flooring, at construction site 657 kg

Input

Recovered hardwood flooring, at storage facility 657 kg

Transport, single unit truck, diesel powered/US 17 tkm to construction site

LCI Inputs R 2/21/2
Research Paper FPL–RP–672

30

Appendix 4b Flooring Recovery LCI - input for SimaPro.xls

New solid strip hardwood flooring

US Solid Strip Hardwood Flooring Composite

Storage

Output Amount Unit

Solid strip and plank flooring, hardwood, US NE-NC, at storage facility 657 kg

Input

Solid strip and plank flooring, hardwood, US NE-NC, at mill 657 kg

Transport, combination truck, diesel powered/US 813 tkm to storage facility

Transport, train, diesel powered/US 4 tkm to storage facility

Electricity, at grid, US/US 1.17 kWh heating

Residual fuel oil, combusted in industrial boiler/US 1.12 liter heating

Natural gas, combusted in industrial boiler/US 0.659 m3 heating

Liquefied petroleum gas, combusted in industrial boiler/US 0.831 liter heating

Electricity, at grid, US/US 7.55 kWh lighting

Electricity, at grid, US/US 0.558 kWh transporting on-site

Gasoline, combusted in equipment/US 2.47 liter transporting on-site

Product Transportation

Output Amount Unit

Solid strip and plank flooring, hardwood, US NE-NC, at construction site 657 kg

Input

Solid strip and plank flooring, hardwood, US NE-NC, at storage facility 657 kg

Transport, combination truck, diesel powered/US 17 tkm to construction site

LCI Inputs V 2/21/20
Life-Cycle Energy and GHG Emissions for New and Recovered Softwood Framing Lumber and Hardwood Flooring Considering End-of-Life Scenarios

31

Appendix 5—LCI Flows

No Substance Compartment Unit

Reclaimed

flooring, no EOL, 

at construction 

site

Solid strip and plank 

flooring, hardwood, 

US NE-NC, at 

construction site

Reclaimed framing 

lumber, no EOL, 

at construction 

site

Surfaced dried 

lumber, at planer 

mill, US AVG, at 

construction site

1 Carbon dioxide, in air Raw kg 0.394989242 1115.391423 0.243722696 2461.63328

2 Coal, 26.4 MJ per kg, in ground Raw kg 8.900009534 30.9100888 5.491160187 17.49535827

3 Energy, from hydro power Raw MJ 7.716753336 11.60133582 4.861951228 37.02101266

4 Gas, natural, 46.8 MJ per kg, in ground Raw kg 0.003127892 0.586299379 x 0.655641422

5 Gas, natural, in ground Raw m3 2.254683069 17.52841005 0.974065359 12.73090649

6 Iron ore, in ground Raw kg x 0.000210417 x x

7 Limestone, in ground Raw kg 4.40529E-05 21.40715507 x 24.06784967

8 Nickel Raw m3 0.545879263 2.002789587 0.224457368 1.66269518

9 Occupation, forest, intensive, normal Raw m2a x 2400.896794 x x

10 Oil, crude, 42 MJ per kg, in ground Raw kg 0.044943599 2.676549027 x 2.958685658

11 Oil, crude, in ground Raw kg 9.555540097 41.13096704 3.910362129 15.43115058

12 Oxygen, in air Raw kg x 1.50374E-05 x x

13 Uranium oxide, 332 GJ per kg, in ore Raw kg 0.000211681 0.000751922 0.000130615 0.000412281

14 Uranium, 2291 GJ per kg, in ground Raw kg 3.10718E-09 8.86132E-06 x 9.95911E-06

15 Water, process, well, in ground Raw kg x 2.959882421 x x

16 Water, unspecified natural origin/m3 Raw m3 x x x 0.190482081

17 Water, well, in ground Raw m3 x 0.106907415 x x

18 Wood and wood waste, 20.9 MJ per kg, ovendry basis Raw kg x 185.6510361 x 208.7263515

19 Wood and wood waste, 9.5 MJ per kg Raw kg 3.21075E-05 3.21355E-05 x x

20 Wood, soft, US SE, standing/m3 Raw m3 x x x 1.056604878

21 2-Chloroacetophenone Air kg 1.3151E-11 4.56847E-11 8.11462E-12 4.64181E-11

22 5-methyl Chrysene Air kg 8.57664E-11 2.9567E-10 5.2921E-11 1.66486E-10

23 Acenaphthene Air kg 1.98817E-09 6.85399E-09 1.22677E-09 3.85934E-09

24 Acenaphthylene Air kg 9.74621E-10 3.3599E-09 6.01376E-10 1.89189E-09

25 Acetaldehyde Air kg 8.23735E-05 0.000728841 3.57812E-05 0.001719876

26 Acetophenone Air kg 2.81806E-11 9.78959E-11 1.73885E-11 9.94673E-11

27 Acrolein Air kg 1.10648E-05 0.000516431 5.01271E-06 0.007478123

28 Aldehydes, unspecified Air kg 0.000394706 0.001686594 0.000161184 0.000634206

29 Ammonia Air kg 0.000214002 0.000904373 9.15732E-05 0.000652492

30 Ammonium chloride Air kg 1.12352E-05 3.99092E-05 6.93253E-06 2.18823E-05

31 Anthracene Air kg 8.18683E-10 2.82232E-09 5.05157E-10 1.58919E-09

32 Antimony Air kg 7.03936E-08 1.22941E-06 4.32991E-08 1.48881E-05

33 Arsenic Air kg 1.86538E-06 2.41679E-05 1.06711E-06 4.44422E-05

34 Barium Air kg x 0.000763005 x x

35 Benzene Air kg 0.000105582 0.001295539 4.68139E-05 0.007918452

36 Benzene, chloro- Air kg 4.13316E-11 1.43581E-10 2.55031E-11 1.45885E-10

37 Benzene, ethyl- Air kg 1.76599E-10 6.93994E-10 1.08968E-10 6.23329E-10

38 Benzo(a)anthracene Air kg 3.11875E-10 1.07515E-09 1.92438E-10 6.05396E-10

39 Benzo(a)pyrene Air kg 1.48143E-10 5.10706E-10 9.14095E-11 2.87568E-10

40 Benzo(b,j,k)fluoranthene Air kg 4.28832E-10 1.47835E-09 2.64605E-10 8.32428E-10

41 Benzo(g,h,i)perylene Air kg 1.0526E-10 3.62872E-10 6.49492E-11 2.04326E-10

42 Benzyl chloride Air kg 1.3151E-09 4.56847E-09 8.11462E-10 4.64181E-09

43 Beryllium Air kg 9.21059E-08 5.22874E-07 5.48416E-08 2.2649E-06

44 Biphenyl Air kg 6.62746E-09 2.28474E-08 4.08938E-09 1.28649E-08

45 Bromoform Air kg 7.32697E-11 2.54529E-10 4.521E-11 2.58615E-10

46 BTEX (Benzene, Toluene, Ethylbenzene, and Xylene), unspecified ratio Air kg 0.000689952 0.004811743 0.00029527 0.003546035

47 Butadiene Air kg 4.19929E-06 5.34675E-06 1.82407E-06 2.71223E-06

48 Cadmium Air kg 3.27987E-07 1.76423E-06 1.68075E-07 8.36955E-06

49 Carbon dioxide Air kg x x x 0.387940417

50 Carbon dioxide, biogenic Air kg 19.18702515 389.9056033 24.8357227 365.0154064

51 Carbon dioxide, fossil Air kg 49.67036669 227.9076378 23.92201678 108.5247301

52 Carbon disulfide Air kg 2.44232E-10 8.48431E-10 1.507E-10 8.6205E-10

53 Carbon monoxide Air kg 0.027648663 2.498400905 2.24647E-05 1.162003941

54 Carbon monoxide, fossil Air kg 1.115974063 1.180377546 0.463712491 0.525031041

55 Chloride Air kg 3.02705E-10 1.05355E-09 1.8678E-10 6.78568E-10

56 Chlorine Air kg 8.97629E-09 0.001451336 x 0.001475193

57 Chloroform Air kg 1.10844E-10 3.85057E-10 6.83947E-11 3.91238E-10

58 Chromium Air kg 1.2409E-06 1.49109E-05 7.01312E-07 4.16248E-05

59 Chromium VI Air kg 3.07975E-07 1.06171E-06 1.90032E-07 5.97826E-07

60 Chrysene Air kg 3.89852E-10 1.34397E-09 2.40553E-10 7.56762E-10

61 Cobalt Air kg 1.5441E-06 4.31635E-06 5.78788E-07 1.36177E-05

62 Copper Air kg 8.76266E-09 1.7934E-07 5.10678E-09 9.22764E-08

63 Cumene Air kg 9.95716E-12 3.45899E-11 6.14393E-12 3.51451E-11

64 Cyanide Air kg 4.69677E-09 1.6316E-08 2.89808E-09 1.65779E-08

65 Dinitrogen monoxide Air kg 0.000798902 0.002866567 0.000326802 0.003324541

66 Dioxin, 2,3,7,8 Tetrachlorodibenzo-p- Air kg 5.80321E-12 2.08718E-07 2.64976E-12 3.11841E-06

67 Dioxins, measured as 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin Air kg 1.51906E-16 1.51906E-16 x x

68 Ethane, 1,1,1-trichloro-, HCFC-140 Air kg 9.33979E-10 3.98902E-09 3.90016E-10 1.58022E-09

69 Ethane, 1,2-dibromo- Air kg 2.25445E-12 7.83167E-12 1.39108E-12 7.95739E-12

70 Ethane, 1,2-dichloro- Air kg 7.51484E-11 2.61056E-10 4.63693E-11 2.65246E-10

71 Ethane, chloro- Air kg 7.89058E-11 2.74108E-10 4.86877E-11 2.78509E-10

72 Ethene, tetrachloro- Air kg 1.82195E-07 6.20452E-07 1.08039E-07 3.42634E-07

73 Ethene, trichloro- Air kg 2.62384E-11 2.71274E-11 x x

74 Fluoranthene Air kg 2.76794E-09 9.54217E-09 1.70792E-09 5.373E-09

75 Fluorene Air kg 3.54755E-09 1.22298E-08 2.18897E-09 6.88633E-09

76 Fluoride Air kg 3.34582E-07 1.18848E-06 2.06449E-07 5.167E-06

77 Formaldehyde Air kg 0.000167358 0.001923641 5.88787E-05 0.008319854

78 Furan Air kg 1.77491E-11 6.31152E-11 1.09518E-11 3.61766E-11

79 Heat, waste Air MJ 0.39771 x 0.52046 x

80 Hexane Air kg 1.25874E-10 4.37268E-10 7.76685E-11 4.44287E-10

81 Hydrazine, methyl- Air kg 3.19381E-10 1.10949E-09 1.97069E-10 1.1273E-09

82 Hydrocarbons, unspecified Air kg 6.48455E-05 0.000230341 4.0012E-05 0.000126297

83 Hydrogen chloride Air kg 0.004818197 0.018896858 0.002929338 0.044715943

84 Hydrogen fluoride Air kg 0.000584709 0.002015663 0.000360775 0.001134831

85 Hydrogen sulfide Air kg 9.78444E-12 3.40544E-11 6.03736E-12 2.19336E-11

86 Indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene Air kg 2.37814E-10 8.19838E-10 1.4674E-10 4.61634E-10

87 Iron Air kg x 0.000763005 x x

88 Isophorone Air kg 1.08965E-09 3.78531E-09 6.72354E-10 3.84607E-09

89 Isoprene Air kg 0.009921691 0.034532074 0.006122043 0.022241254

90 Kerosene Air kg 5.38147E-06 1.91142E-05 3.32018E-06 1.048E-05

91 Lead Air kg 1.98363E-06 0.00022075 1.12535E-06 9.32676E-05

92 Magnesium Air kg 4.28832E-05 0.000147835 2.64605E-05 8.32428E-05

93 Manganese Air kg 2.50896E-06 0.001768589 1.35847E-06 0.002991965

94 Mercaptans, unspecified Air kg 3.81527E-07 1.35651E-06 2.35416E-07 1.41564E-06

95 Mercury Air kg 3.63339E-07 1.76988E-06 2.14805E-07 7.28671E-06

96 Metals, unspecified Air kg 1.45013E-08 0.005345182 6.92614E-13 0.079867914

97 Methane Air kg 0.08692436 0.421212633 0.041932457 0.278714432

98 Methane, biogenic Air kg 5.589 x 7.314 x

99 Methane, bromo-, Halon 1001 Air kg 3.00594E-10 1.04422E-09 1.85477E-10 1.06098E-09
Research Paper FPL–RP–672

32

100 Methane, dichloro-, HCC-30 Air kg 2.09877E-06 4.28123E-05 9.94679E-07 0.000544782

101 Methane, dichlorodifluoro-, CFC-12 Air kg 1.10892E-09 4.77325E-09 4.53798E-10 1.79079E-09

102 Methane, fossil Air kg 0.012505587 0.037332056 0.005374387 0.024399024

103 Methane, monochloro-, R-40 Air kg 9.95716E-10 3.45899E-09 6.14393E-10 3.51451E-09

104 Methane, tetrachloro-, CFC-10 Air kg 2.21369E-10 5.6243E-06 4.53798E-11 8.40302E-05

105 Methanol Air kg x x x 0.000199253

106 Methyl ethyl ketone Air kg 7.32697E-10 2.54529E-09 4.521E-10 2.58615E-09

107 Methyl methacrylate Air kg 3.75742E-11 1.30528E-10 2.31846E-11 1.32623E-10

108 N-Nitrodimethylamine Air kg 5.80007E-12 5.99872E-12 x x

109 Naphthalene Air kg 2.9319E-07 0.000429068 1.05857E-07 0.000181492

110 Nickel Air kg 1.73382E-05 0.000135687 5.44088E-06 7.41356E-05

111 Nitrogen oxides Air kg 0.363888569 1.746210706 0.170237861 1.193315102

112 Nitrogen, total Air kg x x x 8.76702E-05

113 NMVOC, non-methane volatile organic compounds, unspecified origin Air kg 0.020800881 0.084952299 0.008191468 0.033816433

114 Organic acids Air kg 4.12865E-08 1.46656E-07 2.54753E-08 8.04118E-08

115 Organic substances, unspecified Air kg 2.6016E-05 0.028871248 1.49451E-05 4.70208E-05

116 PAH, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons Air kg 1.80433E-05 2.29731E-05 7.83758E-06 1.16535E-05

117 Particulates, < 10 um Air kg 4.46743E-05 0.0332225 x x

118 Particulates, > 2.5 um, and < 10um Air kg 0.004557214 0.091028294 0.002277674 0.947526756

119 Particulates, unspecified Air kg 0.01519143 0.874807804 0.008906701 0.343247833

120 Phenanthrene Air kg 1.0526E-08 3.62872E-08 6.49492E-09 2.04326E-08

121 Phenol Air kg 7.20543E-10 0.006936408 1.85477E-11 2.06475E-05

122 Phenols, unspecified Air kg 7.91815E-07 8.6026E-06 2.62337E-07 9.61544E-05

123 Phosphate Air kg x x x 2.00047E-06

124 Phthalate, dioctyl- Air kg 1.37146E-10 4.76427E-10 8.46239E-11 4.84074E-10

125 Potassium Air kg x 0.135259945 x x

126 Propanal Air kg 7.1391E-10 2.48003E-09 4.40508E-10 2.51984E-09

127 Propene Air kg 0.000277089 0.000352801 0.000120361 0.000178965

128 Propylene oxide Air kg x 7.29658E-11 x x

129 Pyrene Air kg 1.2865E-09 4.43505E-09 7.93815E-10 2.49728E-09

130 Radioactive species, unspecified Air Bq 220696.1287 760660.4401 136098.3141 428047.3597

131 Radionuclides (Including Radon) Air kg 0.000300902 0.001068848 0.000185667 0.000586052

132 Selenium Air kg 5.22194E-06 1.85198E-05 3.17861E-06 1.53823E-05

133 Sodium Air kg x 0.003121383 x x

134 Styrene Air kg 4.69677E-11 1.6316E-10 2.89808E-11 1.65779E-10

135 Sulfur dioxide Air kg 0.163796405 0.743235329 0.09183665 0.481662491

136 Sulfur oxides Air kg 0.040618974 0.172844458 0.016647482 0.108597679

137 Sulfuric acid, dimethyl ester Air kg 9.01781E-11 3.13267E-10 5.56431E-11 3.18295E-10

138 t-Butyl methyl ether Air kg 6.57548E-11 2.28424E-10 4.05731E-11 2.3209E-10

139 Tar Air kg 3.4046E-10 1.18496E-09 2.10076E-10 7.63202E-10

140 TOC, Total Organic Carbon Air kg x 0.000511133 x 0.007637393

141 Toluene Air kg 4.39265E-05 5.59305E-05 1.90807E-05 2.83724E-05

142 Toluene, 2,4-dinitro- Air kg 5.26039E-13 1.82739E-12 3.24585E-13 1.85672E-12

143 Vinyl acetate Air kg 1.42782E-11 4.96006E-11 8.81016E-12 5.03968E-11

144 VOC, volatile organic compounds Air kg 0.026182848 1.231171265 0.011134295 0.376528589

145 Xylene Air kg 3.06087E-05 3.8973E-05 1.32957E-05 1.97698E-05

146 Zinc Air kg 5.84177E-09 0.000763124 3.40452E-09 1.6771E-06

147 2-Hexanone Water kg 2.79726E-07 1.35871E-06 1.15556E-07 6.55918E-07

148 4-Methyl-2-pentanone Water kg 1.80037E-07 8.74494E-07 7.4374E-08 4.22162E-07

149 Acetone Water kg 4.28395E-07 2.08085E-06 1.76972E-07 1.00453E-06

150 Acidity, unspecified Water kg 4.90244E-11 4.90365E-11 x x

151 Acids, unspecified Water kg 6.35839E-09 2.21301E-08 3.92336E-09 1.42535E-08

152 Aluminium Water kg 0.003297335 0.014562978 0.001370755 0.00593024

153 Ammonia Water kg 0.000762179 0.003568032 0.000315077 0.001619134

154 Ammonia, as N Water kg 3.19325E-09 1.1114E-08 1.97035E-09 7.15824E-09

155 Ammonium, ion Water kg 2.40216E-06 6.61583E-06 1.48222E-06 4.67857E-06

156 Antimony Water kg 2.0029E-06 8.8875E-06 8.21503E-07 3.58594E-06

157 Arsenic, ion Water kg 1.14315E-05 5.4387E-05 4.73003E-06 2.91491E-05

158 Barium Water kg 0.044225109 0.197105639 0.018145317 0.080320868

159 Benzene Water kg 7.1867E-05 0.000349073 2.96886E-05 0.00016852

160 Benzene, 1-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)- Water kg 4.28095E-09 2.07939E-08 1.76848E-09 1.00383E-08

161 Benzene, ethyl- Water kg 4.04269E-06 1.96366E-05 1.67005E-06 9.47963E-06

162 Benzene, pentamethyl- Water kg 3.21075E-09 1.55956E-08 1.32638E-09 7.52878E-09

163 Benzenes, alkylated, unspecified Water kg 1.75686E-06 7.79511E-06 7.20586E-07 3.14457E-06

164 Benzo(a)pyrene Water kg x 8.71687E-10 x x

165 Benzoic acid Water kg 4.3458E-05 0.00021109 1.79527E-05 0.000101904

166 Beryllium Water kg 6.15994E-07 2.88877E-06 2.53745E-07 1.30804E-06

167 Biphenyl Water kg 1.13749E-07 5.04701E-07 4.66549E-08 2.03599E-07

168 BOD5, Biological Oxygen Demand Water kg 0.007774409 0.28058594 0.003210139 3.648924516

169 Boron Water kg 0.000134624 0.000653275 5.55454E-05 0.000315288

170 Bromide Water kg 0.00917871 0.044585209 0.003791775 0.021524725

171 Cadmium, ion Water kg 1.717E-06 8.10037E-06 7.12535E-07 5.0297E-06

172 Calcium, ion Water kg 0.137634332 0.668566023 0.056857903 0.322781263

173 Chloride Water kg 1.547287631 7.515803026 0.639192781 3.628429016

174 Chromate Water kg 5.73102E-10 5.73873E-10 x x

175 Chromium Water kg 8.12708E-05 0.000349797 3.32549E-05 0.000136857

176 Chromium VI Water kg 3.41926E-07 1.47179E-06 1.39924E-07 5.52173E-07

177 Chromium, ion Water kg 9.76081E-06 5.40097E-05 4.07854E-06 3.15997E-05

178 Cobalt Water kg 9.49108E-07 4.61012E-06 3.92081E-07 2.22555E-06

179 COD, Chemical Oxygen Demand Water kg 0.014454992 0.069017324 0.00596115 0.032331671

180 Copper, ion Water kg 1.33145E-05 5.88711E-05 5.925E-06 2.92382E-05

181 Cyanide Water kg 3.12277E-09 1.14769E-07 1.28952E-09 7.29457E-09

182 Decane Water kg 1.24877E-06 6.06568E-06 5.15874E-07 2.92821E-06

183 Detergent, oil Water kg 3.71296E-05 0.00018343 1.536E-05 9.113E-05

184 Dibenzofuran Water kg 8.14577E-09 3.95666E-08 3.36505E-09 1.91009E-08

185 Dibenzothiophene Water kg 6.95088E-09 3.36151E-08 2.8704E-09 1.61042E-08

186 DOC, Dissolved Organic Carbon Water kg 1.95244E-11 6.79539E-11 1.20473E-11 4.37674E-11

187 Docosane Water kg 4.58418E-08 2.22669E-07 1.89375E-08 1.07494E-07

188 Dodecane Water kg 2.36933E-06 1.15086E-05 9.78782E-07 5.55581E-06

189 Eicosane Water kg 6.52339E-07 3.16862E-06 2.69484E-07 1.52966E-06

190 Fluorene, 1-methyl- Water kg 4.87556E-09 2.36821E-08 2.01412E-09 1.14326E-08

191 Fluorenes, alkylated, unspecified Water kg 1.01814E-07 4.51746E-07 4.17597E-08 1.82236E-07

192 Fluoride Water kg 3.9076E-05 0.000138827 2.41098E-05 0.011203709

193 Fluorine Water kg 5.07316E-08 2.26643E-07 2.08187E-08 9.28492E-08

194 Hexadecane Water kg 2.58613E-06 1.25616E-05 1.06834E-06 6.06415E-06

195 Hexanoic acid Water kg 8.99973E-06 4.37146E-05 3.71783E-06 2.11033E-05

196 Hydrocarbons, unspecified Water kg 2.44297E-11 8.50267E-11 1.5074E-11 5.47636E-11

197 Iron Water kg 0.006751376 0.030279538 0.002814926 0.012788917

198 Lead Water kg 2.31121E-05 0.000106797 9.57503E-06 4.92358E-05

199 Lead-210/kg Water kg 4.45123E-15 2.1621E-14 1.83882E-15 1.04376E-14

200 Lithium, ion Water kg 0.009561175 0.066582562 0.004091097 0.049011523

201 m-Xylene Water kg 1.29796E-06 6.30462E-06 5.36193E-07 3.04359E-06

202 Magnesium Water kg 0.026906192 0.13069937 0.01111512 0.06310174

203 Manganese Water kg 0.000111269 0.000451528 5.98552E-05 0.000237695

204 Mercury Water kg 3.82188E-08 1.66821E-07 1.63188E-08 1.2516E-07
Life-Cycle Energy and GHG Emissions for New and Recovered Softwood Framing Lumber and Hardwood Flooring Considering End-of-Life Scenarios

33

205 Metallic ions, unspecified Water kg 1.03602E-06 1.03702E-06 1.84046E-10 6.68634E-10

206 Methane, monochloro-, R-40 Water kg 1.72433E-09 8.37564E-09 7.1233E-10 4.04336E-09

207 Methyl ethyl ketone Water kg 3.44855E-09 1.67507E-08 1.42461E-09 8.08642E-09

208 Molybdenum Water kg 9.84803E-07 4.7835E-06 4.06826E-07 2.30924E-06

209 n-Hexacosane Water kg 2.85994E-08 1.38916E-07 1.18146E-08 6.70621E-08

210 Naphthalene Water kg 7.80116E-07 3.78142E-06 3.22261E-07 1.82772E-06

211 Naphthalene, 2-methyl- Water kg 6.78563E-07 3.29599E-06 2.80317E-07 1.59115E-06

212 Naphthalenes, alkylated, unspecified Water kg 2.87887E-08 1.27734E-07 1.18078E-08 5.15285E-08

213 Nickel Water kg 1.08905E-05 5.10226E-05 4.48575E-06 2.49356E-05

214 Nickel, ion Water kg x 2.31632E-10 x x

215 Nitrate Water kg 2.3E-10 2.44338E-10 1.32066E-12 4.79792E-12

216 Nitrate compounds Water kg 8.61713E-11 2.99916E-10 5.31708E-11 1.93168E-10

217 Nitric acid Water kg 1.93286E-07 6.72724E-07 1.19264E-07 4.33285E-07

218 Nitrogen, total Water kg 5.97993E-06 2.13503E-05 3.68984E-06 1.16468E-05

219 o-Cresol Water kg 1.23239E-06 5.98613E-06 5.09107E-07 2.88982E-06

220 Octadecane Water kg 6.38901E-07 3.10335E-06 2.63933E-07 1.49815E-06

221 Oils, unspecified Water kg 0.000981118 0.004650683 0.00040586 0.00218248

222 Organic substances, unspecified Water kg 4.97148E-07 4.99635E-07 x x

223 p-Cresol Water kg 1.32966E-06 6.4586E-06 5.49288E-07 3.11793E-06

224 Phenanthrene Water kg 1.0827E-08 4.96386E-08 4.45198E-09 2.14911E-08

225 Phenanthrenes, alkylated, unspecified Water kg 1.1937E-08 5.29639E-08 4.89601E-09 2.13658E-08

226 Phenol Water kg 1.51356E-05 6.51386E-05 6.19249E-06 2.44369E-05

227 Phenol, 2,4-dimethyl- Water kg 1.19997E-06 5.82865E-06 4.95714E-07 2.8138E-06

228 Phenols, unspecified Water kg 6.09505E-06 3.68337E-05 2.56861E-06 2.3834E-05

229 Phosphate Water kg 2.07145E-08 1.96866E-08 x 0.008376962

230 Phosphorus Water kg x 2.19489E-09 x x

231 Radioactive species, Nuclides, unspecified Water Bq 348.9136622 1239.39443 215.292391 679.5631383

232 Radium-226/kg Water kg 1.54861E-12 7.52204E-12 6.39736E-13 3.63126E-12

233 Radium-228/kg Water kg 7.92139E-15 3.84767E-14 3.27236E-15 1.85748E-14

234 Selenium Water kg 1.22962E-06 4.71283E-06 6.78303E-07 2.33496E-06

235 Silver Water kg 8.99456E-05 0.000436795 3.71562E-05 0.000210781

236 Sodium, ion Water kg 0.436307313 2.11937221 0.180242611 1.023216853

237 Solids, inorganic Water kg 4.91424E-10 1.71038E-09 3.03226E-10 1.10161E-09

238 Solved solids Water kg 1.908660079 9.270560665 0.788398128 4.47564447

239 Strontium Water kg 0.002335453 0.011344004 0.000964786 0.005476322

240 Sulfate Water kg 0.007997099 0.03248363 0.004294245 0.016827245

241 Sulfide Water kg 1.75587E-06 7.8514E-06 7.18554E-07 2.83556E-06

242 Sulfur Water kg 0.000113501 0.000551312 4.6888E-05 0.000266148

243 Sulfuric acid Water kg 4.07386E-08 4.13776E-08 x x

244 Suspended solids, unspecified Water kg 0.1001116 0.445249952 0.041257201 0.181847715

245 Tar Water kg 4.87021E-12 1.69506E-11 3.00509E-12 1.09174E-11

246 Tetradecane Water kg 1.03839E-06 5.04377E-06 4.28962E-07 2.43489E-06

247 Thallium Water kg 4.221E-07 1.87317E-06 1.73129E-07 7.55954E-07

248 Tin Water kg 8.61387E-06 3.96856E-05 3.54331E-06 1.73537E-05

249 Titanium, ion Water kg 3.07602E-05 0.000136499 1.26166E-05 5.50799E-05

250 Toluene Water kg 6.78984E-05 0.000329804 2.80491E-05 0.000159214

251 Vanadium Water kg 1.1633E-06 5.65052E-06 4.80564E-07 2.7278E-06

252 Water Water kg x 0.006119306 x x

253 Xylene Water kg 3.62544E-05 0.000175529 1.49728E-05 8.42605E-05

254 Yttrium Water kg 2.88705E-07 1.40232E-06 1.19265E-07 6.76972E-07

255 Zinc Water kg 7.8296E-05 0.000345884 3.29023E-05 0.000143119

256 Zinc, ion Water kg 3.79766E-09 -6.34299E-09 x x

257 Waste, solid Waste kg 0.000780247 0.000780247 x x

258 Bark Soil kg x x x 4.836418555

259 Cost, Total Non mat. $US x 6.236109334 x x