North American Wood 

Waste Forum

Summary of Group Feedback, 

February 2–3, 2012

Bob Falk

United States

Department of

Agriculture

Forest Service

Forest

Products

Laboratory

General

Technical

Report

FPL–GTR–216
July 2012

Falk, Bob. 2012. North American Wood Waste Forum: Summary of Group 

Feedback, February 2–3, 2012. General Technical Report FPL-GTR-216. 

Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Forest Products Laboratory. 14 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

This report summarizes the feedback and recommendations of the North American Wood Recovery Group. This 

report summarizes the barriers and opportunities in wood 

recovery, reuse, and recycling as identified by this group of 

stakeholders from the wood industry, waste industry, and 

relevant government agencies.

Keywords: wood, recycling, reuse, recovery, salvage, 

deconstruction

Contributors 

• Buddy Showalter, American Wood Council (AWC)

• Damian Sawka, Boxfish Group, Forest Products 

Association of Canada (FPAC)

• Lorne Johnson, Boxfish Group, Forest Products 

Association of Canada (FPAC)

• Anne Nicklin, Building Materials Reuse Association 

(BMRA)

• Bill Turley, Construction Materials Recycling Association 

(CMRA)

• Jim Bowyer, Dovetail Partners, Inc.

• Bob Falk, USDA Forest Products Laboratory (FPL)

• Jason Haus, National Demolition Association (NDA)

• Chas Miller, National Solid Waste Management 

Association (NSWMA)

• Bryce Jacobson, Portland METRO

• Wes Sullens, Stopwaste.Org

• Tom Napier, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Construction 

Engineering Research Laboratory (CERL)

• Ksenija Janjic, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Office of Solid Waste

• Vicki Worden, Worden Associates, Inc.

• Matt McKinney, Waste Management, Inc.–Recycle 

America

Contents

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

Introduction...........................................................................1

Objective ...............................................................................2

Purpose of Report .................................................................2

Discussion Framework..........................................................2

Wood Recovery Barriers.......................................................2

 Barriers Specific to Reuse.................................................4

 Barriers Specific to Recycling ..........................................5

 Barriers Specific to Biomass (Combustion) .....................7

 Barriers Specific to Mulch and Other Uses ......................7

Wood Recovery Opportunities..............................................7

 Opportunities Specific to Reuse........................................7

 Opportunities Specific to Recycling ...............................10

Next Steps...........................................................................12

Appendix—North American Wood Waste Forum ..............13
North American Wood Waste Forum

Summary of Group Feedback, February 2–3, 2012

Bob Falk, Research General Engineer

Forest Products Laboratory, Madison, Wisconsin

Executive Summary

On average, about 130 million metric tons of wood-based 

products is produced annually in the United States. The 

harvesting and manufacture of these products results in 

about 76 million metric tons of wood residue, 98% of which 

is used by the wood products industry for fuel, pulpwood, 

and feedstock for products such as particleboard. Whereras 

these manufacturing residues are efficiently used, there is 

another large source of wood that is not—the wood that 

ends up in our Nation’s solid waste stream. It is estimated 

that about 6% of the municipal solid waste (MSW) stream 

and between 15% to 40% of the construction and demolition (C&D) waste stream is wood. In 2010, over 64 million 

metric tons of solid wood was disposed of in landfills in the 

United States and Canada.

The USDA Forest Products Laboratory (FPL) hosted a 

2-day forum aimed at identifying the current state of wood 

recovery, reuse, and recycling in North America and developing strategies to maximize the diversion of wood from 

these landfills. Key representatives from the solid waste 

industry, wood industry, and various government agencies 

participated. These stakeholders represented generators, processors and consumers of wood, regulators, policy makers, 

and researchers.

This report provides a high-level summary of the feedback 

received through the forum, both from presenters and attendees, about ways in which North America can increase 

its diversion of wood from landfilling and encourage market 

development for recovered wood.

The most commonly cited barriers to diversion and market 

uptake of wood from the waste stream were as follows:

•	 Limited markets for recovered wood in general

•	 Lack of awareness (consumers) and need for education 

(building professionals) about recovered wood

•	 Lack of incentive to recover, flawed price signals (cost of 

diversion compared with disposal), poor understanding of 

costs of recovering wood

•	 High operating costs (labor and storage) for reused 

products

•	 Consistency and lack of understanding of supply volumes 

of reused products

•	 The public’s perception about the quality of reused and 

recycled wood materials

•	 Consistency of supply of recycled wood materials

•	 Low tipping fees for waste disposal

•	 Patchwork of regulations

•	 Contaminant issues for biomass

The most commonly cited opportunities to diversion and 

market uptake of wood from the waste stream were as 

follows:

•	 Improve quality and aesthetics perception

•	 Address high costs of recycling

•	 Increase research and education efforts

•	 Develop better marketing tools

•	 Look for ways to increase quality of products

•	 Work on consistency of supply

•	 Work to counter low tipping fees

•	 Increase producer involvement to assist markets

•	 Work with green building programs to increase awareness 

and credit for recovery, reuse, and recycling

•	 Work with regulatory agencies to develop appropriate 

regulations

Introduction

Wood is used in many applications including lumber and 

other building materials, furniture, crating, containers, pallets, and other consumer goods. This wide array of wood 

products not only produces a large amount of industrial 

wood residue during the manufacturing process, but a large 

amount of wood is landfilled when these products are disposed of at the end of their useful lives.

While the wood industry achieves high levels of utilization 

(>98%) of the wood residue generated in primary wood processing operations, the reuse and recycling of post-industrial 

and post-consumer wood from our waste streams lags far 

behind. Recovery of wood from the wood fraction of the 

C&D waste stream (33 million metric tons) is estimated at 

8%, and the wood fraction of the MSW (14 million metric 

tons) has a recovery rate of 15% (not counting recovery for 

energy combustion). This is in contrast to other widely used 

materials, such as concrete and steel that have achieved 

much higher recovery rates. According to the Steel Recycling Institute, the recycling rate for structural steel is about 
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–216

2

98%, while concrete recycling is reported at about 82%, according to the Construction Materials Recycling Association 

(CMRA).

The development of strategies that encourage the diversion 

of usable wood from the waste stream will not only help 

extend the value of wood products to the economy, but it 

will also have a positive effect on the environment by reducing the need for disposal space and lengthening the lifespan 

of existing landfills.

Objective

The North American Wood Waste Forum was organized to 

bring together various stakeholders associated with the recovery, reuse, and recycling of wood:

•	 Establish the current state of wood recovery activities in 

North America

•	 Clarify the newest technologies and approaches

•	 Define participant interests and activities

•	 Identify key barriers and opportunities to increasing 

wood recovery, reuse, and recycling

•	 Develop a realistic national strategy to overcome barriers and capitalize on opportunities (to be reviewed by a 

broader base constituency)

Bringing together the forest products and waste management sectors to discuss strategies for increasing wood recovery, reuse, and recycling can help in defining the future 

direction of policy, regulatory, technology development, and 

technology transfer efforts in this area.

The first day of the symposium began with five presentations intended to set the stage for further discussion. These 

presentations (Appendix) focused on defining the magnitude 

of the wood landfilling problem, summarizing current reuse 

and recycling efforts, as well as highlighting experiences 

from municipal and waste industry representatives. Following these presentations, facilitated discussion focused on 

identifying barriers to wood recovery and opportunities to 

develop greater diversion from landfills and increase market 

uptake.

The second day focused on summarizing the identified barriers and opportunities for diversion and identified strategies 

to address them.

Purpose of Report

This report summarizes feedback generated during the 

forum, both from presenters and from attendees, about ways 

to increase diversion of wood from landfills and encourage 

market development. The forum, though facilitated, was 

designed to limit predetermined bias and allow for open and 

candid discussion.

The feedback presented here has been summarized but is not 

edited for content. For this reason, some of the issues may 

conflict or at times be redundant. The main objective is to 

document and summarize what was said.

Discussion Framework

Participants were asked to discuss both barriers and opportunities to wood recovery in the context of two drivers—diversion and market uptake. That is, what are the barriers and 

opportunities that affect the diversion of wood from landfills, and what are the barriers and opportunities that affect 

market uptake for these materials? The markets identified 

included wood reuse, wood recycling, biomass (i.e., combustion), and mulch and other products.

•	 Barriers and opportunities

o Diversion

o Market uptake

o Reuse

o Recycle

o Biomass

o Mulch and other

The participants were also asked to identify barriers and opportunities as they relate to the categories listed below.

•	 Categories of barriers and opportunities

o Economics and price signals

o Education and outreach

o Research and technology, development and technology 

transfer

o Policies and regulations

o Industry infrastructure

o Coordination and integration

Wood Recovery Barriers

Initially, participants were asked to identify barriers to wood 

recovery without being specific to the uptake markets identified above (i.e., reuse, recycling, biomass, and mulch). Each 

participant was asked to identify three barriers. The barriers 

most frequently identified by participants (in descending 

order) were as follows:

•	 Limited markets for recovered wood—limited markets 

were seen by several participants as the most significant 

barrier to recovering wood for reuse and recycling. Several respondents thought that reusing wood materials held 

promise for increased market development.

•	 Lack of awareness and need for education

o Among consumers

Lack of awareness about the environmental benefits of wood 

recycling was seen as a barrier to increased wood recovery.

o Among building professionals
North American Wood Waste Forum: Summary of Group Feedback, February 2–3, 2012

3

Building professionals were seen as a group that could 

facilitate the increased use of reused and recycled wood 

into building products and projects; however, they need to 

be educated about the advantages of using these materials. 

Also, building professionals need to be made aware of what 

markets exist for reusable and recyclable materials generated through their projects.

•	 Lack of incentive to recover and flawed price signals

Cost of diversion compared with the cost of disposal was 

seen as a possible barrier to wood recovery. In addition, 

there is a poor understanding of the full societal costs of 

waste management.

•	 Confusion in standards regarding definitions and nomenclature

Participants indicated inconsistency and confusion in the 

definitions and nomenclature regarding diverted materials. For example, should combustion of wood for energy 

recovery be defined as recycling?

•	 High costs of material separation

A significant cost for C&D mixed-waste recycling facilities is the separation of comingled waste into more homogeneous streams for market diversion. The feasibility and 

economics of separating materials on site (source separation) or at the recycling facility may vary depending on 

site constraints and recycling facility capability.

•	 Lack of awareness of material value

Most people do not understand that there may be value 

in the materials contained in our Nation’s waste stream. 

Too often, these materials are considered waste, not a 

resource.

•	 Limited characterization data and poor data tracking of 

recoverable wood

We know relatively little about the character and volumes 

of wood in both the MSW and C&D waste streams. The 

EPA’s characterization studies, as well as regional and 

state studies, need to include more detail in this regard. 

They also need to be updated on a more regular basis and 

use more consistent metrics across different regions.

•	 Weak and fragmented supply chains for recovered wood

Weak and fragmented supply chains for recovered wood 

largely limit the marketability of this material to regional 

markets rather than a national commodity market. More 

open and competitive marketplaces need to be developed.

•	 Recovery facility space requirements

Wood is a voluminous material, and reuse and recycling 

requires a significant amount of space to collect, sort, and 

store. Limited space at the demolition or new construction 

sites, as well as at the waste facility, limits recovery.

•	 Regulations (especially concerning combustion and 

emission)

Pending Federal regulations could negatively affect the 

use of C&D-derived biomass in the United States.

•	 Knowledge gaps that lead to incorrect interpretation of 

the waste hierarchy

There is a lack of understanding among the public, policy 

makers, and others about the hierarchy of waste management strategies, whereby reuse is preferred to recycling, 

and combustion is preferred to landfilling.

•	 Life-cycle assessment (LCA) and life-cycle cost analysis 

(LCCA)

Participants indicated that there was a lack of uniformity 

in how different life-cycle analyses are executed. Because 

the scope, categories of effects, and system boundaries of 

an analysis can vary, a variety of results can be obtained. 

Further, LCA models do not adequately incorporate upstream benefits of using recycled or reused feedstock in 

the creation of new products.

Other Barriers Identified (Random Order) 

•	 Knowledge and technology transfer on broader LCA issues

Participants felt that more dissemination of information 

on the life cycle of materials is necessary. This would 

clarify the true impact of disposal on product manufacture 

and help building professionals understand the full lifecycle costs and effects of the materials they specify.

•	 Quantifying benefits from diversion

Increased awareness of the environmental benefits of 

diversion is needed, as well as more refined analysis 

techniques to quantify them. This includes the effect of 

recovery on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and carbon 

sequestration.

•	 Limited marketplace tools and resources

The development of model request for proposals (RFPs), 

contracts, and specifications for recovered materials 

would help the acceptance of these materials in the 

marketplace.

•	 Transportation costs and geographic accessibility to 

markets

Often, markets for wood waste materials are far from the 

generated source and result in high transportation costs. 

These transportation costs can also limit market development. Reuse materials, for example, do not have as many 

efficient distribution channels and transportation networks 

as other commoditized wood products do.

•	 In some markets, exclusive waste hauling franchises in 

municipalities limit competition. If the hauling company 
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–216

4

does not own a recycling facility in the area, it is not going to send the wood waste to a recycling facility, which it 

would consider a competitor. Rather, the hauler will send 

the waste to its designated transfer station for probable 

disposal in a landfill.

•	 There is a lack of data and knowledge on how to comply 

with regulations for combustion. 

•	 Currently there is confusion in the marketplace on the 

future of using C&D biomass for combustion in biomass 

boilers because of potential Federal regulations.

•	 There is a lack of data and knowledge to help develop 

better policies and regulations surrounding wood recovery and reuse. There is also a general lack of centralized 

and objective material characterization and market data 

from which to develop policy and regulation.

•	 Research data gaps

o Resource information

•	 Limited information exists on what materials have been 

used in what regions during what eras, life-cycle inventory information on these materials, and the character and 

extent of recovery and reuse markets. A comprehensive 

effort is needed to understand this national resource, on 

par with mapping the forest resources of the continent.

o Safety and regulation

There is a need to develop new identification technologies to 

help separate contaminated components from clean materials (e.g., treated or clean wood). Inexpensive remediation 

techniques also need development.

Participants were next asked to identify barriers specific to 

the wood waste markets identified including wood reuse, 

wood recycling, biomass (i.e., combustion), and mulch and 

other products.

Barriers Specific to Reuse

The barriers most frequently identified by participants (in 

descending order) were as follows:

•	 Quality and aesthetics perception

Many consumers perceive reused materials as being inferior to new materials both in quality and aesthetics. This 

is ironic, as many reused materials (e.g., lumber) can be 

of much higher quality than what is available new.

•	 High operating costs

Deconstruction is a labor-intensive activity resulting in 

high labor costs. This is particularly the case if prevailing 

wage comes into play on a jobsite. Storage of materials is 

also a driver of higher costs.

•	 Inconsistency of supply and lack of understanding of supply volumes

The intermittent and unpredictable supply of reused 

building materials makes it difficult to consistently and 

reliably supply large commercial markets. In addition, 

there is not a clear understanding of the size of the reuse 

and recycling markets, both in terms of the number of 

businesses or in terms of the volumes of materials currently available.

•	 Limited infrastructure

The reuse industry lacks enough infrastructure to adequately compete in the marketplace. Participants suggested that the development of a mega reuse facility (or 

national clearing house of materials) could help in economies of scale and to access larger markets.

•	 Difficult market access

The relatively low volumes of materials in the reused 

market make it difficult to access many markets, as a 

large and consistent volume of materials is often needed 

for various projects.

•	 Markets are opaque

There is currently no single public marketplace or centralized tracking of the supply or sales of reclaimed materials. This fragmented marketplace precludes parties 

across the continent from gaining reasonable information 

regarding value or volume of the market. Also, suppliers 

of reuse materials tend to protect their material supply 

chains, resulting in markets that are difficult to assess.

•	 No warranties

Most reused materials are sold without warranty “as is.” 

This can negatively impact consumers’ trust in product 

performance.

Other barriers were also identified in random order.

•	 Societal bias on the 3Rs toward recycling

Many consumers do not understand the difference between reduction, reuse, or recycling and tend to think that 

the only option for materials from the waste stream is 

recycling.

•	 High costs to guarantee quality of product

A perception exists, perhaps justified, that high costs are 

associated with guaranteeing the quality of reused products.

•	 Patchwork of regulations that might affect reuse

A variety of regulations exist that affect the salvage and 

reuse of building materials. This is especially true of 

lead-based paint (LBP) that is regulated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the 

EPA, the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC), 

and state regulations. It is not always clear how these 

regulations affect the remanufacture and resale of building materials that might be coated with LBP.
North American Wood Waste Forum: Summary of Group Feedback, February 2–3, 2012

5

•	 Low tipping fees that discourage reuse

Landfill tipping fees vary dramatically around North 

America. Low tipping fees create a disincentive toward 

recovery and reuse of building materials.

•	 Lack of standards infrastructure

Material standards need development for reused materials 

that normalize performance and acceptance (e.g., grading 

standards for reused lumber).

•	 Poor integration of players throughout building construction life cycle

Participants felt that there was a lack of coordination and 

integration of the key players involved in the life cycle of 

building construction. This negatively affects the acceptability of reused materials. We lack a multi-disciplinary 

effort involving wood product manufacturers, building 

professionals, material suppliers, and reuse and recycling 

professionals to promote the use of recovered wood 

products.

•	 Regulations developed for recycling not suitable for reuse

Recycling regulations treat everything as a material that 

will get ground up or melted down. This is especially 

evident at waste facilities where they focus on meeting 

recycling objectives measured in tons. Reuse is usually 

measured in dollar value and jobs, and its small tonnages 

usually get eclipsed and forgotten in the presence of the 

larger recycling tonnage. There is also a definitional issue 

with the reuse and recycling terminology that frequently 

gets blurred by those in and outside the recycling 

industry.

o Environmental claims developed for recycled products 

may not be adequate for reuse

A reused product may not have the same definition 

as a “recycled content” product under standards (e.g., 

ISO 140000). If reused wood is defined as “postconsumer recycled content,” is a loaded term because 

it generally refers to the process and manufacturing of 

feedstocks, which are not typical steps in determining 

wood reuse products.

o High regional variation of markets

There is high variability in the acceptance of reused 

materials in different regions as well as different degrees of market maturity.

o Few market tools exist

There are not currently any available tools for treating 

diverted wood materials as a commodity; e.g., farmer’s 

cooperatives or similar market access tools. Also lacking is inventory tracking of materials that connect reuse buyers with suppliers. Not many available LCA or 

carbon-accounting systems fully analyze reuse.

o Vertical integration and lumped services in contracts

A trend toward the tendering by municipalities of 

“lumped” services to waste management contractors 

limits the use of specialized contractors who may emphasize diversion. Specifications are not always conducive to reuse. The design team may desire reuse, but 

especially in projects where the design team has no say 

in selecting the construction team, other contract considerations (e.g., the lowest bid) may eliminate reuse 

from the construction timeline, subcontractor’s scope 

of work, or the design requirements.

Large garbage companies are often described as being vertically integrated when they own the collection, transfer, 

and disposal assets. This integration can have the effect of 

reducing the actual cost to landfill the material they collect, 

making recycling and reuse a less attractive alternative than 

disposal to these companies.

•	 Unwillingness of building professionals to reuse materials

Because reused materials are not mainstream and there is 

uncertainty in product availability, quality, and volume, 

building professionals are reluctant to specify reused 

materials.

•	 Lack of building professionals’ awareness of the product 

life cycle that they use

Many building professionals do not recognize or understand the life-cycle impact of the materials they specify. 

With a better understanding, they might be more inclined 

to specify reused materials.

•	 Timelines in demolition are not conducive to 

deconstruction

Salvage of materials takes longer than demolition. Rapid 

removal of buildings using demolition and the expectation that creates for building owners creates a disincentive for deconstruction.

•	 Reuse “industry” is still maturing

The reuse industry is relatively young compared with the 

demolition industry and will require time to establish itself in the marketplace.

•	 Poor or limited recognition of reuse in green building systems and codes

Existing green building programs (e.g., Leadership in 

Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)) do not adequately recognize the positive environmental impact of 

deconstruction and reuse. The number of points granted 

is not commensurate with this effect. Designing for deconstruction and reuse is not recognized.

Barriers Specific to Recycling

The barriers most frequently identified by participants (in 

descending order) were as follows:
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–216

6

•	 Quality perception

There is a perception that virgin products are higher quality, cleaner, and have higher tolerances. When remanufacturing with recycled content feedstock, manufacturers 

are concerned that equipment may be damaged because 

of contaminants (e.g., metal). To some extent, products 

made from recycled materials suffer from similar quality perceptions as reused products. That is, because the 

resource is waste-based, the products are inferior to virgin 

products.

•	 Consistency of supply

Consistently supplying high-quality recycled content 

feedstock can be problematic. Existing manufacturing 

processes can’t necessarily tolerate the variations in material streams from recycled content feedstock, as they were 

developed to accommodate virgin product streams. When 

there is an oversupply of virgin wood fiber, manufacturers 

will choose it, stifling markets for recycled wood fiber.

Waste and recycling tonnage and composition fluctuates 

widely from day to day and even hour to hour. This makes 

it harder for those selling recycled materials as a feedstock 

to a manufacturer to meet their specifications. For example, 

engineered wood feedstocks are typically set for a particular 

species and moisture content, as waste wood is almost never 

one species.

•	 Low tipping fees

As in the case of reuse, low tipping fees for waste disposal are a disincentive for recycling wood waste.

•	 Patchwork of regulations

Regulations and specifications vary from city to city, 

making consistent application of technologies and product quality difficult.

•	 Product producers need to more fully consider end-of-life 

(EOL) issues regarding their products

While many companies have developed sustainability 

agendas and are examining life-cycle analyses for the 

production of their products, they don’t often consider 

EOL issues (e.g., alternatives to disposal). For example, 

if the adhesives used in composite wood products make 

them unsuitable for recycling, mulch, and fuel applications, producers need to consider this in the design of 

these products. Research efforts to develop products that 

are fully acceptable for post-consumer reuse, recycling, 

and fuel applications may be needed. Environmental 

product declaration (EPD) labeling is just getting started 

but gives consumers and manufacturers a basic level of 

data about their product’s life-cycle costs related to GHG 

and other factors that determine the environmental effect 

of the product from cradle to grave.

•	 Lack of definitions and standardization and verification 

labels

Unlike scrap metal, where there is an intricate system of 

rating the quality and type of material in a recycled product, there is little to compare to that in C&D, although the 

CMRA and National Solid Waste Management Association (NSWMA) recently released a guideline document 

on different grades of C&D wood fuel based on current 

markets in the United States. These problems are one 

of the reasons that an EPD program is needed. It should 

solve this confusion and get folks looking at the bigger 

picture, instead of just looking only at one attribute like 

recycled content.

Other barriers were also identified in random order.

•	 Foreign production

The availability of low-cost virgin lumber products from 

foreign countries makes it difficult for our North American-produced recycled lumber products to compete.

•	 Lack of warranties

A lack of warranties for reused and recycled content products hinders acceptance in the marketplace when warranties are commonplace for virgin materials.

•	 Under-utilized markets

The opportunity to supply C&D wood to added-value 

markets, such as composite panels and furniture, is limited by the abundance of virgin wood residual from lumber 

and other wood product manufacturers.

•	 Virgin materials are cheap

The low cost of virgin wood makes it difficult to market 

recycled wood waste on a cost basis. Manufacturers already are accustomed to making use of their waste materials, such as for particleboards or medium-density fiberboards (MDFs). Therefore, demand for recycled wood 

pulp content is low.

•	 Market volatility and consistency

Changes in demand or the regulatory environment can 

dramatically affect markets. For example, in the United 

Kingdom, the particleboard market was suddenly forced 

to compete with the biomass market for feedstock, because of new regulations that favored the production of 

green energy from biomass. Also, opportunities for C&D 

biomass are subject to the variable needs of the boiler 

companies. The recycler may not have the room to store 

material until demand rebounds, so disposal could be the 

only option.

•	 Fear of contaminants

There is a perception that all recycled wood is dirty. 

Though the capability exists to sort and clean for a specific application, there are some industries and products for 

which there is no tolerance for minor color variation due 

to paint or visual impurities. This is unlike Europe, where 

a higher degree of visual contaminant is allowed.
North American Wood Waste Forum: Summary of Group Feedback, February 2–3, 2012

7

Some markets (e.g., green building) demand a low-emitting, 

formaldehyde-free product from recycled feedstock. This 

can be difficult to supply given the original product composition from which the recycled feedstock is derived.

•	 Alternative daily cover (ADC) being removed as 

recycling

A LEED 2012 draft (at time of meeting) had a new provision that excluded ADC as recycling or diversion, which 

may hurt markets for recycled wood products. Some 

participants felt that without a viable and reasonably 

economically effective market for waste wood into ADC, 

C&D recycling facilities would lose the financial underpinning that supports the recycling of fringe materials, 

such as drywall or plastics. Some participants felt that the 

same argument can be made for the use of C&D wood as 

biomass. Without a market for the wood, little else will 

get recycled, resulting in more landfilling because most 

of the fringe materials, such as ceiling tile, drywall, and 

plastics can’t be reused. Outside of biomass, it was felt 

that most of the recycling options are limited and will be 

for the foreseeable future.

•	 Inaccurate reporting of recycling at facilities

Recovery rates at mixed-waste recovery facilities are not 

independently verified, causing lack of accountability and 

accuracy in claims.

Barriers Specific to Biomass (Combustion)

The barriers most frequently identified by participants (in 

descending order) were as follows:

•	 Regulations

Participants felt that there was a patchwork of regulations 

as well as a sense of overregulation that affects the wood 

fuel market. Also, existing regulations focus on process, 

not performance. The loss of U.S. biomass burners due to 

the economic downturn and the migration of papermills 

from domestic to offshore production may be creating 

oversupply of hogged fuel in some areas like the Northwest.

•	 Contaminants

Like reuse, there are questions about lead and other contaminants in C&D biomass, even though product specifications require levels of cleanliness. Regulations are considered strict and as a result disincentivize combustion of 

a significant portion of the wood waste recycling stream 

(the Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 

standards that view painted and treated wood as contaminates); especially the smaller dimension fines resultant 

from mixed recovery facilities.

•	 Lack of standardized specifications nationwide

A CMRA study researched all the hogged fuel and biomass fuel specifications being used in the United States 

and found hundreds of different specifications and almost 

no standardization from particle size, moisture content, or 

contaminate definitions.

•	 Distance to markets results in limited markets

Markets can be constrained because they are not often 

proximate to the source of the wood waste available.

•	 Scrutiny among green building rating systems and codes 

for incineration

The recently released 2012 International Green Construction Code specifically does not allow credit for biomass 

combustion for energy recovery. LEED may not give 

credit to biomass in the future.

Barriers Specific to Mulch and Other Uses

The barriers most frequently identified by participants (in 

descending order) were as follows:

•	 Costs to clean product

Mixed recovery facilities must balance the ability to separate contaminants with the markets for outbound materials. Cleaning significant feedstock for mulch is simply 

more costly than the market will pay. Therefore, only the 

cleanest and easiest to separate woody materials end up 

as mulch.

•	 Oversupply and oversaturation

There is more supply than there is demand, which drives 

costs down and markets can quickly become saturated 

(with fewer large-scale customers).

Other barriers were also identified in random order.

•	 Low value relative to processing costs

It can easily cost as much to clean the material to the 

required specification and transport it to the market as it 

does to landfill it.

•	 Large seasonal variation in demand in some regions

In northern climates, landscaping and construction tends 

to occur seasonally, limiting demand and supply for 

mulch.

Wood Recovery Opportunities

Participants were next asked to identify opportunities based 

on the barriers identified above as well as other opportunities independent of barriers that might already exist.

Opportunities Specific to Reuse

•	 Quality and aesthetics perception

o Develop better certification/documentation/product 

labeling

Development of a reused product certification and 

labeling system would help in standardizing product 
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–216

8

types and make it easier for building professionals to 

specify products.

o Target building professionals in demonstrating product 

performance

This could be achieved through the sponsorship of 

awards targeted to building professionals such as the 

American Institute of Architects (AIA). Also, the use 

of case studies, social media, and articles in various 

professional publications could help in demonstrating 

recovered product performance. One example is the 

Design for Reuse Primer published by Public Architecture (http://www.publicarchitecture.org/reuse/pdf/

Primer-Online.pdf).

o Incentivize production of high-quality reused products

Encourage rating systems and green building codes 

to better reward reuse, such as with the Reuse X Prize 

[(X Prize Foundation, Playa Vista, California)] Develop policies (voluntary and regulatory) that create 

incentives for the production of high-quality reused 

products. Investigate the marketing and development 

of reused material products along the same lines as 

those offered to the certified pre-owned vehicle market. Look at the Toyota certified used car concept, 

where lumber wholesalers and retailers (Habitat for 

Humanity’s ReStore first, then mainstream retailers 

later) would offer units of used lumber alongside new 

products. This would require a scaling up of the supply chain for used materials, though the used lumber 

industry may not be ready outside of a few select markets.

o Develop testing protocols that test reused products

Development of testing procedures and quality control 

protocols for reused materials would help legitimize 

their acceptance in the marketplace. To assure confidence in performance, perhaps some sort of insurance 

agency could be developed that will, for a fee, provide 

guarantees and warranties for reused products so that 

they can be used within buildings as substitutes to new 

products. Guarantees for certain reuse products would 

be comparable to new products; for example, warranties could be provided for flooring, trim, and doors so 

that reuse could compete with new products, and this 

barrier could be addressed. Of course these arrangements would span other products as well (ceiling tiles 

or carpets).

o Move toward an industry that pays for products rather 

than those that accept donations

Participants felt that the non-profit reuse industry 

needs to move away from a donation-based business 

model toward a more profit-based industry that pays 

for the products it sells. This would be a financial driver for the supply of reused and recycled wood.

•	 High costs

o Provide more training to increase labor productivity 

for deconstruction

Encourage the development of standardized training to 

increase productivity, lower costs, and raise the quality 

of recovered materials. Furthermore, educate associated industries on reuse, because the existing inertia is 

to demolish is probably pretty high. 

o Permitting incentives for salvage

Encourage salvage and reuse by providing incentives 

to building removal projects that employ salvage before or instead of demolition. Suggestions included 

putting submitted building removal permits that use 

deconstruction at the head of the line or require a mandatory waiting period before demolition to evaluate 

salvage feasibility. These ideas needed to consider that 

demolition may be the most efficient recycling method 

for certain building types (concrete, steel).

In San Diego, California, the demolition permit applicant 

has to pay a certain amount per square foot as a deposit. 

Once applicants demonstrate that they achieved a specified 

level of diversion, they get the deposit back.

o Increase cost of disposal

Increased tipping fees, especially in parts of the country where they are very low, would encourage recovery, reuse, and recycling.

o Adopt occupational categories for deconstruction

More formal definition of job categories for building 

material recovery and reuse would help in training, 

lowering insurance costs, and increasing the professionalism of the reuse industry.

o Encourage municipal investment for development of 

shared storage (such as tipping fees) Municipal investment in larger central facilities that encourage recovery 

and reuse would help in solving space issues and provide the opportunity to take advantage of economies of 

scale for wood waste handling. Increased tipping fees 

could also help defray costs.

o Reduce occupational health and safety and insurance 

costs

Because there is no standard definition of the duties 

and risks faced by deconstruction workers, the insurance industry often puts these workers in the highest 

job risk categories. Educating the insurance industry 

and developing universal job descriptions could help 

lower rates.

o Encourage creative financing (e.g., bond repayments 

based on the percentage reused and recycled)
North American Wood Waste Forum: Summary of Group Feedback, February 2–3, 2012

9

When permits are issued, require a bond that gets 

replayed if certain diversion thresholds are met. San 

Jose, California, has something like this for C&D recycling thresholds (not necessarily reuse). Is there a 

place for financial institutions to provide products that 

help bridge the time gap between an increased cost for 

deconstruction and an eventual deduction on taxes?

o Standardize quality standards at C&D landfills to make 

costs more consistent

Variable quality standards of landfills around the country result in artificially low tipping fees in landfills 

with low standards. A unification of standards will help 

make tipping fees more consistent across the country.

o Involve economic development agencies

The involvement of economic development agencies could help in coordination of the material supply, 

market development for reused products (e.g., reused 

lumber), development of roles for consolidators and 

wholesalers, and development of shared storage infrastructure.

o Develop data on scale to products available

These data would help in development of markets by 

indicating the volume of products available (e.g., number of doors).

o Develop a deposit system for building materials

Using a concept similar to returnable bottles, materials 

would have a deposit associated with them that would 

be recouped upon return to a reuse or recycling facility.

Participants also identified opportunities in the following 

areas

•	 Research and education

o Encourage studies to develop more efficient deconstruction techniques

Much like the construction industry, development of 

techniques to speed deconstruction will help lower 

costs (e.g., hybrid deconstruction).

o Develop better cost data on different deconstruction 

techniques

The development of real costs associated with various 

deconstruction techniques could help in making the 

deconstruction process more efficient and in lowering 

costs.

o Design and deliver education/training on 

deconstruction

Similar to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) training that would develop a standardized education program for wood recovery.

o Modify LCA tools for EOL analysis

Currently available LCA tools (e.g., Athena Sustainable Materials Institute, Ottawa, Canada) need 

modification to incorporate different EOL uses (reuse, 

recycle, or C&D biomass) so that a more accurate 

picture of life cycle can be developed. Current LCA 

tools don’t necessarily capture the upstream benefits of 

reuse (avoidance of cutting new virgin lumber) when 

comparing EOL to “prior-to-life” benefits.

o More fully develop design for deconstruction concepts

Development and encouragement of construction 

techniques that make building disassembly easier will 

lower costs of building removal and increase the conservation of resources through higher recovered material yields.

•	 Market tools

o Promote greater EOL consideration for composite and 

engineered product manufacture development and 

marketing of wood products generally does not consider EOL issues. Consideration of EOL issues should 

be part of the initial product design process.

o Develop product category rules (PCRs)

Product category rules provide uniform reporting of 

environmental impacts for specific and functionally 

equivalent products. Assuming that recovered wood 

for particular uses can be deemed functionally equivalent to virgin wood or to products made of other materials, then it may be helpful to develop PCRs for comparing virgin and recovered products. Identifying cases 

where reused products are functionally equivalent (or 

superior) to virgin wood when looking at a life-cycle 

perspective would be needed.

o Trial selling of reused lumber in ReStores and other 

reused outlets

Investigate opportunities to market and sell larger volumes of reclaimed lumber through the existing system 

of ReStores and other reused building materials outlets 

(e.g., Second Change store in Colorado).

o Incorporate reusability of product into environmental 

product declarations (EPDs)

EPDs are being developed for many wood products. 

These declarations should incorporate information on 

the reusability of the product.

o Need for more user-friendly LCA models 

(e.g., Athena)
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–216

10

The rigor and relatively high costs of conducting full 

LCAs can limit their use; however, they need to be 

more sophisticated so they can account for the harder 

to quantify aspects of wood reuse (i.e., trees left standing if not cut down for virgin product, determination 

of “functionally equivalent” products, and EOL issues). However, enough rigor needs to be maintained 

for scientific accuracy so that bias and politics are not 

introduced into oversimplified models.

Opportunities Specific to Recycling

•	 Quality

o Separate haulage of construction waste from demolition waste

Separation of debris at the demolition site will help 

reduce sorting costs at the recycling facility as well as 

reduce contamination through comingling.

o Product stewardship for manufacturers and forest 

products companies

Similar mechanisms exist for carpet and ceiling tiles. 

Most of these approaches are legislated at the state or 

national level. Manufacturers play a financial role in 

the EOL for their products or a family of products that 

they or their competitors make, distribute, or sell. The 

fee is collected at the retail sale and funds EOL collection/processing and recycling. Composite materials 

like TREX® (Trex Company, Winchester, Virginia) 

decking were discussed. Participants felt that there 

should be a focus on composite materials that are not 

recyclable.

o Develop demand drivers for high domestic recycled 

content

Develop standardized purchasing specifications and 

legislated purchasing requirements for the public 

sector.

o Call out inaccurate claims of recycled content originating within mills

The steel industry continues to advertise an 85% to 

90% recycling rate, when in fact the recycled content 

of light framing is on the order of 25% to 29%, with 

only about half of that being post-consumer recycled 

content. They have been so successful in their claims 

that the new International Green Construction Code 

allows the steel industry to claim the average recycled 

content of steel from oxygen and electric arc processes 

for all of their products—including light steel framing.

ISO 14021 might be a mechanism to bring more truth to the 

advertising of recycled content. California’s green building 

code, for instance, allows products with recycled content 

that are not labelled pre- or post-consumer to assume that 

one-half of the recycled content is pre- and that half is postconsumer. This is inaccurate and encourages inaccurate reporting by manufacturers.

o Inaccurate reporting of recycling at facilities

Fix the approach to assessing the tonnage of waste 

products (measurement inaccuracies at recovery facilities) via third-party verification of diversion.

o Greater adoption of third-party verification of recycled 

content

Third-party verification of recycled content can help in 

eliminating false claims on recycled content and level 

the playing field for product marketing.

o Encourage new recycled product development

Use various marketing techniques (such as X Prize) to 

encourage development of new products from recovered wood waste.

o Develop collaborations to produce higher quality and 

higher performance waste-based products

Collaborations between the C&D waste industries and 

innovative companies (e.g., Andersen Windows, Bayport, Minnesota, composite frame cladding) can help 

in the development of new products.

•	 Consistency of supply

o Standardization and labeling of recycled materials

Standardization of product types and labeling can help 

in the marketing and acceptance of these materials in 

the marketplace.

o Develop better regional data on expected supply

A better picture of expected volumes and types of 

wood waste based on historical construction techniques by region will help in development of markets 

and expected transportation costs.

o Develop better sourcing tools for recycled content 

products

Develop a consistent labeling system so that recycled 

content is clearly and uniformly labelled on products 

(and can be searched for easily).

•	 Low tipping fees

o Credible full-cost accounting analysis of landfill use

Very low tipping fees are usually subsidized by someone. To better assess the true cost of landfilling, information is needed on the societal costs of landfills beyond their operational life (typically 30–50 y). What’s 

the cost of long-term maintenance, GHGs, sulphur 

dioxide, methane capture, or groundwater 

contamination?
North American Wood Waste Forum: Summary of Group Feedback, February 2–3, 2012

11

Participants also identified opportunities in the following 

areas

•	 Market tools and producer involvement

o Incorporation of recyclability of product into EPD

An environmental product declaration should include 

information on recyclability of the product.

o Promote advanced framing techniques to reduce material use and associated waste

A reduction in material use at the jobsite can reduce 

the overall stream of material to the landfill. Weyerhaeuser’s iLevel (Weyerhaeuser, Federal Way, Washington) suite of software helps builders plan for more 

efficient use of materials with less waste.

o Better information to drive specifications that reduce 

waste in new construction

Factory panelized construction and designing to 4-ft 

increments are effective ways to minimize wood residue in new construction.

o Encourage producer involvement in considering the 

life cycle of products

Product producers should be more involved in the life 

cycle of their products, especially at end of life.

o Broader identification of products that can be recycled

Encourage labeling of forest products indicating that 

they can be recycled at the end of their useful life. This 

may involve overhaul of the recycling arrows branding 

to something more effective.

o Explore adoption of credit similar to Europe and possible adoption in North America

Stimulate markets for recycled or reused wood via a 

carbon credit system. Wood recycling or reuse may 

reduce the number of trees that need to be harvested 

if they offset virgin product inputs. This results in a 

greater number of trees not harvested, which could 

be given an economic value should harvest times be 

increased over standard practice (whereby greater tree 

diameter growth sequesters more CO2 than shorter 

harvest cycles). Provides additional monetary incentive for reuse/recycling.

o Factor reuse/recycled wood into production credit 

systems

Similar to how FSC or Sustainable Forestry Initiative 

(SFI0) credit systems allow manufacturers to “bank” 

sustainably harvested wood and therefore sell it under 

such labels as “FSC mixed” except that recycled content or reuse would be specifically included.

o EPD for buildings

Environmental product declarations are being developed for individual products, but this idea was to 

develop them for entire buildings. Similar to the total 

energy score idea where a house is awarded a single 

energy score (like the water heater label that identifies 

efficiency) that consumers can use to make a home 

choice.

o Explore a scalable business model based on reused 

rather than solely recycled materials and create a 

competitive prize (such as the X Prize model)

•	 Research and education

o Develop a forum/dialogue involving recycled wood 

buyers/consumers or organize a national conference 

on wood recycling.

o Research new, high-end applications for recycled 

content

Support research and development (R&D) into the 

development of higher performance and higher value 

products from recovered wood waste. Consider giving 

an X Prize to the winner.

Provide LCA analysis on C&D going to bioenergy 

compared with going to recycled product reuse—the 

Consortium for Research on Renewable Industrial 

Materials (CORRIM) is currently looking at wood-toenergy issues. If specific market-acceptable products 

from recovered wood can be identified, then it would 

be relatively easy for CORRIM to extend analyses 

to included comparisons with recycled product use. 

Investigate work by Bergman and others. Another 

example is when Portland METRO developed an environmental benefits calculator that considers local conditions and variables to weigh the choice of what type 

of market a material goes to for recycling.

•	 Green building community and LEED

o Give more credit to post-consumer recycled content

Encourage greater rewards for recycled content materials in LEED through standards development process 

and public commenting.

o Fix approach to assessing tonnage of waste products 

(better measurement inaccuracies at the truck)

To date, LEED hasn’t provided any useful advice to 

the dry waste materials recovery facility (MRF) to create a standard for measurement, so the MRF operators 

each create their own. The resulting data chaos from 

this practice has gone on for 10 y now.

o Develop reasonable limits for recycling credit for 

ADC
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–216

12

Some recycling purists see ADC as fake recycling and 

think the recycling value should be zero. However, the 

wood biomass industry believes a complete phase-out 

of ADC recycling credit could induce a bias against 

mixed C&D facilities and a preference for small, 

construction waste-only facilities, of which only one 

exists in the country. Because of the demolition and 

transport process, a mixed C&D facility receives about 

30% 2-in.-minus fines that have little other value other 

than replacing virgin dirt as cover at a landfill. Some 

states derate ADC value to a lower value (one ton only 

counts for 50%, or 1,000 lb). This might be a compromise between the all or nothing camps on this issue.

o Make the green building community more aware of 

limited market options for C&D materials

The rapid expansion of the mixed C&D recycling market allowed a majority of LEED certified projects to 

achieve very high (>75%) diversion rates, based largely on the ADC market. There is limited popular knowledge in the green building market that there is almost 

no recycling of non-metallic waste outside of ADC. 

Green builders think they have solved the problem of 

recycling already, so we need to restate the challenge.

No opportunities were identified specific to biomass or 

mulch or other products.

Next Steps

As a final exercise, the participants were asked to suggest 

how the barriers and opportunities might best be addressed.

•	 Formalize group effort

o Development of North American Wood Recovery 

Group

•	 Add market representatives to group

o Biomass

o Composite product manufacturers

o General contractors (National Association of Home 

Builders (NAHB), commercial contractors)

o Material market experts (with knowledge of the costs 

that owners and projects will bear)

o Forest Products Laboratory (FPL) economists

•	 Develop matrix of low-cost and high-impact opportunities

•	 Outcome or product of forum

o Need to spread it more broadly than a white paper

o Identify low-cost applications to spread information 

(such as social media)

o High-level, external communications stating that the 

group met
North American Wood Waste Forum: Summary of Group Feedback, February 2–3, 2012

13

Appendix—North American Wood 

Waste Forum

North American Wood Waste Forum

February 2-3, 2012, Madison, Wisconsin

The USDA Forest Products Laboratory (FPL) welcomes 

you to this two-day meeting focused on increasing the reuse and recovery of wood waste. This forum is intended 

to bring together the various stakeholders associated with 

wood waste and other wood by-products. Our intent is to 

establish the state-of-the-art in wood reuse and recovery, 

define participant interests and activities, develop a roadmap 

and associated strategies to increase the utilization of waste 

wood through reuse, recycling, and other diversion efforts, 

identify key challenges and opportunities to increased wood 

waste utilization, and develop action plans to address these 

issues. This effort will benefit the environment by reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions, support resource conservation 

and sustainability, and lead to the creation of green jobs. 

Agenda

Thursday, February 2, 2012 

8:00–5:00 FPL Centennial Research Facility 

 Conference Room 

The purpose of this first day session is to provide an overview of the current state of wood waste recovery in North 

America and explore the opportunities and challenges involved in wood reuse, recycling, and other diversion efforts. 

A series of short talks by experts in the field will provide 

background for continued group discussion. 

8:00–8:30 Welcome & Introductions (Bob Falk, 

 Mike Ritter; FPL) 

8:30–8:50 Overview of Wood Waste in North America 

(Ksenija Janic, US EPA) 

8:50–9:10 Wood Reuse: The First Step in Diversion 

(Anne Nicklin, BMRA) 

9:10–9:20 State of Wood Recycling in the US 

(Bill Turly, CMRA) 

9:20–9:40 Recycling Wood Waste from an Urban 

Environment 

(Bryce Jacobson, Portland METRO) 

9:40–10:00 Opportunities and Challenges of Recycling 

Wood Waste 

(Matthew McKinney, Waste Management 

Recycle America)

10:00–10:15 Coffee Break 

10:15–12:00 Facilitated Discussion Facilitated Discussion

•	 Questions and answers from the morning 

discussions

•	 Identifying key barriers/opportunities 

12:00–1:00 Catered Lunch 

1:00–3:00 Facilitated discussion 

•	 Hurdles and obstacles to increased diversion: 

o Identifying, categorizing, and prioritizing key barriers to increased diversion 

and market uptake of wood waste 

3:00–3:15 Coffee Break 

3:15–5:00 Facilitated discussion 

•	 Pathways to increased diversion of wood 

waste: 

o Identifying, categorizing, and prioritizing key opportunities to increased 

diversion and market uptake of wood 

waste 

Friday, February 3, 2012 

8:00–12:00 FPL Centennial Research Facility 

Conference Room 

The purpose of this half day session is to summarize the previous day’s information and begin to develop and document 

a roadmap and associated strategies to increase wood reuse 

and recovery. 

8:00–10:00 Facilitated Discussion 

•	 Recap of priority barriers/opportunities to 

increased diversion of wood waste 

•	 Discussion of actions to address specific 

barriers/opportunities 

•	 Identification of easier (low cost/effort 

and/or shorter-term) versus harder (higher 

cost/effort and/or longer-term) opportunities and barriers 

•	 Discussion and identification on best strategic approaches needed to advance on 

priority barriers and opportunities 

10:00–10:15 Coffee Break 

10:15–12:00 Facilitated Discussion, Summary, Closeout

•	 Continuation of discussion and identification of best strategic approaches/actions 

needed to address priority barriers and 

opportunities

o Options for moving forward with 

strategic approaches/action identified 

above 

o Next Steps 
General Technical Report FPL–GTR–216

14

12:00 Meeting Ends 

List of Invitees

American Wood Council (AWC)

Association of State & Territorial Solid Waste Management 

Officials (ASTSWMO)

Biomass Power Association

Boxfish Group

Building Materials Reuse Association (BMRA)

Canadian Wood Council (CWC)

Construction Materials Recycling Association (CMRA)

Dovetail Partners, Inc.

Forest Products Association of Canada (FPAC)

National Association of Home Builders (NAHB)

National Demolition Association (NDA)

National Solid Waste Management Association (NSWMA)

Portland METRO

Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA)

Stopwaste.Org

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of 

Solid Waste

Waste Management, Inc. 

Waste Management, Inc.–Recycle America