Life Cycle Assessment of the Construction and Demolition Waste Recovery Process

Effective recovery of materials from construction and demolition waste (CDW) remains a major problem and a real challenge in terms of implementing the circular economy. In many countries, this waste is landfilled due to the lack of modern technological lines for its recovery and recycling, including the sorting of materials suitable for reuse. Understanding the environmental impact of the CDW treatment process is important as it constitutes the final stage of building life cycle assessment and the basis for eco-design of construction processes. In addition, the recovered materials can be used as raw materials for construction, thereby closing the waste loop and aligning with the circular economy concept. The purpose of this study is to compare the environmental impact of three different CDW recovery technologies in order to identify the optimal option. The analysis was performed using the life cycle assessment (LCA) methodology, SimaPro 8.1 software, and the Ecoinvent v3.8 database. 1 Mg of processed CDW was adopted as the functional unit. It was found that the process of recovering materials from CDW allows for sorting over 13% of materials for recycling and approx. 40% of raw materials for reuse (stone aggregates). The conducted analyses showed that all three installations exert a negative impact on the environment. Solution No. 2 had the lowest total environmental impact (15.96 Pt) under the assumptions and datasets used in this study, presenting average electricity and fuel consumption and average weight of sorted materials for recycling. Installation No. 3, which sorts the largest volume of materials for recycling, also used the most electricity; therefore, it could not be considered as the solution with the minimal overall environmental impact. The research revealed that the treatment of CDW in a crusher, applied at all installations, is the process stage resulting in the greatest environmental pressure (16.92 Pt). The high level of sorted recyclable waste enabled a relatively low carbon footprint for processes No. 2 and No. 3, 18.7 and 17.6 kg CO₂ eq, respectively (more than four times lower than for installation No. 1). Future analyses should focus on optimizing the CDW recovery process by avoiding the use of impact crushers, as adding more waste sorting equipment does not significantly enhance environmental benefits.