construction & demolition materials northeast c.ymcdn.com/sites/ · pdf filect, me, ma,...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Construction & Demolition Materials – Northeast Perspective
Terri Goldberg
Jennifer Griffith
Northeast Waste
Management Officials’
Association
2
Overview
Background
Why C & D materials?
Scope of NEWMOA C & D Report
Sources of data & methodology
Findings & conclusions
Gypsum White Paper
3
NEWMOA
Non-profit regional interstate
association
CT, ME, MA, NH, NJ, NY, RI, & VT
Solid
Forum for states to discuss C&D
waste issues - use of C&D wood for
fuel, reuse of asphalt shingles, &
recycling of gypsum wallboard
4
What are C &D Materials?
Categories:
o Asphalt, brick & concrete (ABC)
generated from road & bridge projects
- heavy & recycled a high rate
o Building construction, remodeling, &
demolition – focus of analysis &
concern
o Land clearing debris – typically handled
separately
5
What are C &D Materials?
Building construction, remodeling,
& demolition waste includes:
oWood
o Brick
o Glass
oMetal
o Drywall
o Asphalt shingles
6
What are C &D Materials?
Also:
o Plastic buckets
o Pipes & wrapping
o Cardboard
o Plumbing
o Electrical & other fixtures
oWire
Carpet & furniture – not C & D,
may be part of demolition waste
7
Why C & D Materials?
Most C&D wastes disposed in landfills
Landfill space increasingly limited in
region
Public opposition limits siting of new
landfills
Increased emphasis on the processing &
reuse of C&D material
8
Why C & D Materials?
C &D materials used for alternative
daily cover (ADC) at landfills
Gypsum wallboard fines in landfills
creates hydrogen sulfide gas
C & D materials can be contaminated
with heavy metals, asbestos, PCBs, etc.
Political concerns about proposals to
burn certain C & D waste for energy
9
Jurisdictional Interdependence
NEWMOA analysis has shown that
region is a “waste shed”
High degree of interdependence
for waste management capacity
Waste shipped out-of-state for
disposal &/or recycling to
neighboring states
10
2006 C & D Materials Study
Purposes:
– Help NEWMOA & EPA understand how C & D
waste is managed in the Northeast
– Baseline data to measure progress
– Id possible regulatory or reporting changes
– Inform policy making
Focus: flow of wastes into & out of states
Focus: building projects; not road &
bridge projects or land clearing debris
EPA Region 1 Support
11
Approach
NEWMOA C & D Materials Workgroup
supplied data & oversaw analysis
Data based on reports to states from
processors & disposal facilities
State reporting requirements & data
definitions vary
Challenge: data aggregation &
reconciliation
12
Approach
Prepared spreadsheet & graphs & tables using
state data
Caveats:
o Not full picture of generation, since captures waste
handled by regulated activities
o Individual state data gaps – particularly on
recovery/recycling of certain materials
o Differences in data reported on waste exports by one
state & waste imports from that state – more
confidence in import data
o For NY & NJ some road/bridge project waste included
(facilities less specialized)
Quantitative Picture 2006
> 12 million tons generated
Per capita generation ranged
from 0.19 - .042 tons per year (may be due to differences in reporting
requirements)
DSM Environmental Study
estimates average C & D waste
generation is 1.7 lb/person/day;
average 0.31 tons/ person/year13
Quantitative Picture 2006
DSM Report for MA estimates %s by
weight:
o Plastics – 2%
oMetals – 5%
o ABC – 9%
o Drywall – 10%
o Roofing – 11%
oWood – 34%
o Other – 29%14
15
Findings
Most C & D ends up in landfills
Approx. 10% was recovered for use
outside of landfills
Metal only material recovered at
significant percentage (53%)
Other materials recovered: clean wood
& wood chips for fuel
Significant potential for increasing
recovery / recycling
Findings
Processing of C & D waste varies:o Some handle mixed C & D waste, which is
tipped on the ground, metals are removed,
volume of remainder reduced, shipped for
disposal or ADC at a landfill
o At others tipping & processing enclosed;
waste sorting automated & supplemented by
hand picking; more waste sent for recovery
Availability & quality of data not
consistent making aggregation &
comparisons challenging 16
17
Observations
Facilities in the states differ in how C & D
waste is managed:
o In some, most waste sent to processing facility
o Others waste sent to landfill without prior
processing
In spite of differences, recovery rate as
percentage of generation fairly consistent
across region
18
Observations
All states export some C &D waste
for disposal & processing in other
states
C & D waste generation affected
by recession & down turn in
construction in past few years
More information
19
Report available at
www.newmoa.org/solidwaste/cd.cfm
Gypsum Wallboard White Paper
20
May 2007 - NE commissioners identified C & D
debris as a high priority for regional action
May 2008 - NEWMOA decided increasing
gypsum recycling was highest priority
EPA Region 1 funded project in fall 2008
2009 – 2010 C & D Materials Workgroup
conducted research & wrote White Paper
Benefits of Recycling Gypsum Wallboard
21
Conservation of natural resources & landfill
space
Hydrogen sulfide gas & GHG reductions
$$$ saved through green credits for building
owners & contractors
$$$ save by processing facilities that remove
gypsum wallboard for recycling through
avoided tipping fees
3 Potential Uses of Gypsum Wallboard
22
Replacing portion of virgin gypsum
to make new wallboard
Replacing a portion of virgin gypsum
in cement manufacturing
Adding to soil as a conditioning
amendment – not big application in NE
Workgroup Approach
23
Visited recyclers & potential users in the
region
Reviewed current state activities
Held conference calls to identify all
potential options for increasing recycling
Narrowed the options to 5 that appeared
to be most practical & feasible & could
result in significant improvements
Options
24
Ban disposal in landfills
Require recycling of wallboard waste
products by state-financed projects
Require waste management planning
Develop common terminology &
reporting requirements
Develop & implement EPR approaches
Realities
25
Users only interested in gypsum from
construction projects – clean
Concerned about contamination – e.g.,
asbestos & lead in paint- on gypsum
from demolition
Virgin gypsum inexpensive & available
Realities
26
4 cement manufacturers in region:
o could take more recycled gypsum
o need to make capital investments
o need guaranteed supply
2 facilities process waste wallboard to
produce gypsum powder in region :
o need reliable supply to make capital
investments to expand operations
Status
27
Ban disposal in landfills –
implemented by Mass DEP after
lengthy engagement with
stakeholders:o www.mass.gov/dep/recycle/laws/bansreg.htm
Status
28
Require recycling of wallboard
waste from state-owned or leased
building projects – implemented by
MA & ME
Require waste management
planning - VT & ME require for
large projects (requirement of
state-wide permit process)
Common Terminology & Reporting - Priority
Develop common terminology &
reporting requirements:o C & D materials routinely travel across state
lines for processing, disposal, & recycling
o Generators, haulers, & processors compete
across state lines but are subject to
different reporting requirements
o Consistent data needed to provide critical
information for private decisions to build
new facilities
29
EPR
Develop & implement EPR
approach:o Manufacturers establish & manage
infrastructure themselves
o Manufacturers finance third party
o Manufacturers work with existing haulers &
recyclers to help finance their efforts to
recycle materials
30
Why EPR?
All stakeholders develop solution
Manufacturers help with financing
infrastructure
Collection & recycling infrastructure &
markets improved & increased
May engage stakeholders in developing
better solutions for managing gypsum
from demolition projects
31
EPR Approach
Key questions/ issues:
o Stakeholder engagement
o Roles of stakeholders
o Financing mechanism
o Recycling goals & metrics
o Enforcement
32
More information
www.newmoa.org/solidwaste/projects/gypsum.cfm
Jennifer Griffith
NEWMOA
(617) 367-8558 x303
33