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

jgriffith@newmoa.org

(617) 367-8558 x303

33