*>EPA 4
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
EPA/601/R-18/001 | November 2018 | www.epa.gov/research
Sustainable Materials
Management Options for
Construction and
Demolition Debris
Office of Research and Development
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Land and Materials Management Division
-------
EPA/60 l/R-18/001
November 2018
Sustainable Materials Management Options
for Construction and
Demolition Debris
By
Thabet Tolaymat
U.S. EPA/National Risk Management Research
Laboratory/Land and Materials Management Division,
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Land and Materials Management Division
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
1
-------
EPA/60 l/R-18/001
November 2018
If1 *i.ioc¦ rki";.' I xiti'h-r'
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, through its Office of Research and Development,
funded and conducted the research described herein under an approved Quality Assurance
Project Plan (Quality Assurance Identification Number G-LRPCD-0030037-SR-1 -0). It has been
subjected to the Agency's peer and administrative review and has been approved for publication
as an EPA document. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
2
-------
EPA/60 l/R-18/001
November 2018
Contents
Sustainable Materials Management Options for Construction and Demolition Debris 1
Notice/Disclaimer 2
Foreword 5
Introduction 6
Data Gap Analysis and Damage Case Studies: Risk Analyses from Construction and Demolition Debris
Landfills and Recycling Facilities 6
Best Management Practices to Prevent and Control Hydrogen Sulfide and Reduced Sulfur
Compound Emissions at Landfills that Dispose of Gypsum Drywall 7
Multimedia Environmental Assessment of Existing Materials Management Approaches for
Communities 8
A Comparative Analysis of Life-Cycle Assessment Tools for End-of-Life Materials Management
Systems 8
Methodology to Estimate the Quantity, Composition, and Management of Construction and
Demolition Debris in the United States 9
The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recovery 10
Appendix A: Data Gap Analysis and Damage Case Studies: Risk Analyses from Construction and
Demolition Debris Landfills and Recycling Facilities A-l
Why was the Study Conducted? A-l
How was the Study Conducted? A-l
Impacts of CDD Disposal and Recycling A-2
Key Findings A-3
Case Studies—Damage Assessment A-4
Factors Contributing to CDD Facility Damage A-5
Appendix B: Best Management Practices to Prevent and Control Hydrogen Sulfide and Reduced Sulfur
Compound Emissions at Landfills that Dispose of Gypsum Drywall B-l
Why was the Study Conducted? B-l
How was the Study Conducted? B-2
Key Findings B-2
BMP Framework for H2S Management B-6
Appendix C: Multimedia Environmental Assessment of Existing Materials Management Approaches for
Communities C-l
Why was the Study Conducted? C-l
How was the Study Conducted? C-l
CDD-related LCI Inputs and Considerations C-2
CDD Materials Evaluated C-3
Key Findings C-4
Data Gaps and Areas for Further Research C-4
3
-------
EPA/60 l/R-18/001
November 2018
Appendix D: A Comparative Analysis of Life-Cycle Assessment Tools for End-of-Life Materials
Management Systems D-l
Why was the Study Conducted? D-l
How was the Study Conducted? D-l
Key Findings D-2
Data Gaps and Potential Research Opportunities D-6
Recommendations for Enhancing Existing Tools or Developing New Tools D-6
Appendix E: Methodology to Estimate the Quantity, Composition, and Management of Construction and
Demolition Debris in the United States E-l
Why was the Study Conducted? E-l
How was the Study Conducted? E-2
Methodology E-3
Appendix F: The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recovery F-l
Why was the Study Conducted? F-l
How was the Study Conducted? F-l
Key Findings F-2
Data Gaps and Potential Research Opportunities F-4
EPA Disclaimer F-4
4
-------
EPA/60 l/R-18/001
November 2018
#ord
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA) is charged by Congress with protecting
the Nation's land, air, and water resources. Under a mandate of national environmental laws, the
Agency strives to formulate and implement actions leading to a compatible balance between
human activities and the ability of natural systems to support and nurture life. To meet this
mandate, US EPA's research program is providing data and technical support for solving
environmental problems today and building a science knowledge base necessary to manage our
ecological resources wisely, understand how pollutants affect our health, and prevent or reduce
environmental risks in the future.
The National Risk Management Research Laboratory (NRMRL) within the Office of Research
and Development (ORD) is the Agency's center for investigation of technological and
management approaches for preventing and reducing risks from pollution that threaten human
health and the environment. The focus of the Laboratory's research program is on methods and
their cost-effectiveness for prevention and control of pollution to air, land, water, and subsurface
resources; protection of water quality in public water systems; remediation of contaminated sites,
sediments and ground water; prevention and control of indoor air pollution; and restoration of
ecosystems. NRMRL collaborates with both public and private sector partners to foster
technologies that reduce the cost of compliance and to anticipate emerging problems. NRMRL's
research provides solutions to environmental problems by: developing and promoting
technologies that protect and improve the environment; advancing scientific and engineering
information to support regulatory and policy decisions; and providing the technical support and
information transfer to ensure implementation of environmental regulations and strategies at the
national, state, and community levels.
Cynthia Sonich-Mullin, Director
National Risk Management Research Laboratory
5
-------
EPA/60 l/R-18/001
November 2018
fnt.r "-'m» Lion
Construction and demolition debris (CDD) is a significant component of the solid waste stream in the
United States (US). Depending on estimate methodology, CDD represents between 2301 and 5302
million metric tons of waste generation annually in the US. Regulation of CDD typically occurs at the
state level, leading to a wide range of standards and practices for CDD management across the country.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognizes the significant role of CDD management
in moving towards more sustainable materials management (SMM). The research summarized in this
document is primarily concerned with non-disaster related CDD, and emergency management practices
may differ from scenarios described in this report. This document summarizes the following reports
produced by EPA since 2012 to help practitioners, regulators, and other stakeholders manage CDD in a
manner that is protective of human health and the environment:
• EPA (2012). Data Gap Analysis and Damage Case Studies: Risk Analyses from Construction
and Demolition Debris Landfills and Recycling Facilities. EPA/600/R-13/303
• EPA (2014). Best Management Practices to Prevent and Control Hydrogen Sulfide and Reduced
Sulfur Compound Emissions at Landfills that Dispose of Gypsum Drywall. EPA/600/R-14/039
• EPA (2014). Multimedia Environmental Assessment of Existing Materials Management
Approaches for Communities. EPA/600/R-14/375
• EPA (2015). A Comparative Analysis of Life-Cycle Assessment Tools for End-of-Life Materials
Management Systems. EPA/600/R-15/232
• EPA (2015). Methodology to Estimate the Quantity, Composition, and Management of
Construction and Demolition Debris in the United States. EPA/600/R-15/111
• EPA (2017). The State of the Practice of Construction and Demolition Material Recovery.
EPA/600/R-17/231
The six reports are briefly summarized below. Appendices A through F present expanded summaries of
the reports.
Data Gap Analysis and Damaciv ttidies: Risk Anaf < * rr rm
Construction and Demolitic n f .*lhn II "*if. Jitllh art' HI ,< lm ; duties
This study was conducted to revisit results from a 1995 study by EPA on the impacts of CDD landfills
on groundwater, surface water, and ecological resources. This study involved five steps, the first of
which was a review of state-level CDD disposal and recycling requirements including construction,
operation, and monitoring requirements of CDD disposal facilities. The second step compiled a list of
active CDD disposal and recycling facilities. The third step identified damage cases based on
information provided by state environmental agencies (SEAs). The fourth step included a review of
scientific literature and state datasets to record the extent and types of damage recorded. The final step
was a case study of three CDD management facilities, which have been reported to cause damages, from
1 USEPA (2015a). Methodology to Estimate the Quantity, Composition, and Management of Construction and Demolition
Debris in the United States. EPA/600/R-15/111.
2 USEPA (2015b). Advancing Sustainable Materials Management: Facts and Figures 2013. EPA530-R-15-002.
6
-------
EPA/60 l/R-18/001
November 2018
diverse geographical locations for an in-depth review. Key issues of concern included risks associated
with CDD landfill leachate releases and associated groundwater impacts, odor issues, and landfill fires.
While most states were found to regulate CDD disposal, many did not regulate CDD processing and
recycling. Regulations on construction, operation, and monitoring of CDD disposal varied by state. For
example, 26 states required groundwater monitoring for all CDD landfills, while 11 states required
groundwater monitoring only on a conditional basis. The most frequent violations such as improper
compaction, or insufficient cover soil use found at CDD facilities based on a review of the SEA data are
discussed in the report. A total of 1,540 active CDD disposal facilities and 512 active CDD recycling
facilities were identified for the year 2012.
Groundwater monitoring data for CDD landfills from multiple states were compared to assess the
prevalence of groundwater impacts from these facilities. It was found that in some cases, CDD landfill
leachate may have concentrations higher than leachate from that of municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills.
The three CDD facilities in Florida, California, and Ohio were examined in detail to assess the economic
and environmental impact of CDD management facility damages. Issues included groundwater
exceedances related to leachate, odor issues related to the presence of drywall, and odor and site damage
issues related to landfill fires. Factors identified as contributing to these issues included the insufficient
application of cover soil, a large working face, disposal of prohibited waste, the presence of steep side
slopes, and insufficient liquids control. Remedial measures at these facilities ranged from $4 million to
$6.5 million.
This study provides CDD regulators and site operators with valuable information to reduce damage to
human health and the environment from CDD management facilities. For more information, see
Appendix A.
I t Management Practices to Prevent 'iffc • ,wur o\ II L >h i ulif- le and
Reduc 1 Mliur ' >rn|' mirI mission 'il ndfills that Dispose of
ywall
Hydrogen sulfide (FhS) and reduced sulfur compound emissions are a commonly documented issue at
CDD and MSW landfills and are the principal cause of the odor issues discussed in the Damages Case
Studies report discussed above. FhS emissions represent a risk to human health and safety and have the
potential to corrode equipment used in landfill gas collection, control, and beneficial use. EPA
recognized a need to expand on previous work and provide additional information on FhS formation,
emission, and control at CDD and MSW landfills.
This study involved a review of basic factors contributing to FhS formation in both CDD and MSW
landfills, followed by a review of measures to prevent and control the formation and/or emission of FhS.
Strategies identified to minimize FhS formation included diverting waste that can form FhS, minimizing
water entry into the landfill via operational strategies, and the use of bacterial inhibitors to inhibit
sulfate-reducing bacteria. Strategies to control and treat FhS emissions included leachate management to
minimize off-gassing, cover soil amendment, low permeability capping systems, odor neutralizers, and
landfill gas collection. Because of the danger of high concentrations of FhS and other reduced sulfur
compounds to site workers, the report detailed types of equipment and monitoring strategies for
conducting site investigations to assess the presence of these compounds.
7
-------
EPA/60 l/R-18/001
November 2018
This best management practices (BMP) framework can help regulators and site operators reduce the risk
to human health and the environment posed by H2S emissions. EPA has developed a mobile application
(H2S Less) to estimate H2S generation rates as a function of landfill characteristics (such as waste
placement rate, years of operation, and drywall content). This application also includes information on
reducing and controlling H2S generation. For more information on this report, and the app, see the
summary of this report in Appendix B.
Multimec'i IF rr«'ir mm :vfh 'I sessmem , j IF, isting Materials Management
Approacl es
EPA's goal of this research was to provide state and local decision-makers with data and tools to enable
them to integrate environmental, societal, and economic factors into decisions to help communities
achieve sustainability. Life cycle assessments (LCAs) provide a tool to analyze the impacts of these
decisions. LCAs use an underlying set of quantitative inputs and outputs associated with a materials
management strategy known as a life cycle inventory (LCI) to assess the impact of a strategy. This study
provides a series of US-specific LCIs that quantify the inputs and outputs of different CDD materials
management pathways.
While LCAs often neglect to include the end-of-life (EOL) phase of a material's life cycle, this study
provided necessary data to include this phase. The primary material management pathways for which
LCIs were developed in this study included landfilling and, when applicable, recycling, combustion, and
composting. Some of the major impacts quantified in this study for most materials included the impacts
of electricity, fuel, and consumable materials used in recycling or landfilling. Some major impacts from
landfilling included landfill construction and operation impacts from equipment use and material use, as
well as emissions from leachate and landfill gas generation and management. Some of the LCIs
produced in this study included material production to quantify the impact of recycled material replacing
virgin material.
These LCIs provide a foundation for LCA work on the EOL phase of several CDD materials, which can
be used by state and community level decision makers in SMM planning. For more information, see
Appendix C.
1 ' ~rnp i tive Analyst Lsi a "• y:U%, > ^ssrnent Tool; i *r II" rrd-of-Ut-
Materials Management terns
Many of the decisions on strategies for the management of MSW and CDD are made at the local
community level. EPA recognizes a need for tools that can be used by decision-makers to characterize
the social, economic, and environmental impacts associated with solid wastes typically managed by
communities. This report reviewed 29 LCA software tools and identified five that could provide
insight into the EOL phase of materials management. These tools, which model the impacts of various
materials management and disposal strategies, included three U.S.-specific tools, Waste Reduction
Model (WARM), Municipal Solid Waste Decision Support Tool (MSW-DST), and Solid Waste
Optimization Life-Cycle Framework (SWOLF); and two European tools, Waste and Resources
Assessment Tool for the Environment (WRATE), and Environmental Assessment System for
Environmental Technologies (EASETECH).
8
-------
EPA/60 l/R-18/001
November 2018
This study evaluates the features of these five tools by modeling a series of materials management
scenarios that are of interest to local solid waste decision makers, including changes to collection and
management strategies for bulk or specific components of the solid waste stream. The tools were
compared based on features and flexibility to model these scenarios.
Comparing the results of these models was challenging due to the use of different impact methods,
starting assumptions, and solid waste material category definitions. Community decision makers can see
examples of the types of results they could obtain using each of the tools and potentially select a tool
that best matches their scenarios and conditions of interest. No one tool could model all the scenarios,
and two scenarios could not be modeled in any of the tools. Two of the tools were able to evaluate the
economic impacts of the different scenarios.
Each of the tools offers a unique set of features that a community decision maker may find valuable in
solid waste management planning. This report provides a guide to the features, and limitations of each
tool, and their relevance to model scenarios of interest to local communities. For more information,
see Appendix D.
Methodol n ~ If" urn ttr1 r^anm.. ¦' « Stion, and Management of
Construction arte" lb' molitich P. IUfi in tili Unit , i vies
The ability to estimate the amount of CDD generated is essential to develop and implement SMM plans.
EPA estimates CDD generation through a materials flow analysis (MFA) approach. This study provides
and evaluates an alternative estimation methodology that incorporates measured CDD generation
reported by several states—coupled with indicators for CDD generation for states that do not report
CDD generation—and municipal solid waste CDD composition data reported at the state and regional
scale to estimate nationwide CDD generation. In addition, this methodology uses trade organization data
to estimate asphalt pavement from large infrastructure projects that are not captured by the CDD
facilities reported data.
After testing multiple indicators, statewide building permits data were found to best correlate to CDD
disposal of the states reporting annual disposal data the coefficient of correlation for individual year
ranged from an r2 of 0.82 to 0.93. In addition, data from the National Asphalt Pavement Association
(NAPA) on recycled asphalt pavement (RAP) generation and recovery was incorporated to capture some
CDD generation from infrastructure projects. No reliable methodology to estimate recycled concrete
aggregate from large infrastructure projects, or for land clearing debris, was identified.
This study provides an example estimate of CDD generation based on the proposed methodology, which
used data reported by eight states to estimate CDD generation in states that do not report CDD data. The
methodology was used to estimate that a total of 154 million tons of CDD was managed at
permitted/registered facilities in 2011. Twenty-eight percent of this estimate represents measured data,
with the remaining 72 percent coming from data extrapolated from building permit data. Seventeen
percent of the overall generation figure represents facility-measured disposal, and 11 percent of the overall
generation represents facility-measured recycling amounts.
This methodology provides additional useful information to SMM planners at the national and regional
levels on the generation, disposal, and recovery of CDD materials. For a more detailed summary of this
report, see Appendix E.
9
-------
EPA/60 l/R-18/001
November 2018
The Stale of the Practice of Constructs :ir >11 i°! II- > ?molition Materi If l-> covery
Many of the materials in the CDD stream can provide substantial environmental, economic, and social
benefits when recovered. This study provides insights to communities on the state of the practice of
CDD material recovery, including the process, opportunities, and recovery challenges. This report
examines how different CDD materials are managed, key factors that influence CDD recovery, and key
environmental and human-health considerations associated with CDD recovery.
The report discusses CDD recovery methods, which vary depending on the material and the recovery
strategy. CDD recovery is typically a multi-step process, which begins with a material recovery
facility that separates mixed CDD into individual material categories. Once separated, these materials
may be sold "as is" to material brokers (i.e., scrap metal) or further processed (e.g., aggregate crushing
and screening) to increase material value. CDD may be source-segregated at the job site, through
demolition with selective material recovery or deconstruction, allowing for reuse with less effort
expended on sorting or processing the material after removal from the site. The CDD recovery is
primarily dictated by the availability of end-markets. Other factors including transportation costs,
tipping fees for disposal and recovery facilities, labor requirements, and public and corporate policies
such as disposal bans, disposal taxes, and green building certifications also influence CDD recovery.
This report discusses material-specific factors such as reuse markets and regulations that impact the
recovery rates for several CDD materials.
Care must be taken to properly manage materials that could pose a risk to human and environmental
health. Though the use of many of these materials (such as asbestos, lead, or polychlorinated biphenyls)
has been reduced, banned, or discontinued, these may appear in CDD materials generated from older
buildings. Policy guidance on the proper management of these materials is available from several states
such as Minnesota and Florida. Proper training, equipment and best practices are critical to ensuring
appropriate recovery.
The recovery of CDD is an important part of SMM. This study provides important insights on CDD
recovery, factors that influence recovery rate, and risks to human health and the environment. For more
information, see a further summary of this report attached in Appendix F.
10
-------
EPA/60 l/R-18/001
November 2018
Appendix A: Data Gap Analysis and Damage Case Studies: Risk
Analyses from Construction and Demolition Debris Landfills and
Recycling Facilities
Why was the Study Conducted?
Construction and demolition debris (CDD) represents a major
component of the non-hazardous solid waste stream in the United
States (U.S.). In 1995, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) conducted studies of CDD to understand the impacts of CDD
landfills on groundwater, surface water, and ecological resources.
In 2012, US EPA published this study to review data that have
emerged since 1995 including changes in CDD composition and CDD
management, regulations for CDD facilities promulgated by the states,
and scientific community's understanding of actual or potential risks,
to develop a better understanding of the damages from CDD landfills
and recycling facilities with respect to groundwater and surface water
impacts as well as air emissions and fires.
CDD and MSW are generated in similar quantities. Unlike MSW,
there are no federal regulation for CDD disposal. The information in
this report could be helpful to state regulators and CDD facility
owners, operators, and their consultants in identifying and/or
implementing best management practices in CDD facilities.
How was the Study Conducted?
Step 1: Reviewed local CDD disposal- and recycling-related
practices with the focus on the nature and extent of each region's requirements for construction
(e.g., bottom liner installation), operation (e.g., cover soil application) and monitoring (e.g.,
groundwater quality analysis).
Step 2: Compiled a nationwide inventory of active CDD disposal and recycling facilities based on data
provided by the state environmental agencies (SEAs); identified 1,540 active CDD disposal
facilities and 512 CDD recycling facilities.
Step 3: Identify damage cases based on data/information provided by SEAs; identified 44 damage
cases across 17 states, covering eight of ten US EPA regions.
Step 4: Reviewed scientific literature and statewide datasets to record the extent and types of damages
observed.
Step 5: Selected three CDD management facilities from different geographical locations for in-depth
review based on site information availability, and primary damage type(s). For each of the
three sites, compiled information on operations, environmental damage, applicable regulatory
and/or remedial actions, and historical monitoring.
Data Gap Analysis and Damage
Case Studies: Risk Analyses from
Construction and Demolition
Debris Landfills and Recycling
Facilities
Tolaymat, T. Data Gap Analysis and
Damage Case Studies: Risk Analyses
from Construction and Demolition
Debris Landfill and Recycling
Facilities. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
EPA/600/R-13/303,2012.
A-l
-------
EPA/60 l/R-18/001
November 2018
Impacts of COD Disposal and Recycling
Studies conducted by US EPA in the mid-1990s related damage at CDD
disposal to management at CDD disposal facilities that resulted in
groundwater, surface water, and ecological impacts. In contrast, this study
defines a damage case CDD site, which had one or more of the following
concerns: groundwater impacts, leachate release, recurring odor and fire
issues, or other issues that impact the human health and the environment.
It should be noted that this discussion is limited to non-disaster related
waste generation.
DISTRIBUTION OF
ACTIVE C&D
LANDFILLS ACROSS
THE U.S. (2012)
10
STATES
tiii.
Leachate Releases and Groundwater Impacts: The
absence or malfunction of a liner/leachate collection system
may lead to the migration of leachate into the groundwater.
Disposed CDD may contain and leach contaminants that
may cause human health impacts, such as lead (from paint,
flashing), mercury (from lighting, electrical switches),
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) (from light ballasts,
paints) and arsenic from cbromated copper arsenate-treated
wood. Biogeochemical changes associated with landfill
development may lead to mobilization of natively
occurring contaminants (e.g., iron, and arsenic release from
reductive dissolution) and impact groundwater quality.
Odor Issues: The disposal of
gypsum drywall within the
moist and oxygen-depleted
environment of a landfill can
lead to the formation of H:S.
ITS causes odor issues and
nuisance and potential health
concerns to surrounding residents.
STATES
STATES
<3
3-10
11-50
51-100
100 +
Fires: CDD landfills are more susceptible to a major landfill
fire compared to other types of landfills. These fires can result
from deposition of smoldering waste loads or by spontaneous
combustion, causing hazards for onsite workers and emitting
air pollutants. The bulky nature of CDD, infrequent cover soil
application, and formation of steep slopes may all contribute to fires development.
Moreover, applying water to remediate fires can impact the amount and quality of the
leachate and promote the production of more H2S. Fires may cause additional emission
of pollutants with potential impacts to human health and the environment both through
air emissions and leachate generation.
A-2
-------
EPA/60 l/R-18/001
November 2018
Key Findings
STATE REGULATIONS
State and local governments are the primary planning, regulating, and implementing entities for the
management of nonhazardous solid waste, including CDD. While most states regulate CDD disposal
activities, only some regulate CDD recycling and processing activities. A state may exempt specific
CDD materials (e.g., clean concrete rubble, land clearing debris) from solid waste public policy
directives to allow more flexible end-of-life management options and promote CDD recovery and
recycling. Several states exclusively exempt source-segregated CDD materials from the solid waste
regulations to promote their recovery and recycling.
CDD FACILITY OPERATIONS
Requirements for the design, siting, permitting, construction, and operation of CDD management
facilities vary from no requirements to mandatory ones. Twenty-six states require groundwater
monitoring for all CDD landfills, while 11 states require groundwater monitoring on a conditional basis
(i.e., based on landfill size, location). An engineered liner with a leachate collection system is required
in 17 states. The application of cover material, at least weekly, on the landfill's active face, is required
by 26 states' regulations.
The most frequent violations cited at active CDD landfills included improper compaction; insufficient cover
soil use; and permit non-compliance. Some damages are related to non-compliance with permits, while
others are unrelated to compliance (i.e., they could have occurred even if facilities complied with permits).
ECONOMIC IMPACTS
Remedial measures for the damages caused by CDD management facilities can be significant, ranging
from $4 million to $6.5 million.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Data for more than 400 parameters from 91 sites in Florida were analyzed to assess the impacts to
groundwater from CDD disposal facilities. Iron, aluminum, phenols, total dissolved solids, arsenic, and
ammonia showed at least one exceedance above the respective Florida groundwater clean-up target level
at a downgradient monitoring well at more than half of landfills analyzed. The quality of untreated
leachate reported for CDD landfills in Ohio, Maryland, and Wisconsin were summarized. For Ohio
landfills, the CDD landfill leachate quality was found to be comparable to that of MSW landfill leachate,
and for some parameters the measured concentrations were higher than MSW landfills.
SITES EXCEEDING FLORIDA GROUNDWATER CLEAN-UP TARGET LEVEL
Greater
than
50%
r
93%
91%
L J
L J
Iron
Aluminum
Phenols Total Dissolved Arsenic
Solids
Ammonia
Up to 50%
Up to 40%
Up to 30%
tm
mi
Sulfate • 49%
Benzene • 37% Lead • 35% Vinyl Chloride • 34% Sodium •
33%
Nitrate • 30% | Dibromochloromethane • 29% | Cadmium • 25% | Dissolved Iron • 23%
1,1,2,2-Tetrachloroethane • 23% | Methylene Chloride (Dichloromethane) • 22%
Chromium • 21% Mercury • 21%
A-3
-------
EPA/60 l/R-18/001
November 2018
Case Studies—Damage Assessment
In-depth examination of three specific CDD disposal and recycling sites led US EPA to confirm findings
from previous evaluations, while helping further understand the confluence of factors that can lead to
damage. Moreover, the examination found that permit non-compliance was not the only contributor to
the damage issues observed at each site; issues still occurred even if the facility operated in compliance
with its permit.
SAUFLEY LANDFILLE (FLORIDA)
Ammonia, iron, and manganese exceeded groundwater clean-up target levels, as the
f , landfill was not constructed with a bottom liner or leachate collection system, while built
in a hydrogeologic setting that is not expected to slow leachate percolation to the
groundwater.
Presence of drywall, percolation of moisture into the waste (especially due to water use in
fire- fighting), and recurring non-compliance on cover soil application caused the
formation of H2S and thus odor issues.
The presence of steep slopes, substantial amounts of waste accepted, and failure to
appropriately compact the waste contributed to the formation of fires at the site.
ARCHIE CRIPPEN EXCAVATION SITE (CALIFORNIA)
Damage incurred at the site included the hazard of a large, uncontrolled fire, along with
emissions of particulate matter into the surrounding neighborhood. A lesson learned was
the storage of stockpiled woody CDD should follow procedures consistent with the
National Fire Protection Association code for outside storage of forest products (e.g., pile
turnover times and size, temperature, water supply, and access roads)..
WARREN RECYCLING LANDFILL (OHIO)
The facility had an unlined cell as well as cells with improperly functioning leachate
collection systems, thus, both conditions contributed to the groundwater impacts, along
with permit non-compliance..
Acceptance of gypsum drywall led to the formation of odor-causing H2S. H2S emissions
were exacerbated by an improperly functioning leachate collection system (leading to
leachate build-up) and the acceptance of pulverized CDD (increasing the reactive surface
area of the gypsum).
J-.M
A-4
-------
EPA/60 l/R-18/001
November 2018
Factors Contributing to CDD Facility Damage
The observed damages that occurred were attributed to the following:
RESULTING ISSUES
Insufficient Application of Cover Soil - lack of adequate cover
soil increases air intrusion into the landfill and thus increasing the
likelihood of a subsurface fire. Subsurface fires can increase the
generation of leachate and associated risk to groundwater. Cover
soil helps to limit the release of odors.
m
Large Working Face - a large working face increases the amount
of rain and air that can enter the waste and potentially increase
leachate and odor emission.
Disposal of Prohibited Waste - disposal of prohibited waste (e.g.,
MSW, industrial waste) can negatively impact groundwater
quality.
Presence of Steep Side Slopes - steep side slopes can lead to poor
waste compaction, increased air entry into the waste, and an
increased potential for fires.
Insufficient Liquids Control - ponded liquids and wet conditions
encourage the growth of bacteria that produce H2S. Standing
pools of leachate increase the possibility of leachate discharges
into nearby surface water bodies.
#
AS
-------
EPA/60 l/R-18/001
November 2018
Appendix B: Best Management Practices to Prevent and Control
Hydrogen Sulfide and Reduced Sulfur Compound Emissions at
Landfills that Dispose of Gypsum Drywall
Why was the Study Conducted?
Hydrogen sulfide (H2S) gas emission has been a widely documented
issue at both construction and demolition debris (CDD) and municipal
solid waste (MSW) landfills, due to its odor potential, risk to human
health and safety, and potential to corrode equipment used in landfill
gas (LFG) collection, control, and beneficial use. The disposal of sulfur-
containing materials such as gypsum drywall, wastewater treatment
plant sludge, or other sulfur-containing industrial wastes has been
attributed to IT2S emissions at landfills, and addressing related problems
can be time- and cost-intensive for landfill owners and operators.
H2S is slightly denser than air and may accumulate in enclosed, poorly
ventilated, and low-lying areas. It is a poisonous, flammable, and
colorless gas. Once released, it can remain in the environment from 18
hours to 42 days, typically persisting longer in cold weather. In the
atmosphere, H2S transforms into sulfur dioxide (SO2) and/ or sulfuric
acid (H2SO4).
H2S has a detectable rotten-egg-like odor at low concentrations
(approximately 8 parts per billion, (ppb). At concentrations ranging
between 2 to 20 ppm, it can cause a variety of negative health effects,
including breathing problems (in people with asthma), eye irritation,
tiredness, dizziness, irritability, poor memory, and loss of appetite. At
higher H2S concentrations (approximately 100 ppm with a 2 to 15-
minute exposure), humans may lose the ability to detect an odor and
may experience respiratory distress (>400 ppm) and even death due to respiratory failure (>500 ppm).
Thus, odor is not always a reliable indicator of the presence of H2S and may not provide adequate
warning of hazardous concentrations.
A previous effort by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA)3 focused on
practices that help control H2S emission from CDD landfills in Ohio that accepted pulverized gypsum
debris. The US EPA Office of Research and Development, in coordination with US EPA Region 5,
commissioned this study to expand on the scope of the previous work, with the goal of including the
current body of knowledge available on the H2S formation, emission, and control at both CDD and
MSW landfills; H2S measurements reported from laboratory and field case studies; and updated best
management practices (BMPs).
tra/MOR 1«0M ' AoguU »14 ««
Best Management Practices to
Prevent and Control Hydrogen
Sulfide and Reduced Sulfur
Compound Emissions at
Landfills That Dispose of
Gypsum Drywall
Best Management Practices to
Prevent and Control Hydrogen
Sulfide and Reduced Sulfur
Compound Emissions at Landfills
that Dispose of Gypsum Drywall.
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC,
EPA/600/R-14/039,2014.
3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2006b). Management practices to prevent and control hydrogen sulfide
gas emissions at CDD debris landfills which dispose of pulverized gypsum debris in Ohio.
B-l
-------
EPA/60 l/R-18/001
November 2018
How was the Study Conducted?
Knowledge of the factors that contribute to the H2S formation in a landfill is essential to identify
strategies to effectively control its formation and emission. Therefore, first, a review of the basic factors
contributing to H2S formation and emissions at CDD and MSW landfill was conducted, followed by an
extensive literature review to identify the H2S measurements reported for MSW and CDD landfill at
various measurement locations (e.g., LFG, landfill surface, and landfill vicinity). The human health and
safety thresholds used by different organizations (e.g., Occupational Safety and Health Administration
(OSHA), Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, US EPA) for H2S were identified and used
to assess the impact of the reported H2S measurements. Information regarding production and emission
of other reduced sulfur compounds was summarized.
Second, a review of measures to prevent and control the formation and/or emission of H2S from CDD
and MSW landfill was conducted. Technologies to treat LFG to reduce H2S concentrations were
identified and summarized. Considerations and approaches for site investigation and monitoring
techniques for H2S were presented. Finally, a framework that landfill owners and operators can use to
develop a BMP guide for their facility was developed based on the data and insights gained .
Key Findings
h2s regulatory standards
Currently, there are no enforceable federal standards for offsite H2S gas emissions from landfills, or H2S
monitoring requirements specific to landfills. Some US EPA regions and states have developed or
adopted H2S air quality standards. The health effects due to H2S exposure have led to the development of
H2S workplace standards, which are typically expressed as a concentration and referenced to an
exposure time limit. Acute Exposure Guideline Levels for H2S have been developed, and are intended to
describe the risk to humans that would result from a rare exposure to airborne chemicals.
FORMATION, EMISSION, AND MEASUREMENT OF H2S AT MSW AND CDD LANDFILLS
FI2S in a landfill is primarily generated
through the reduction of sulfate (SO ")
in an oxygen-depleted environment of
a landfill. Sulfate containing waste
(e.g., gypsum dry wall, recovered
screened materials which is mostly
unrecognizable material resulting from
CDD processing), biodegradable
organic matter, and moisture are the
primary inputs to the reaction that
coverts sulfate to H2S. Organic matter
present in CDD materials (e.g., drywall
paper backing) is adequate to sustain
the reaction in CDD landfill. The rate
of H2S generation is impacted by other
factors such as pFI, temperature,
moisture, and the particle size of sulfate-containing materials.
Flux Chamber
Jerome Meter
Flow Meter
Thermometer
B-2
-------
EPA/60 l/R-18/001
November 2018
Once formed, H2S migrates through
pore space and is captured by the
active LFG collection and control
system (if installed) or emitted into
the atmosphere and dispersed
offsite with the ambient air. Factors
such as type and frequency of cover
soil application, as well as ambient
conditions, may inflate emission of
H2S from landfills. H2S may react
with other materials (e.g., concrete)
or cover soil present in a landfill
and may be oxidized into a non-
odorous compound. This can lead
to lower levels of H2S in surface emissions compared to measurements taken below the cover. At
unlined landfills, H2S may migrate into the soil and impact groundwater. At a landfill, Ii2S
concentrations may be measured at distinct locations:
LFG (header pipe, well, or soil vapor probe): Concentrations measured at these locations would be
expected to be the highest measured H2S levels at a landfill, as there is limited dilution with
atmospheric air.
Landfill Surface: Measurements at the landfill surface are typically conducted anywhere from just
above the surface, to the normal breathing zone, depending on the goals of monitoring and the
instrument used
Ambient Air/Landfill Vicinity: Measurements in ambient air are typically conduced to measure the
concentration of FhS that may be present at the landfill's perimeter, property boundary, or even offsite.
Although dilution with ambient air can significantly reduce FkS concentrations with increasing distance
from the landfill, the reported measurements suggest the potential for detecting I I2S at concentrations
above nuisance odor, and human health thresholds exist both at and beyond the landfill property boundary.
In general, the reported H2S measurements range widely (e.g., the reported MSW landfill gas H2S
concentration ranges over 7 orders of magnitude). The upper end of the reported landfill gas H2S
measurements at MSW landfills (-14,000 parts per million volume, (ppmv) are comparable to those
reported for LFG at CDD landfills (-18,000 ppmv). High H2S emissions impact the design and operation
of projects where LFG is captured for beneficial use and may have implications for Title V permitted
SOx emission limits in some cases. H2S measurements above 100 ppmv, which is OSFTA's "immediately
dangerous to life and health" threshold for H2S, have been reported at CDD landfill surfaces.
Along with ILS, landfills may emit other malodorous reduced sulfur compounds, such as methyl
mercaptan, isopropyl mercaptan, isobutyl mercaptan, dimethyl sulfur, dimethyl disulfide, dimethyl
trisulfide, carbonyl sulfide, carbon disulfide, and tert-butyl mercaptan. These reduced sulfur compounds
are present at low concentrations in comparison to FLS, and in most cases, just the measurement of FLS
can provide enough information regarding the presence and magnitude of other reduced sulfur
compounds at a landfill
Landfill Gas
Concentration
LFG Well Soil Vapor
/ _ Probe
landfill Surface
Concentrations
Flare/Energy
System
Ambient Air
Concentration
LFG Header
Pipe /
| Landfill
Perimeter
Leachate collection system (if present)
Leachate Collection
System Sump
B-3
-------
EPA/60 l/R-18/001
November 2018
STRATEGIES TO PREVENT AND/OR MINIMIZE H2S FORMATION
Waste Diversion: H;S generation can be controlled by diverting gypsum dry wall from landfills and
limiting sulfate content of the recovered screened materials accepted by landfill. Communities have used
strategies such as banning drywall landfill disposal, charging an additional fee for accepting drywall,
enhancing drywall recovery and recycling, or a combination of these to achieve drywall diversion.
Minimizing Water Entry: The amount of water entering the landfill can be minimized by reducing the
working face of the landfill, grading the working face and surface to promote stormwater runoff, and
using specific types of daily/intermediate cover.
Bacterial Inhibitors: In laboratory-scale studies, the use of bacterial inhibitors such as nitrate, chlorate,
perchlorate, and molybdenum has been shown to reduce H2S emission by inhibiting the growth of
sulfate-reducing bacteria. Additional research is necessary to evaluate the applicability of these
chemicals at the field scale, as well as their impacts on leachate and groundwater quality.
H2S EMISSION CONTROL AND TREATMENT METHODS
Leachate Management. Leachate can be a significant source of H:S off-gassing; therefore, preventing
leachate accumulation on the landfill surface and in leachate control infrastructure such as sumps,
cleanout pipes, and tanks can help reduced H2S emission. Leachate can be treated with an oxidizing
agent to convert H2S and other odorous reduced sulfur compounds into sulfate or elemental sulfur.
Cover soil. Cover soils can be amended with materials such as fertilizer, coal ash, compost, concrete
fines, Fuller's earth (clay-like material), lime, steel tire shreds, and metallic filter materials, to control
H2S emission. These materials potentially can react with and reduce the amount of H2S released into the
atmosphere.
Capping Systems. Low permeability landfill caps help control H:S generation by minimizing moisture
(e.g., rainfall, snowmelt) infiltration into the landfill and controlling H2S emissions from the landfill.
Odor Neutralizes. Several chemicals such as bleach, sodium bicarbonate, and amines can be applied at
or near the working face or at the site perimeter to neutralize the H2S odor.
LFG Collection. H:S emissions can be controlled with an active or passive LFG collection and control
system. The collected LFG may need to be treated to lower H2S content if it is to be beneficially used, as
H2S results in corrosion to equipment and the combustion process can result in S02 emissions. Several
different treatment technologies such as liquid treatments (used with scrubbers), solid treatments (e.g.,
activated carbon, iron sponges, ash) and oxidizing agents, which may be used to reduce the H2S content
of LFG, are described in the report.
B-4
-------
EPA/60 l/R-18/001
November 2018
SITE INVESTIGATION AND MONITORING FOR H2S
Site investigations may occur as
part of routine operations or in
response to an odor complaint.
As H2S has a low odor
threshold, the detection of odors
by site personnel may serve as
an initial indication of H2S
emissions at a site.
However, higher concentrations
are dangerous to personnel, and ¦ n
may not be detectable because
of the olfactory paralysis that
can occur. Thus, various
instruments that detect H2S over
a range of concentrations and for a variety of purposes (e.g., assessing human exposure levels,
measuring concentrations at distinct locations) may be used. The report presents considerations for site
investigation and H2S monitoring. The applications and limitations of several measurement techniques
for various monitoring purposes (e.g., human exposure levels, measurement in confined spaces, landfill
gas or ambient air) are described.
MOBILE APPLICATION
The US EPA developed a mobile application (ff;SLess) to estimate the H2S
generation rate as a function of the waste placement rate, years of operation of
the landfill, the drywall content of waste placed in the landfill and the woody
debris content of waste paced in the landfill. The application provides operating
strategies for reducing and controlling IT2S generation and emissions based on
the guidance provided in this report. The mobile app is available for free for
both Apple and Android operating systems.
O About This App
About This App
This app was developed as a part of an
effort with the US EPA Region 5 and the US
EPA Office of Research & Development
The data outputs from this app are
intended to be used for information
purposes only as a screening tool. The
best management practices listed were
based on the US EPA Publication "Best
Management Practices to Control H2S
Emissions from Landfills that Accept
Gypsum Drywall " Additional background
B-5
-------
EPA/60 l/R-18/001
November 2018
BMP Framework for H2S Management
The development of a site-specific BMP guide allows landfill owners and operators to understand the
specific issues and challenges associated with H2S, provide the landfill operators with documentation
that can be used to address the H2S emissions, and provide direction to landfill staff to promptly
observe, document, and manage the issues encountered with the H2S emissions. The efficacy of the
BMP guide should be periodically evaluated or audited to ensure the guide matches up with the needs of
the site, as operating needs and conditions at landfills may change frequently.
The report proposes a framework for developing such a guide has been proposed, and consists of four
main steps.
IDENTIFY BMP
OBJECTIVES
DESCRIBE H2S
MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES
PERFORM
CORRECTIVE
ACTION
INTERNAL AUDIT
AND FEEDBACK
LOOP
Step 1: Identify
Step 2: Describe the
Step 3: Identify
Step 4:
the objective of
mitigation and
corrective actions
Perform periodic
the BMP guide,
management
and related
internal audits
such as reducing
practices to control
implementation
and provide
offsite odors or
H2S generation and
strategies for
provisions to
cleaning- up
emission. Consider
circumstances
update the BMP
landfill gas for an
how to monitor and
where H2S at
guide if needed,
energy project.
keep record of H2S
levels above
accommodating
emissions. Identify
thresholds are
changes in the
responsible parties
encountered.
conditions and
and communication
operations of the
lines. This step
landfill.
identifies thresholds
that would trigger
corrective action(s)
if H2S measurements
above the thresholds
are identified.
B-6
-------
EPA/60 l/R-18/001
November 2018
Appendix C: Multimedia Environmental Assessment of Existing
Materials Management Approaches for Communities
Why was the Study Conducted?
Waste and materials management decisions have been identified as
one of the key factors in implementing sustainable practices. The
United States (U.S.) Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) goal
as part of this research is to empower state and local decision-makers
with data and tools that enable them to integrate environmental,
societal, and economic factors into their decisions, thus helping
communities achieve sustainability.
Life cycle assessment (LCA) can be used as a tool for analyzing the
impacts of a material over its entire life cycle. An important
component of an LCA is the underlying life cycle inventory (LCI),
where quantitative inputs and outputs associated with the management
of a material (e.g., energy, material properties, emissions) are
compiled.
Construction and demolition debris (CDD) originates from the
construction, renovation, repair, and demolition of structures such as
residential and commercial buildings, roads, and bridges. While
several tools exist to model end-of-life (EOL) management for
municipal solid waste (MSW) management, CDD management has
largely been excluded from existing LCA tools.
Due to the lack of data for this large stream of material, US EPA's Office of Research and Development
identified CDD management pathways, and then developed LCI datasets for the most dominant CDD
materials. The CDD materials studied included concrete, wood, asphalt pavement, land clearing debris,
asphalt shingles, gypsum drywall, recovered screened material (i.e., mostly unrecognizable material
resulting from CDD processing), and clay bricks, which collectively represent the bulk of CDD
generated annually in the U.S. These LCI datasets are intended to complement the existing US EPA LCI
database, which includes information for a variety of processes and services (e.g., natural resource
extraction, manufacturing, energy production, and transportation).
How was the Study Conducted?
Typically, LCA studies focus on building materials either from extraction of feedstock to the point of
sale (cradle-to-gate), or in their service phase (while in active use). However, the EOL phase— which
begins when the material is removed from service — is often neglected. Thus, the main-focus of this
study is specific for the EOL phase. In addition, if materials were recycled in a closed-loop process (e.g.,
reclaimed asphalt pavement used for asphalt pavement production), then the upstream processes (e.g.,
raw material extraction and processing) were considered. Upstream processes were considered in some
open-loop recycling cases. For example, dimensional lumber recycled into particle board or concrete
recycled as road-base aggregate would include consideration of upstream processes associated with
primary wood or aggregate production.
AEPA
Multimedia Environmental
Assessment ofExist in g Materials
Management Approaches for
Communities. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington,
DC, EPA/600/R-14/375, 2014.
Multimedia Environmental Assessment of
Existing Materials Management Approaches
for Communities
c-i
-------
EPA/60 l/R-18/001
November 2018
U.S.-specific LCI datasets for EOL management for CDD, such as landfilling, processing (i.e., typically
involving a separation step and/or size reduction), recycling, combustion, and composting were
developed for the targeted CDD materials. Peer-reviewed literature and publicly available government
and industry publications were reviewed to identify EOL management pathways. Both domestic and
international LCA models, which included CDD material management and (if available) associated LCI
data, were reviewed to find the primary source of the data for inclusion and/or validation of the study-
developed datasets. If sufficient data on a process were not available or a given CDD management
practice was not used, a related LCI was not compiled. This study identified data gaps pertaining to
CDD LCI, thus identifying areas needing further research.
CDD-rela mis and Considerations
Transportation: Emissions associated with transportation are often normalized by expressing in terms
of ton-miles (amount of material multiplied by the shipment distance) for a given transport type,
providing a single measure of the overall demand for freight transportation services.
Electricity: Many CDD management processes require electricity for operation, where electricity
consumption is correlated with the amount of material handled by the process.
Fuel Combustion in Equipment: CDD management processes require the use of heavy equipment for
a variety of tasks (e.g., material loading/unloading, sorting, on-site transport).
Other Fuel Combustion Applications: Several processes—other than equipment operation—require the
combustion of other fuels (e.g., gasoline, natural gas, residual fuel oil), such as natural gas fired at a hot
mix asphalt plant.
Operations & Maintenance (O&M) Consumables: In addition to direct emissions, emissions
associated with the production and use of O&M consumables (e.g. lubricating oils, filters, drilling fluids,
belts) are considered.
Aggregates and Soil: Several CDD materials incorporate aggregates to increase load-bearing capacity
(e.g., asphalt pavement). The practice of reusing these materials eliminates the need to produce an
equivalent quantity of primary aggregates, and it is, therefore, necessary in understanding the fuel-
related and non-fuel-related emissions from primary aggregate production.
Landfilling: The materials and energy inputs and emissions associated with landfill construction, waste
placement and compaction, and closure/post-closure activities, along with the long-term liquids and
gaseous emissions from the decomposition of deposited materials, need to be considered.
Landfill Leachate Emissions: Leach ate emissions are caused by the release of elements in the waste
materials themselves, resulting in waste-specific emissions. Due to the relative lack of data on emissions
from individual waste components, models and/or databases often do not handle leachate emissions on a
waste-specific basis but based on assumptions of leachate composition from mixed waste streams (e.g.,
MSW leachate). Where available, material-specific leaching data are used in this report.
Landfill Gas Emissions: As compared to MSW, CDD typically have smaller quantities of readily
biodegradable wastes, so there is less gas production. However, CDD landfill sites experience the
generation of hydrogen sulfide (H2S), produced typically from decay of sulfur-containing wastes (e.g.,
gypsum drywall). Since gas production rates are expected to be low at CDD landfills, there is no federal
requirement for active gas collection and control at these sites, and treatment systems based on
combustion can be challenging due to the small amount of gas produced.
C-2
-------
EPA/60 l/R-18/001
November 2018
CDD Materials Evaluated
Asphalt Pavement: Asphalt pavement is constructed in multiple layers: top surface,
intermediate, and base. The top two layers typi cally consist of approximately 95%
aggregate and 5% asphalt. Aggregates used for asphalt pavement production may
include gravel, sand, and crushed stone. Crushed stone may include various rock types
such as limestone, dolomite, and granite. Asphalt pavements are routinely rehabilitated,
resurfaced, and reconstructed due to surface wearing overtime. Once removed, asphalt
pavement, which is the second largest component of CDD in the US, may be recycled or
disposed of. Recycling most commonly includes introduction into new asphalt or use as
an aggregate in a fill application.
Asphalt Shingles: Asphalt shingles are more commonly used over other roofing
alternatives (e.g., wood, tile, slate, and metal) due to their lower material and
installation cost and superior durability. The sources of discarded shingles are post-
manufacturing and post-consumer (i.e., from construction, renovation, and demolition
activities). Discarded shingles are transported either to a landfill for disposal or to a
processing facility and eventually primarily used for asphalt pavement production.
Gypsum Drywall: Gypsum drywall (referred to as gypsum board, wallboard, or
plasterboard), typically manufactured and sold as sheets or panels, is widely used as an
interior wall and ceiling fitting in residential, commercial, and institutional structures.
Primary mined, by-product, and recycled gypsum are all input streams used for gypsum
drywall manufacture. Drywall sheet-fitting generates scraps that are often free of tarnish
or paint. Drywall that is recovered for recycling is typically taken to drywall processing
facilities where contaminants are removed, and gypsum is separated from the paper
backing. The processed drywall can be recycled in closed loop (e.g., new drywall
manufacturing) or open loop (e.g., soil amendment) applications.
Wood: Wood is one of the third largest components of CDD in the U.S. CDD wood is
typically landfilled in the US. It can be size-reduced to produce mulch or combusted
for energy recovery. The reuse of recovered CDD wood in new construction or
renovation or for manufacturing new wood products is limited in the U.S.
Land Clearing Debris (LCD): LCD is comprised of tree tops, branches, and stumps
and can include materials such as soil, rocks, and shrubs resulting from vegetation
removal for building/ infrastructure construction and land development. LCD can be
combusted onsite or as a biomass fuel for power generation, composted, used for
mulch production, or landfilled.
Recovered Screened Material (RS.M): RSM, sometimes referred to as CDD fill, is a by-product of
CDD material recovery (i.e., processing) operations. RSM includes soil, sand, and small aggregates
from land clearing and demolition, as well as small particles of larger CDD materials that break off
during material handling and sorting (e.g., gypsum drywall). RSM EOL management options may
include landfill disposal or used as landfill alternative daily cover or application as a general fill. Of
C-3
-------
EPA/60 l/R-18/001
November 2018
interest is the drywall component of RSM, as the placement of drywall in anaerobic conditions of a
landfill contributes to the production and release of H2S gas.
Portland Cement Concrete (PCC): PCC is the largest component of CDD in the US
and is a composite material formed from fine aggregates (i.e., sand), coarse aggregates
(e.g., gravel, crushed stone), binder (Portland cement), water, and stabilizers, where
aggregates make-up most of the mix. Once removed, reclaimed PCC may be recycled
or disposed of in a landfill. The concrete is typically processed (e.g. crushing, sorting,
metal removal) prior to use in a recycling application.
Clay Bricks: Clay bricks represent a small fraction of the total CDD material stream
and are generated from the demolition of buildings, structures, and pavements.
Disposal appears to be dominant EOL management of clay bricks. Clay brick can be
reused or processed to use as aggregate.
Key Findings
This study provides an up-to-date compilation of U.S.-specific LCI datasets for the EOL management of
the most prevalent CDD materials, giving state and community decision makers an additional tool for
the selection of CDD management options that minimize impact to human health and the environment.
Material
Manufacturing
Recycling
Landfill
Combustion
Composting
Asphalt Pavement
V
V
V
N/A
N/A
Asphalt Shingles
N/A
V
V
N/A
N/A
Gypsum Drywall
V
V
V
N/A
N/A
Wood
N/A
V
V
V
N/A
Land Clearing Debris
N/A
V
V
V
V
Portland Cement Concrete
N/A
V
V
N/A
N/A
Recovered
Screened
Materials
N/A
V
V
N/A
N/A
Clay Bricks
V
V
V
N/A
N/A
N/A: The material management process dataset was not developed since the management pathway does not occur, was
considered atypical at the time of the study, or because the material is not recycled in a closed-loop process.
Data Gaps and Areas for Further Research
Several major data gaps/future research opportunities were identified that would allow the development
of more complete datasets. These data gaps include:
Amount of CDD Materials Handled through Different Management Pathways: Several state
environmental agencies track the amount of CDD landfilled; however, only four states (Florida,
Massachusetts, Nevada, and Washington) appear to be closely tracking the amount recycled for individual
components of CDD.
CDD Processing Facility Operations Data: Such as electricity and diesel consumption, equipment
uses, and future land redevelopment impacts.
pmm
C-4
-------
EPA/60 l/R-18/001
November 2018
CDD Travel Distance: Distances materials travel from the point of origin to various management
locations.
Long-term Performance of Materials Produced from Recycled CDD: Although the use of recycled
materials to replace primary resource extraction would reduce the overall impact on the environment,
additional factors may reduce the anticipated benefits of recycling. For example, pavement made from
recycled concrete aggregate and/or RAP may have a shorter service life compared to pavements
manufactured entirely from primary materials. Additionally, these materials may not be as readily
recycled again, and may result in disposal impacts after future use.
Liquid Emissions from CDD Landfills: Laboratory leaching data are needed for specific CDD
components as a surrogate for estimating liquids emission due to lack of reliable field-scale estimates.
Gas Emissions from CDD Landfills: This study estimates gas emissions for methane, carbon dioxide,
and (when applicable) H2S. However, due to an absence of gas emission data for the specific CDD
materials studied, surrogate data were used from similar materials in several instances.
Environmental Burdens from CDD Management Operations:
» From land development, facility equipment manufacturing, and building material production for
different CDD management facilities.
• From equipment and facility decommissioning (e.g., management of steel from heavy
equipment at equipment EOL).
• From use of CDD management equipment operation and maintenance consumables (e.g.,
lubricants, filters, worn mechanical components).
C-5
-------
EPA/60 l/R-18/001
November 2018
Appendix D: A Comparative Analysis of Life-Cycle Assessment
Tools for End-of-Life Materials Management Systems
Why was the Study Conducted?
Municipal solid waste (MSW) and construction and demolition debris
(CDD) are the primary materials that communities (through their local
governments) are responsible for managing. The approaches that
communities use for collecting and managing the end-of-life phase of these
materials have a significant impact on their economy, environment, and the
health and well-being of their residents. The United States (U.S.)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognizes a need for tools that
can be used by decision-makers to characterize the social, economic, and
environmental impacts associated with the solid wastes typically managed
by communities. This report evaluates multiple tools that can be used to
assess the sustainability of the EOL phase management of MSW and CDD.
How was the Study Conducted?
A comprehensive literature review was performed to identify 29 software
tools that can be used for conducting life cycle analysis (LCA) related to
the EOL collection and management of MSW and CDD. The primary
consideration for screening these tools was the solid waste manager's
decision-making domain, which is limited to the EOL phase of materials
management. Following this screening, five tools were selected for more
detailed evaluation:
• Waste Reduction Model (WARM) I US EPA
(under contract from US EPA)
• Municipal Solid Waste Decision Support Tool (MSW-DST) IRTI, Inc.
(under contract from US EPA)
• Solid Waste Optimization Life-Cycle Framework (SWOLF) I North Carolina State
University
• Environmental Assessment System for Environmental Technologies (EASETECH) I
Technical University of Denmark
• Waste and Resources Assessment Tool for the Environment (WRATE) I Golder Associates
(UL) Ltd and ERM on behalf of the Environment Agency of England and Wales
These tools are specifically developed for materials EOL management and offer flexibility to include U.S.-
specific materials and processes. They were evaluated using criteria such as user interface, tool flexibility
(e.g., ability to adjust materials composition and properties, and management pathways), tools scope (e.g.,
materials and management pathways for collection, transport, recovery), analysis/output (e.g., impact
categories, sensitivity analysis) and other general attributes (e.g., training and tutorials available,
documentation thoroughness, ease of use, frequency of updates).
A Comparative Analysis of Life-Cycle
Assessment Tools for End-of-Life Materials
Management Systems
A Comparative Analysis of
Life-Cycle AssessmentToolsfor
End-of-Life Materials Management
Systems. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington,
DC, EPA/600/R-15/232,2015.
D-l
-------
EPA/60 l/R-18/001
November 2018
A series of EOL management scenarios were then applied to the tools to evaluate and illustrate their
potential uses and limitations for community decision-making. Scenarios were representative of the
current practices used for MSW management (e.g., landfilling, organics collection and processing,
material recovery, collection and transport, thermal treatment, and landfill mining), as well as issues that
community decision-makers are facing across the U.S. in implementing these processes. A uniform
material composition—representative of the U.S. MSW composition—was developed to compare the
various scenarios with the same waste streams. However, due to variation in materials classification and
nomenclature, management options, and user-specified parameters among the tools, the same input values
could not be specified across all the tools. The results for the model runs were compared to each other and
predetermined baseline conditions when applicable. Data gaps and key research needs were identified.
Key Findings
FEATURES OF TOOLS EVALUATED
Table 1 summarizes the salient features of all five LCA tools. All the reviewed LCA tools can evaluate
the environmental impact of commonly practiced EOL phase materials management; however, their
capabilities vary, and some management options and material streams could only be analyzed with specific
tools. Tools have a varying degree of flexibility in simulating the scope of emission and impact categories.
Except for WARM, all tools provide a process-specific breakdown of emissions. The tools analyze a
wide variety of impact categories; however, global warming (greenhouse gas (GHG) emission) is the
only impact category that is common and can be used to compare the outputs among tools. Only MSW-
DST and SWOLF analyze and provide cost data as an output. All five tools allow exporting data in
tabular spreadsheet format. The consistent output format provides ease to the user in analyzing and
comparing results between the modeled materials management scenarios.
Table 1: Comparison of salient features of EOL materials management LCA tools
Consideration
WARM
MSW-DST
SWOLF
EASETECH
WRATE
Procurement Cost
Free
Free
Free to non-
commercial use.
Cost for
commercial use
is not yet
determined.
€5,0003
(Approx. $5,700)
£l,400/yr.
(Approx.
$l,800/year)
Version and Year4
13 (2015)
1.0(2002)
Pre-release (2015)
2.0.0(2014)
3..0.1.5 (2014)
Country/Region of Materials and
Management Strategies Modeled
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
Europe
Europe
Construction, Operating, and
y
y
Maintenance Cost Estimates
Material Categories
MSW
¦/
¦/
¦/
y
y
CDD
y
-
-
-
-
Electronic Waste
y
-
yi
-
y
Source Reduction
y
-
-
-
-
Materials Collection
Bin/cart options
-
¦/
y
-
y
Drop-off
-
y
y
-
y
CDD Collection
-
-
-
y
y
Source Separated Organics
-
-
y
-
y
D-2
-------
EPA/60 l/R-18/001
November 2018
Consideration
WARM
MSW-DST
SWOLF
EASETECH
WRATE
Materials Transport
Multiple Fuel Options
-
y
y
y
y
Multiple Vehicle Options
-
-
-
-
y
Multiple Modes (e.g., Rail, Ship)
-
y
y
y
y
Multiple Road Options
-
-
y
y
y
Transfer Station
-
y
y
-
y
Material Recovery Facility (MRF)
Single Stream
-
y
y
y
y
Dual Stream
-
-
y
-
y
Mixed EOL materials
-
y
y
-
y
Landfill
MSW Landfill
y
y
y
y
y
Ash Landfill
-
y
y
y
y
Carbon Storage
y
y
y
y
-
Leachate
-
y
y
y
y
Landfill Gas (LFG)—Generation
Rate Adjustable
y
y
y
y
y
LFG—Flaring
y
y
y
y
y
LFG-to-Electricity
y
y
y
y
y
LFG—Direct Beneficial Use
-
-
-
y
-
Emerging Technologies
Gasification
-
-
yi
-
y
Pyrolysis
-
-
-
-
y
Anaerobic Digester
-
-
y
y
y
Incineration
Mass Burn
y
y
y
y
y
Refuse-Derived-Fuel
-
y
y
-
y
Incineration without Energy Recovery
-
-
y
y
-
Composting
Windrow Composting
y
y
y
y
y
In-vessel Composting
-
y
y
y
y
Backyard Composting
-
-
-
-
y
Tool Output
Simultaneous Comparison of
Multiple Scenarios
-
-
-
-
y
Process-specific Emissions
y
y
y
y
Impact Categories^
Global Warming
y
y
y
y
y
Ozone Depletion
-
-
-
y
-
Human Toxicity—General
-
-
-
-
y
Human Toxicity—Carcinogenic
-
y
-
y
-
Human Toxicity—Non-Carcinogenic
-
y
-
y
-
Ionizing Radiation
-
-
-
y
-
Smog Formation
-
y
y
y
-
Eutrophication
-
y
y
-
y
Freshwater Eutrophication
-
-
-
y
-
Marine Eutrophication
-
-
-
y
-
Ecotoxicity
-
y
-
y
-
Freshwater Aquatic Ecotoxicity
-
-
-
-
y
Depletion of Abiotic Fossil
-
-
y
y
-
D-3
-------
EPA/60 l/R-18/001
November 2018
Consideration
WARM
MSW-DST
SWOLF
EASETECH
WRATE
Fuel Resources
Depletion of Abiotic Non-Fossil
Fuel Resources
-
-
-
y
-
Acidification
-
y
y
y
y
Terrestrial Eutrophication
-
y
-
y
-
Particulate Matter
-
y
-
y
-
1 Planned but not included in version evaluated.
2 SWOLF has an editable impact assessment method section that could add or remove categories. Note EASETECH has multiple impact
assessment methods available.
3 The EASETECH license is provided free to the registered user and the training cost (provided by DTU)for consultants, authorities, and
developers to become registered users is € 5,000 (Approximately $5,700).
4 The latest version available at the time of the study was evaluated. Newer version (e.g., Version 14 for WARM) with more capability
may be available.
5 "S" and represent presence and absence, respectively, of the associated consideration/feature.
APPLICATION OF SCENARIOS TO TOOLS
Several relevant waste management scenarios were modeled. Table 2 provides a summary of scenarios
and the simulation capabilities of the evaluated models for these scenarios. The following observations
were made based on simulations performed using these tools:
• Most of the EOL materials management scenarios could be simulated using EASETECH and
WRATE due to the high degree of flexibility offered by these tools; however, it is slightly
challenging to use these models because of the variation in materials nomenclature.
• All tools included features to compare environmental impacts of the commonly practiced EOL
materials (specifically MSW) and management options in the U.S., such as recycling,
composting of biodegradable materials, incineration, and landfilling. However, some
management options and material streams could only be analyzed with specific tools. For
example, only WARM can analyze impacts associated with source reduction and the
management of CDD materials while pyrolysis can only be analyzed using WRATE.
• Several materials management options are either not included in some tools or not referred to by
the names used by the EOL materials management community in the U.S. The inconsistent use
of nomenclature as compared to US industry standards may make the application of tools slightly
difficult for less experienced users.
• The magnitude of the estimated GHG emissions impact varied among tools; however, in general,
the tools provided consistent and expected qualitative interpretations of environmental benefits
for the various materials management options simulated.
• Among all the landfill scenarios simulated, LFG and carbon storage had the greatest influence on
the overall GHG impact and remanufacturing credit.
• Although the tools evaluated primarily focus on the EOL phase of materials management, data
used and results of some of these tools (e.g., source reduction feature of WARM) can be used to
assess the environmental impacts through all phases of the life cycle of materials.
D-4
-------
EPA/60 l/R-18/001
November 2018
Table 2: A list of the scenarios that could be evaluated using the given LCA tools5
Scenario Title and
Section Number
Options
WARM
MSW-DST
SWOLF
EASETECH
WRATE
Baseline Scenario
Landfill with no LFG treatment
y
y
y
y
y
Landfill Gas Treatment
Options
Flaring
y
y
y
y
y
LFG-to-electricity
y
y
y
y
y
LFG-to-electricity with bioreactor
y
y
y
y
Source-Separate Organics
Processing
Collection and Composting
y
y
y
y
Collection and anaerobic digestion
with gas-to-electricity
y a
y
y
Backyard Composting
Decreased organics collection due to
home composting
y
y
y
y
y
Materials Recovery
Single stream MRF
y
y
y
y
y
Dual stream MRF
y
y a
y
y
Mixed waste MRF
y
y
y
y
y
MRF Automation
Various levels of manual vs
automated work
y a
Recycling Plastics vs Recycling Glass
y
y
y
y
y
Pay-as-You-Throw
y
y
y
y
y
CDD Recycling
Landfilling of CDD
y
Recycling of CDD
y
E-waste Collection and
Recycling
Landfilling of e-waste
y
y a
y
Recycling of e-waste
y
y a
y
Collection Vehicle Fuels
Diesel
y
y
y
y
y
CNG
y a
y
Biodiesel
y
Collection Vehicle Types
Vehicles with different mechanisms
for waste collection
Transfer Station
Adding a centrally located transfer
station
y
y
y
y
y
Thermal Treatment
Options
Mass burn WTE
y
y
y
y
y
Gasification
y !>
y
Pyrolysis
y
Plastic Incineration vs
Recycling
Plastic incineration
y
y
y
y
y
Plastic recycling
y
y
y
y
y
RDF Recovery Before and
After Landfilling
RDF production from fresh MSW
y
y
y
RDF production from landfill mining
5 The latest version available at the time of study was evaluated. Newer version (e.g., Version 14 for WARM) with more capability may
be available." Not in the version evaluated but is expected to be included in future versions.
¦S indicates that the listed scenario can be modeled using the tool.
D-5
-------
EPA/60 l/R-18/001
November 2018
Data Gaps and Potential Research Opportunities
• None of the selected tools evaluate the social
impacts of EOL materials management
options.
• Only MSW-DST and SWOLF assess the
economic impacts of materials management,
and these tools only produce an estimated
annualized cost, which is limited to the cost of
constructing, operating, and maintaining
materials management facilities, while not
accounting for overall economic impacts, such
as job creation.
• The tools analyze environmental and
economic impacts independent of each other, not accounting for interactions or trade-offs
between these impacts.
Recommendations for Enhancing Existing Tools or Developing New Tools
• Using materials nomenclature that is consistent with the US EPA Facts and Figures report, as
well as categories and descriptions used by communities.
• Using tool architectures that allow easy updates of the background data (e.g., life cycle
inventories) and the inclusion of new materials and technologies.
• Designing to assess the impact of source reduction.
• Designing for users with varied educational levels and skill sets.
• Designing to assess trade-offs amongst all three categories of impacts—environmental, social,
and economic.
D-6
-------
EPA/60 l/R-18/001
November 2018
Appendix E: Methodology to Estimate the Quantity, Composition,
and Management of Construction and Demolition Debris in the
United States
Why was the Study Conducted?
Accurate estimates of regional and national solid waste generation and
management are essential to develop and implement sustainable
materials management plans. Estimates of generation can be used to
assess large-scale life-cycle impacts, set waste management policy
priorities, and monitor progress towards material reuse or recycling
goals. The United States (US) Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
has estimated municipal solid waste (MSW) generation and
management for several decades, principally by using a materials flow
analysis (MFA) approach coupled with limited measured data.
In contrast with MSW, estimates of historical construction and
demolition debris (CDD), which consists of materials produced from
construction, demolition, or renovation projects, have been sporadic in
the US. US EPA has started to regularly estimate the CDD generation
amounts in its annual sustainable materials management reports. US
EPA is employing an MFA approach developed using the Cochran and
Townsend methodology4 and reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP) data
reported by the National Asphalt Pavement Association (NAPA). Prior
to the aforementioned effort, US EPA previously estimated the CDD
generation amounts for 19965 and 20036 using a different methodology.
US EPA encompassed only building-related CDD and extrapolated the
project-level CDD generation (from a small number of building
construction, renovation, and demolition projects using routinely tracked housing statistics) to a nationwide
CDD generation amount (170 million short tons in 2003). These estimates did not include CDD generation
from large infrastructure projects such as construction, maintenance and demolition of roads, bridges, and
airports. In comparison, using the MFA approach, Cochran, and Townsend7 estimated 680 to 860 million
tons of total CDD generation from buildings, as well as infrastructure projects in the U.S. in 2002. Of that
total amount, 121 to 242 million tons were estimated to be building related.
Methodology to Estimate the Quantity,
Composition, and Management of
Construction and Demolition Debris in the
United States
ClndnnallOMa
Methodology to Estimate the
Quantity, Composition, and
Management of Construction
and Demolition Debris in the
United States. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
EPA/600/R-15/111, 2015.
4 Cochran, K. and Townsend, T. (2010). Estimating Construction and Demolition Debris Generation Using a Materials
Flow Analysis Approach. Waste Management. 30(ll):2247-2254.
5 US EPA (1998). Characterization of Building-Related Construction and Demolition Debris in the United States. United
States Environmental Protection US EPA. June 1998.
6 US EPA (2009). Estimating 2003 Building-Related Construction and Demolition Materials Amounts. EPA 530-R-09-002.
United States Enviromnental Protection US EPA. March 2009.
7 Cochran, K. and Townsend, T. (2010). Estimating Construction and Demolition Debris Generation Using a Materials
Flow Analysis Approach. Waste Management. 30(ll):2247-2254.
E-l
-------
EPA/60 l/R-18/001
November 2018
Neither of the previous studies estimated CDD disposal and diversion amounts. However, such
estimates are needed to assess the environmental impacts associated with current CDD management
practices. Moreover, MFA estimates were not based on any directly measured CDD data and other
estimates incorporated only limited-scale project-level data. Neither accounted for land clearing debris
(LCD), which can constitute a significant fraction of the overall CDD.
Over the past few years, several states in the U.S. have started routinely tracking and publishing the
amount of CDD disposed of and/or recycled by the regulated facilities in the state. Furthermore, efforts
by numerous states and municipalities have led to extensive studies of CDD management at disposal
and processing facilities. The availability and analysis of these large datasets present an opportunity to
develop an estimate of CDD generation and management that incorporates actual CDD quantities
measured at operating solid waste management facilities.
How was the Study Conducted?
Some states routinely aggregate facility-level data to estimate statewide CDD disposal and/or recycling
amounts. The definition and domain of materials regulated as CDD varies among states. The following
steps were undertaken to develop the estimation methodology:
Step I (CDD Estimates): Reported estimates of statewide CDD disposal and/or recycling were
compiled from the websites of State Environmental Agencies and were reviewed for level of
completeness with respect to the domain of facilities that are permitted to accept CDD, facility types
that are required to track and report CDD amounts to states, and CDD flow across the state
boundary.
Step 2 (CDD Definition): To give the proper context to state data, an extensive examination was
performed of the current regulatory definition of CDD, the associated major CDD components and
sources, and requirements for tracking and reporting CDD data for all 50 states.
Step 3 (Representative Indicators): As discussed below, only a limited number of states
comprehensively track CDD disposal and diversion, indicators that were considered to extrapolate
the available state-reported CDD landfilling and diversion amounts to a U.S.-wide CDD estimate
included several relevant economic and construction statistics routinely reported at the state level—
those by the U.S. Census Bureau, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the
U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. State-level statistics were compiled for the 1997-2012 period, to
account for any major fluctuation related to the U.S. housing market in the mid-2000s and the
recession in the 2008-2010 period. Only the statistics that are tracked on at least an annual basis at
the state level were analyzed for use as indicators.
Several state-level statistics were examined against state population: total wages and salaries;
construction industry employees' compensation; waste management and remediation services
sector employees' compensation, total gross domestic product (GDP), construction GDP, and
number of building permits. Datasets other than building permits strongly correlated with the state
population data. The state population and the building permit numbers were then separately
analyzed against the CDD disposal and diversion amounts.
Building permits were found to mimic the trend in CDD disposal better than state population, and
thus, the number of building permits was selected as the surrogate extrapolation factor to estimate
the nationwide CDD disposal data from the reported statewide disposal data. The number of CDD
E-2
-------
EPA/60 l/R-18/001
November 2018
MRFs was used as the surrogate extrapolation factor to estimate nationwide CDD diversion
amounts from the reported state diversion data.
Step 4 (CDD Composition Data): Data from state and regional-scale waste composition studies
were used to estimate the composition of the landfilled and recycled CDD.
Step 5 (CDD Data for Infrastructure Projects and Land Clearing): Large volumes of source-
segregated CDD debris, typically originating from land clearing activities and from infrastructure
projects (e.g., roads and bridges construction, maintenance, and demolition), is managed by the
recyclers that are generally exempt from state solid waste regulations and not required to report the
data to the state. The state reported CDD data, therefore, do not include CDD debris from
infrastructure and land clearing activities. Consequently, an extensive search of other data sources
was conducted for CDD amounts generated from infrastructure projects (e.g., asphalt concrete,
Portland Cement Concrete), and LCD. The examined data sources included the federal and state
government agencies, and relevant trade organizations.
Following the data collection and analysis steps, a bottom-up approach (where data are based on
measured amounts of CDD managed by processors and disposal facilities) was developed to estimate
nationwide CDD disposal and recycling amounts. An approach was included to estimate CDD
commingled with MSW (e.g., CDD from do-it-yourself projects discarded with MSW) to estimate the
composition of disposed and diverted CDD streams, based on a review of CDD composition studies.
Finally, a discussion of limitations was included in this study to capture some uncertainties associated
with the methodology.
Methodology
CDD DISPOSAL
Unit CDD Disposal Rate: During the 2003-201 1 timeframe, only 8 states routinely reported both
disposal and recycling amounts, while 4 states reported only disposal data, and 3 states reported only
recycling data. All disposal data reported by the states that comprehensively tracked CDD amounts from
all disposal facilities that were permitted to accept CDD and import and export of CDD across the state
were summed, and then the unit CDD disposal rate (CDD disposal amount per building permit) was
calculated by dividing the sum of the CDD disposal amounts for all states by the total number of
building permits issued in these states. The unit CDD disposal amount for states that do not routinely
report/track the CDD disposal amounts was estimated by multiplying the calculated unit disposal rate by
the total number of building permits issued in these states.
Commingled Waste: CDD commingled with MSW is typically tagged and tracked as MSW. To calculate
it, the MSW disposal quantity for the year of interest and the typical CDD content of MSW loads were
determined. Based on 12 regional-scale waste characterization studies documenting the percentage of
CDD arriving in commingled loads at MSW landfills, the average weighted fraction of CDD was
estimated to be 10.5 percent of the total landfilled MSW (on a wet-weight basis). The MSW disposal
amounts reported by the State of Garbage in America8 survey were used for total landfilled MSW.
8 vanHaaren, R., Themelis, N., Goldstein, N. (2010). State of Garbage in America. Biocycle 51(10) p. 16
E-3
-------
EPA/60 l/R-18/001
November 2018
TOTAL CDD
DISPOSAL
I
I
1
Dedicated CDD Loads
Disposed of at CDD and
Non-CDD Disposal Facilities
CDD in Co-Mingled Loads
Disposed of in MSW
Landfills (not tracked)
i
r
"N
State-Tracked
CDD Disposal
r
Extrapolated CDD Disposal
for States with no
CDD Tracking
Nationwide MSW Disposal
0.105
CDD RECYCLING AND PROCESSING
As part of a different study, US EPA had developed a database of the number of CDD permitted or
registered processing facilities for each state. Statewide diversion amounts coupled with the number of
permitted or registered processing facilities in the states that reported diversion amounts were used to
develop a unit diversion rate. This unit diversion rate was multiplied by the number of processing
facilities in the states that do not track CDD diversion amounts to estimate the CDD diversion amount
for these states.
RECLAIMED ASPHALT PAVEMENT, PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE AND LAND-CLEARING DEBRIS
Review of state solid waste regulations found that states representing 94 percent of the U.S. population
(as of 2013) have an exemption in their state-level solid waste management rules for source-segregated
"clean" debris or some analogous term, which enables these materials to be managed at facilities other
than state-permitted solid waste management facilities. Asphalt pavement and clean concrete were
frequently found to be enumerated materials that met the definition of source-segregated clean debris,
and LCD was often given a similar exemption or was simply not defined as CDD. Because these three
material streams are expectedly large in volume, data sources other than state regulatory agencies were
reviewed for measured quantities.
NAPA publishes an annual survey of asphalt mix producers in the U.S. and the survey report lists the
quantity of reclaimed asphalt pavement recycled each year. Data from the NAPA survey were included
in the methodology. An alternative method to estimate the quantity of RAP using statistics tracked by
the Federal Highway Administration was included, and can be used in the event NAPA discontinues the
survey in the future. However, none of the available estimates appear to present a reliable estimate
for Portland Cement Concrete and land clearing debris generated in the U.S. The developed
methodology, therefore, does not include provisions to estimate these CDD streams.
E-4
-------
EPA/60 l/R-18/001
November 2018
APPLICATION AND FINDINGS
The overall methodology was expressed as the sum of the three main CDD management components,
providing a way to estimate the national CDD generation rate:
CDD Generated
Materials Managed at
CDD recycling and
Processing Facilities
+
RAP Recycled by
asphalt Mix Plants
+
CDD Disposed
Based on this methodology, CDD managed by
the permitted/registered facilities in the U.S. in
2011 was estimated to have been 154 million
tons. Approximately 28 percent of that amount
represents measured data. The proposed
methodology includes a greater fraction of
measured data than any of the previous CDD
generation estimates, suggesting a lower potential
for errors associated with extrapolation. This
estimate does not include RAP recycled by
asphalt mix plants and concrete and LCD
processed by facilities exempted from state CDD
management regulations.
METHODOLOGY NEEDS AND LIMITATIONS
Facility
Measured
Disposal
Estimated
Recycled
Estimated
Disposal
47%
This methodology was developed to fill an
existing gap in measurement-based waste
generation estimation. Additional data can
improve the quality of the estimate and provide a more complete picture of CDD generation and
management. These data include:
1. State or trade organization data on PCC generation from infrastructure projects.
2. State or trade organization data on LCD generation.
3. Additional data on the specific weight of CDD for each state's waste stream.
4. Additional states CDD generation, diversion, and disposal data based on facility4evel
measurements
E-5
-------
EPA/60 l/R-18/001
November 2018
Appendix F: The State of the Practice of Construction and
Demolition Material Recovery
Why was the Study Conducted?
Construction and demolition debris (CDD) is generated in the
construction, renovation, and demolition of buildings, roads, bridges, and
other structures. The components of CDD vary depending on the activity,
type and structural materials used; however, CDD predominantly
consists of concrete, wood, metal, asphalt pavement, asphalt shingles,
drywall, masonry products, and land-clearing debris.
CDD represents a substantial portion of the total material discarded in
the United States (U.S.), and communities may consider its end-of-life
management a priority for their sustainable materials management
initiatives. In the U.S., CDD is primarily managed through landfilling or
recovery, where recovery may refer to one or a combination of reuse,
recycling, and/or energy recovery. Many materials in the CDD stream
can be recovered, which provides potential for significant environmental,
economic, and social benefits to communities.
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) conducted this study
on the current state of the practice of CDD material recovery - the
processes, opportunities, and limitations associated with it - to help
community decision-makers incorporate CDD recovery into their
sustainable materials management programs. The study talks about the
properties of the CDD stream, typical processing methods for CDD, the end markets for recovered
CDD, and important incentives and disincentives to CDD recovery. It includes environmental and
human health considerations associated with recovering CDD materials.
How was the Study Conducted?
Three overall guiding questions were used in the design of the study:
How are CDD materials managed? CDD recovery is a multi-step process. The study describes the
properties of the CDD stream, the handling at the point of generation, the types of processing facilities
used for CDD materials, and the end markets for those materials.
What are some key factors that influence CDD recovery? The study focuses on the major factors that
drive the success of CDD recovery programs. These factors include the economics, public and corporate
policies, and the availability of end markets (e.g., green building materials) for CDD materials.
What are the key environmental and human health considerations associated with CDD recovery?
While numerous benefits are associated with the recovery of CDD, certain materials (particularly
present in older structures) may pose a risk to human health and the environment, if not properly
managed. This study highlights examples of CDD materials of known concern and discusses the steps
the CDD industry employs to identify and properly manage them.
The State of the Practice of Construction and
Demolition Material Recovery
Final Report
The State of the Practice of
Construction and Demolition Material
Recovery. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC,
EPA/600/R-17/231, 2017.
F-l
-------
EPA/60 l/R-18/001
November 2018
Key Findings
HOW ARE CDD MATERIALS MANAGED?
CDD recovery is a multi-step process that
includes material segregation (e.g., separation
of wood and aggregate from mixed debris),
processing (e.g., size reduction, removal of
nails), and end-use of the material in lieu of
virgin material. Recovery involves a unique set
of challenges due to the heterogeneous nature
of the CDD stream and the occasional presence
of harmful substances. Depending on the
methodology, data sources and scope of data
reviewed, studies in 2014 and 2015 placed
CDD-material generation in the U.S. in the
range of 230 million to 530 million tons per
year, with 30% to 70% of the generated
materials being recovered. A compilation of
CDD characterization studies has shown that
wood, roofing materials, and concrete are
disposed of in the greatest amounts (in order
by mass).
CDD materials are most commonly recovered
in material recovery facilities (MRFs). CDD
MRPs may accept individual CDD materials -
segregated at the point of generation - or mixed
CDD materials that will be separated at the
MRF using a combination of equipment and
manual labor. Materials segregated onsite can be transported directly to a related recovery end-market or
material-specific processing facilities.
Deconstruction at the project site, prior to or without demolition, is the opposite of construction and
installation, and it facilitates material separation. Deconstruction minimizes damage to CDD materials,
increasing their potential for salvage and reuse. However, onsite CDD separation is challenging because
of the need for multiple containers, additional labor, space (for staging and separating materials), and
increased worker coordination.
The availability of end markets for recovered CDD is a primary consideration in CDD recovery. Although
recovered materials have multiple end markets, these markets may not be available in each area. The
market availability and comparative price of virgin materials play a significant role in determining
recovery options. The table below lists material-specific markets and important considerations associated
with the recovery of materials.
F-2
-------
EPA/60 l/R-18/001
November 2018
SUMMARY OF MARKETS AND UNIQUE RECOVERY CONSIDERATIONS BY MATERIAL
COD Material
Portland Cement
Concrete
Asphalt Pavement
Gypsum Drywall
Commonly recycled as aggregate in transportation applications; sometimes recycled in place (after
processing) as a fill material; must meet specifications in construction applications; the presence of
rebar and large, oversized pieces impact market suitability.
Mo^i commonly recycled into new asphalt pavement, sometimes recycled in place; recycling can
help offset the excessive cost of raw materIhI (asphalt).
Wood
Asphalt Shingles
Land application is historically the major application, but state and local restrictions may apply;
quality (e.g., moisture content, presence of paint coatings/wallpaper) impacts suitability for
recycling; the amount of paper in processed gypsum drywall is a consideration in remanufacture and
few U.S. remanufacturing facilities are in place; competes with flue gas desulfurization of gypsum in
the manufacture of new drywall.
Mulch, compost, and biomass fuel production are the most common recycling options for wood
waste: Identification and remove! of treated anU palmed wood; large tree5; and stumps cost more to
process; Lipping fee/processing cost, meeting boiler fuel specifications (e.g. moisture content, size,
level of contaminants); levelling concerns with muU h and holier fuel ash.
Used in paving applications, but not universally; can offset some of the pavement virgin asphalt cost;
must be non-asbestos; must meet specifications in construction applications.
i-i'ies ;:nri ItasirJn.a's Fines typically used as alternative dally cover for landfills and residuals may he used as a refuse-
dei ivee! fuel; The amount of drywall In fines is a major consideration for use in landfill cover
applications since drywall presence a eates the potential for hydrogen sulfide release, contaminant
level and moisture con ten!' or residuals are major considerations for marketability as a fuel.
WHAT ARE SOME KEY FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE CDD RECOVERY?
Economic Factors: Economic factors such as transportation costs and variability in tipping fees
between recovery and disposal facilities are important considerations influencing end-of-life
management decisions. Other economic factors, such as labor requirements and restrictions on materials
storage during construction projects, may impact whether materials are recovered.
Public Policies: State, local government, and corporate policies such as disposal bans, disposal taxes,
subsidized recycling, as well as material-specific and overall recycling goals can drive CDD recovery.
Corporate Policies: An additional driver for increased CDD recovery is green building certification. A
certified green building performs better, improves well-being, reduces environmental impacts, and
provides life-cycle cost benefits compared to a conventional building. Green building is a growing and
important trend due in part to government incentives and tax breaks at local and national levels for
builders, developers, and homeowners. The factors influencing the adoption of green building
certifications include government regulations, changes in energy costs, awareness of the benefits of
green technologies, costs of green building materials, product performance, changes in construction
design, and resale value of green buildings.
In many cases, green building materials can be recycled using existing CDD recycling technologies.
However, the physical and chemical characteristics of a recycled-content material may differ from the
original material and limit its future recyclability. Those interested in recycling green building materials
may encounter a lack of appropriate recycling facilities, or the material may not be available in
sufficient quantities to allow the development of a market and ensure economic viability.
F-3
-------
EPA/60 l/R-18/001
November 2018
WHAT ARE KEY ENVIRONMENTAL AND HUMAN HEALTH CONSIDERATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH CDD
RECOVERY?
Although CDD recovery can provide significant
environmental benefits, care must be taken to
properly manage materials and products that contain
asbestos, lead, mercury, PCBs, batteries, certain
wood preservatives, and refrigerants. Even though
the use of many of these products has been reduced,
banned, or discontinued, they can still be
encountered in older buildings. Several states have
developed policy and educational guidance for the
removal of certain building components prior to
commencing demolition or renovation work.
In addition, CDD material processors must use procedures to appropriately sort materials and identify
those appropriate for recovery and recycling; proper equipment, health and safety training, and
implementation of best practices are key to ensuring appropriate recovery.
Data Gaps and Potential Research Opportunities
Quantifying the Nationwide Reuse of CDD: Insufficient information exists on quantities and types of
CDD materials that are recovered for reuse.
Quantifying Recovered CDD Material Markets: Apart from asphalt pavement, there is limited
information about quantities of CDD materials in different end-uses.
Identification of Factors that Promote Community CDD Recovery: A large-scale analysis of factors
(public policy, economic, and social) that promote CDD recovery does not exist.
Beneficial Use of CDD Fines (from mixed CDD MRF): One of the primary end-uses of CDD fines is
as a landfill alternative daily cover, but large-scale studies documenting the success or challenges of
such use at landfill sites are absent.
Beneficial Use of CDD Processing Residuals (from mixed CDD MRF): Use of these processing
residuals as a refuse-derived fuel can reduce the quantity of CDD being landfilled. A study that reviews
cases of beneficial use of CDD processing residuals could be helpful.
Market Analysis of CDD Diverted from Landfills Landfill owners may preserve air space by
diverting certain CDD from landfills, and as a result, they may profit financially. A related nationwide,
region-specific market analysis is needed.
EPA Disclaimer
This document has been reviewed in accordance with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency policy and
approved for publication.
F-4
------- |