Date: April 15, 2010 

To: Rachel Schmeltz, U.S. EPA 

From: Kate Bronstein and Jeff Coburn, RTI International 

Subject: GHG Inventory Improvement – Construction & demolition waste DOC and Lo value 

There is currently a slight disconnect with the BioCycle data as they attempt to quantify amounts of 

municipal solid waste (MSW) and exclude other waste quantities, the largest of which is construction and 

demolition (C&D) waste. The current Inventory methodology does not differentiate between MSW-only 

landfills, C&D-only landfills, and MSW landfills that also take C&D and other waste types. The 

Inventory, Landfill Methane Outreach Program (LMOP) and Energy Information Administration (EIA) 

databases do not specify the quantity of C&D waste and other inert materials that are disposed of at MSW 

landfills so it is difficult to determine what percent of the total disposed waste is considered degradable 

C&D. C&D waste is currently not regulated and is excluded from the GHG Mandatory Reporting Rule. 

EPA states that MSW landfills must include C&D waste in their waste quantities because the countryspecific DOC value includes all landfilled waste, of which a portion is C&D. However, this has never 

been confirmed until now. 

RTI conducted a literature review of recent C&D waste characterization studies to determine the average 

percent of C&D waste disposed of at MSW landfills and the percent of degradable C&D waste. The most 

prevalent C&D materials are wood, roofing, dirt/fines, wallboard, and concrete/brick. A snapshot of the 

average composition of C&D waste from a variety of studies is presented in Figure 1. The percent of 

wood in C&D waste ranges from 20.2% to 45.3%, with an average of 31%. However, not all C&D wood 

waste is degradable (i.e., treated wood). 

Figure 1. Average Composition of C&D Waste (DSM, 2008) 

The definition of C&D waste varies by State, but waste wood generally includes: 
 Untreated/unpainted wood, 

 Pallets and crates, 

 Engineered wood, 

 Painted/Stained, 

 Pressure-Treated, 

 Wood Furniture, and 

 Other wood. 

RTI looked at a number of waste characterization studies and calculated a weighted average of 22.6% for 

degradable wood waste (Table 1). All of the studies involved MSW landfills from a variety of States that 

accepted C&D waste. No published, peer-reviewed literature was found documenting a DOC value 

specifically for C&D waste aside from the IPCC 2006 guidelines, which suggests a default DOC value of 

4% for C&D industrial debris (IPCC, 2006). 

Table 1. Summary information of wood C&D waste in various U.S. landfills 

Wood Content 

(wt %) 

Wood 

(tons) 

Total C&D 

(tons) State and Year Brief Citation 

10 141,080 1,466,371 CT (2002) NWMOA, 2009 

12 139,548 1,136,977 DE (06-07) DSWA, 2007 

15 482,162 3,130,925 CA (2006) CIWMB, 2006 

16 6,941 43,379 VT WSI (2002) DSM 2002 

23 9,760 43,379 VT Waste USA (2002) DSM 2002 

24 30,515 127,051 WA (2008) King Co., 2009 

26 358,746 1,364,053 WI (2003) DSM, 2008 

28 40,259 144,000 IA (2002) Foth, 2007 

32 646,000 1,080,000 MA (2008) DSM, 2008 

33 228,396 692,108 MN (2002) Foth, 2007 a

 This study was for the WSI Moretown Landfill in Waterbury, VT. 

b

 This study was for the Waste USA Inc. Landfill in Montpelier, VT. 

RTI also reviewed the set of landfills (51) used to develop our country-specific DOC value for bulk MSW 

against the 2004 Chartwell Municipal Solid Waste Facility Directory, which was used to confirm whether 

each landfill accepted C&D waste or not. The complete list of landfills and the type of waste can be 

found in the attached Excel spreadsheet (C&D_Waste_041510.xls). It was found that the bulk of landfills 

that could be confirmed by LMOP and the Chartwell list1

 accepted C&D waste along with MSW and 

other types of waste. Therefore, it can be concluded that the country-specific DOC value used in the 

Inventory is representative of landfills that accept bulk MSW and C&D waste.

Breaking out the portion of C&D waste in the Inventory model for MSW landfills is challenging because 

C&D waste quantity information is not being collected or reported in the LMOP or EIA databases. It 

would be imprudent to assume that every MSW landfill accepted a portion of C&D waste and that 

approximately 22% of that waste was degradable. It is recommended to use the current DOC value based 

 

1

 Eight of the 51 landfills were either closed or could not be identified due to a different name or lack of a physical 

address in LMOP. No data could be found as to whether these landfills accepted C&D waste. 

2 
3 

on the fact that it was determined using measured yearly methane emissions for landfills that accepted 

both MSW and C&D waste. 

References 

California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). Detailed Characterization of 

Construction and Demolition Waste. June 2006. 

http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/LocalAsst/Extracts/34106007/ExecSummary.pdf. 

Delaware Solid Waste Authority (DSWA) Statewide Waste Characterization Study, 2006-07. 

Final Report. 

http://www.dswa.com/pdfs/reports/Statewide%20Waste%20Characterization%20Study%202006

-2007.pdf. 

DSM Environmnental Services, Inc. 2007 Massachusetts Construction and Demolition Debris 

Industry Study. May 2008. http://www.mass.gov/dep/recycle/reduce/07cdstdy.pdf. 

DSM Environmental Services. Vermont Waste Composition Study. Vermont Department of 

Environmental Conservation. June 2002. 

http://www.anr.state.vt.us/dec/wastediv/solid/pubs/VT%20WASTE%20COMP.pdf. 

Foth. Minnesota Construction, Demolition, and Industrial Waste Study July 2007. 

http://www.swmcb.org/studies-reports/studies-and-policy-reports/non-municipal-solid-wastenon-msw. 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2006 IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas 

Inventories, Volume 5: Waste, Chapter 2: Waste Generation, Composition and Management Data, Table 

2-5. http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/5_Volume5/V5_2_Ch2_Waste_Data.pdf. 

King County Waste Monitoring Program 2007/2008 Construction and Demolition Materials 

Characterization Study. 2002. http://your.kingcounty.gov/solidwaste/about/documents/CDcharacterization-study-2008.pdf. 

Northeast Waste Management Officials' Association (NWMOA). Construction & Demolition 

Waste Management in the Northeast in 2006. June 30, 2009. 

http://www.newmoa.org/solidwaste/CDReport2006DataFinalJune302009.pdf.