### Date: April 15, 2010

To: Rachel Schmeltz, U.S. EPA
From: Kate Bronstein and Jeff Coburn, RTI International Subject: GHG Inventory Improvement – Constr uction & demolition waste DOC and Lo value

There is currently a slight disconnect with the Bi oCycle 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 me thodology does not differen tiate 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 ot her 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 wh ich 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 a nd 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 studi es 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_041 510.xls). It was found that the bulk of landfills that could be confirmed by LMOP and the Chartwell list 1 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 la ndfill accepted a portion of C&D waste and that approximately 22% of that waste was degradable. It is recommended to use th e 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.

23 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 Ma nagement Board (CIWMB). De tailed Characterization of Construction and Demolition Waste. June 2006. http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications /LocalAsst/Extracts/34106007/ExecSummary.pdf.
Delaware Solid Waste Authority (DSWA) St atewide Waste Characterization Study, 2006-07. Final Report. http://www.dswa.com/pdfs/reports/Statewi de%20Waste%20Characterization%20Study%202006 -2007.pdf.
DSM Environmnental Services, Inc. 2007 Massa chusetts Construction and Demolition Debris Industry Study. May 2008. http://www.ma ss.gov/dep/recycle/reduce/07cdstdy.pdf.

DSM Environmental Services. Vermont Wast e Composition Study. Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation. June 2002. http://www.anr.state.vt.u s/dec/wastediv/solid/pubs/VT%20WASTE%20COMP.pdf.
Foth. Minnesota Construction, Demoliti on, and Industrial Waste Study July 2007. http://www.swmcb.org/studies-repo rts/studies-and-policy-report s/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/2 006gl/pdf/5_Volume5/V5_2_Ch2_Waste_Data.pdf. 

### King County Waste Monitoring Program 2007/ 2008 Construction and Demolition Materials Characterization Study. 2002. h ttp://your.kingcounty.gov/solidw aste/about/documents/CDcharacterization-study-2008.pdf.
Northeast Waste Management Officials' A ssociation (NWMOA). Construction & Demolition Waste Management in the Northeast in 2006. June 30, 2009. http://www.newmoa.org/solidwast e/CDReport2006DataFinalJune302009.pdf.