Terri Goldberg Jennifer Griffith. Northeast Waste Management Officials Association

Transcription

1 Construction & Demolition Materials Northeast Perspective Terri Goldberg Jennifer Griffith Northeast Waste Management Officials Association 1

2 Overview Background Why C & D materials? Scope of NEWMOA C & D Report Sources of data & methodology Findings & conclusions Gypsum White Paper 2

3 NEWMOA Non-profit regional interstate association CT, ME, MA, NH, NJ, NY, RI, & VT Solid Forum for states to discuss C&D waste issues - use of C&D wood for fuel, reuse of asphalt shingles, & recycling of gypsum wallboard 3

4 What are C &D Materials? Categories: o Asphalt, brick & concrete (ABC) generated from road & bridge projects - heavy & recycled a high rate o Building construction, remodeling, & demolition focus of analysis & concern o Land clearing debris typically handled separately 4

5 What are C &D Materials? Building construction, remodeling, & demolition waste includes: o Wood o Brick o Glass o Metal o Drywall o Asphalt shingles 5

6 What are C &D Materials? Also: o Plastic buckets o Pipes & wrapping o Cardboard o Plumbing o Electrical & other fixtures o Wire Carpet & furniture not C & D, may be part of demolition waste 6

7 Why C & D Materials? Most C&D wastes disposed in landfills Landfill space increasingly limited in region Public opposition limits siting of new landfills Increased emphasis on the processing & reuse of C&D material 7

8 Why C & D Materials? C &D materials used for alternative daily cover (ADC) at landfills Gypsum wallboard fines in landfills creates hydrogen sulfide gas C & D materials can be contaminated with heavy metals, asbestos, PCBs, etc. Political concerns about proposals to burn certain C & D waste for energy 8

9 Jurisdictional Interdependence NEWMOA analysis has shown that region is a waste shed High degree of interdependence for waste management capacity Waste shipped out-of-state for disposal &/or recycling to neighboring states 9

10 2006 C & D Materials Study Purposes: Help NEWMOA & EPA understand how C & D waste is managed in the Northeast Baseline data to measure progress Id possible regulatory or reporting changes Inform policy making Focus: flow of wastes into & out of states Focus: building projects; not road & bridge projects or land clearing debris EPA Region 1 Support 10

11 Approach NEWMOA C & D Materials Workgroup supplied data & oversaw analysis Data based on reports to states from processors & disposal facilities State reporting requirements & data definitions vary Challenge: data aggregation & reconciliation 11

12 Approach Prepared spreadsheet & graphs & tables using state data Caveats: o Not full picture of generation, since captures waste handled by regulated activities o Individual state data gaps particularly on recovery/recycling of certain materials o Differences in data reported on waste exports by one state & waste imports from that state more confidence in import data o For NY & NJ some road/bridge project waste included (facilities less specialized) 12

13 Quantitative Picture 2006 > 12 million tons generated Per capita generation ranged from tons per year (may be due to differences in reporting requirements) DSM Environmental Study estimates average C & D waste generation is 1.7 lb/person/day; average 0.31 tons/ person/year 13

14 Quantitative Picture 2006 DSM Report for MA estimates %s by weight: o Plastics 2% o Metals 5% o ABC 9% o Drywall 10% o Roofing 11% o Wood 34% o Other 29% 14

15 Findings Most C & D ends up in landfills Approx. 10% was recovered for use outside of landfills Metal only material recovered at significant percentage (53%) Other materials recovered: clean wood & wood chips for fuel Significant potential for increasing recovery / recycling 15

16 Findings Processing of C & D waste varies: o Some handle mixed C & D waste, which is tipped on the ground, metals are removed, volume of remainder reduced, shipped for disposal or ADC at a landfill o At others tipping & processing enclosed; waste sorting automated & supplemented by hand picking; more waste sent for recovery Availability & quality of data not consistent making aggregation & comparisons challenging 16

17 Observations Facilities in the states differ in how C & D waste is managed: o In some, most waste sent to processing facility o Others waste sent to landfill without prior processing In spite of differences, recovery rate as percentage of generation fairly consistent across region 17

18 Observations All states export some C &D waste for disposal & processing in other states C & D waste generation affected by recession & down turn in construction in past few years 18

19 More information Report available at 19

20 Gypsum Wallboard White Paper May NE commissioners identified C & D debris as a high priority for regional action May NEWMOA decided increasing gypsum recycling was highest priority EPA Region 1 funded project in fall C & D Materials Workgroup conducted research & wrote White Paper 20

21 Benefits of Recycling Gypsum Wallboard Conservation of natural resources & landfill space Hydrogen sulfide gas & GHG reductions $$$ saved through green credits for building owners & contractors $$$ save by processing facilities that remove gypsum wallboard for recycling through avoided tipping fees 21

22 3 Potential Uses of Gypsum Wallboard Replacing portion of virgin gypsum to make new wallboard Replacing a portion of virgin gypsum in cement manufacturing Adding to soil as a conditioning amendment not big application in NE 22

23 Workgroup Approach Visited recyclers & potential users in the region Reviewed current state activities Held conference calls to identify all potential options for increasing recycling Narrowed the options to 5 that appeared to be most practical & feasible & could result in significant improvements 23

24 Options Ban disposal in landfills Require recycling of wallboard waste products by state-financed projects Require waste management planning Develop common terminology & reporting requirements Develop & implement EPR approaches 24

25 Realities Users only interested in gypsum from construction projects clean Concerned about contamination e.g., asbestos & lead in paint- on gypsum from demolition Virgin gypsum inexpensive & available 25

26 Realities 4 cement manufacturers in region: o could take more recycled gypsum o need to make capital investments o need guaranteed supply 2 facilities process waste wallboard to produce gypsum powder in region : o need reliable supply to make capital investments to expand operations 26

27 Status Ban disposal in landfills implemented by Mass DEP after lengthy engagement with stakeholders: o 27

28 Status Require recycling of wallboard waste from state-owned or leased building projects implemented by MA & ME Require waste management planning - VT & ME require for large projects (requirement of state-wide permit process) 28

29 Common Terminology & Reporting - Priority Develop common terminology & reporting requirements: o C & D materials routinely travel across state lines for processing, disposal, & recycling o Generators, haulers, & processors compete across state lines but are subject to different reporting requirements o Consistent data needed to provide critical information for private decisions to build new facilities 29

30 EPR Develop & implement EPR approach: o Manufacturers establish & manage infrastructure themselves o Manufacturers finance third party o Manufacturers work with existing haulers & recyclers to help finance their efforts to recycle materials 30

31 Why EPR? All stakeholders develop solution Manufacturers help with financing infrastructure Collection & recycling infrastructure & markets improved & increased May engage stakeholders in developing better solutions for managing gypsum from demolition projects 31

32 EPR Approach Key questions/ issues: o Stakeholder engagement o Roles of stakeholders o Financing mechanism o Recycling goals & metrics o Enforcement 32

33 More information Jennifer Griffith NEWMOA (617) x303 33