EPA/600/R-15/111 Methodology to Estimate the Quantity, Composition and

Management of CDD Debris in the US

6. Methodology to Estimate Composition of CDD Managed at

Permitted or Registered Disposal or Processing Facilities
6.1 CDD Composition at Disposal Facilities
The US EPA gathered multiple large-scale waste composition or waste characterization studies. A
total of 14 waste composition studies that focused solely on CDD or MSW with a distinct CDD
component were identified. A more detailed discussion of waste composition methodologies and
each of the 14 composition studies is presented in Appendix E.

Of the 14 studies examined, a total of five studies were selected for further analysis – some reports
were filtered out because the study did not explicitly state the total quantity of CDD represented by
the study, did not separately analyze specific components of CDD, or the study overlapped another
study (e.g., a state-wide study in Illinois was selected but a Chicago-specific study was excluded). As
discussed in CCG (2009), the data used to estimate the CDD composition in King County, WA,
specifically excluded characterization of CDD waste originating from Seattle, WA.

Major CDD material categories were revised from those presented in Appendix E to provide additional
detail regarding individual aggregates (i.e., asphalt, concrete, fines), allow consistency with material
categories provided in CDD diversion data, and to combine those materials which were consistently
observed in the studies as only representing a very small fraction of CDD (i.e., less than 4% by weight
of the total). The disaggregation of amounts into subcategories was based on the data from the
studies that specifically denoted these amounts. Table 6-1 presents a summary of each of the studies
analyzed, the total amount of CDD materials represented by each study, and the breakdown of each
material category.
Table 6-1. CDD Composition Data from Large-Scale Characterization Studies in the US

CDM (2009) -
Illinois CCG (2008) CCG (2009) -
RW. Beck et al Commodity/ CCG (2006) - - 2007 CDD 2007/2008
(2010) - Waste Detailed Compositio CDD
Statewide CDD Generation and Characterizatio n Study Characterizatio
Major Material Characterizatio Characterizatio n of CDD (CA - (Seattle, n Study (King
Fractions n Study (GA) n Study 4 metro areas) WA) County, WA)
Asphalt 2.50% 0.40% 10.00% 0.70% 0.30%
Concrete 15.20% 14.40% 10.80% 3.70% 2.70%
Fines 10.50% 6.80% 6.60% 5.50% 2.45%
Wood 16.20% 24.20% 20.20% 36.00% 34.51%
Roofing 19.90% 21.60% 14.60% 13.40% 15.06%
Gypsum 7.00% 7.40% 8.10% 11.00% 15.78%
Organics 1.80% 1.40% 1.50% 1.90% 1.73%
Metal 3.00% 0.60% 4.00% 3.80% 4.26%
Other Materials 14.90% 10.00% 16.10% 19.40% 20.31%
Other
Aggregates 8.90% 13.00% 8.00% 4.60% 2.89%

27
EPA/600/R-15/111 Methodology to Estimate the Quantity, Composition and
Management of CDD Debris in the US

Study CDD
2,952,123 1,598,203 3,130,925 201,156 158,821
Disposed Tons
Represented

In all, the five CDD composition studies represented more than 3,000 individual CDD loads or samples
collected at 55 different waste management facilities with the sample size representing
approximately 8 million tons of disposed CDD. The results of the five studies were used to calculate
the weighted composition of disposed CDD. The composition data from the study reports consisted
of 191 unique individual material categories that were organized into 10 major material categories.
The total weighted disposal amount of each major material category across all studies was summed
and divided by the total disposed CDD weight represented by all of the studies to calculate the
weighted average composition of each of the 10 material categories. Figure 6-1 presents the
weighted composition of disposed CDD based on results reported in the five studies that were
summarized in Table 6-1. The predominant material categories that are being sent to disposal
facilities include wood, roofing, and concrete, which comprise slightly more than 50% of all disposed
CDD. The remaining 50% includes a mix of various other building materials, including generalized
“ other” categories that include items such as paper, carpet, plastic, rock, and brick.

Other
Materials
15% Wood
Organics 20%
1%
Metal
3%
Gypsum
8% Roofing
Fines 18%
8%
Asphalt Other Concrete
5% Aggregates 13%
9%
Figure 6-1. Weighted Average Composition of Disposed CDD Based on Results of Five Large-Scale CDD
Waste Composition Studies

6.2 CDD Composition at Processing Facilities

The US EPA searched for available sources of material composition diverted by CDD processing
facilities. While large-scale composition studies like those evaluated in Section 6.1 were limited, the
US EPA identified four states (Florida, Massachusetts, Washington, and Nevada) that have
requirements to report the quantity of different CDD components that are diverted from disposal.
Thus, these data were used as a basis to calculate a weighted average CDD composition at CDD
processing facilities for the US.

28