United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(5306W)
EPA-530-F-00-001
June 2000
www.epa.gov/osw
Building Savings
Strategies for Waste Reduction of
Construction and Demolition Debris
from Buildings
Waste
Reduction
• RLV,
The Waste Reduction Record-Setters Project fosters the
development of exceptional waste reduction programs by
documenting successful ones. These programs can be used as
models by others implementing their own programs to reduce
disposal. This fact sheet packet is aimed at local governments
that want to encourage more building-related construction and
demolition debris recovery, building owners and developers interested in green
building design, and building contractors seeking a competitive edge.
What is construction and demolition debris?
Construction and demolition (C&D) debris is produced during new construction, renovation,
and demolition of buildings and structures. C&D debris includes bricks, concrete, masonry, soil,
rocks, lumber, paving materials, shingles, glass, plastics, aluminum (including siding), steel, drywall,
insulation, asphalt roofing materials, electrical materials, plumbing fixtures, vinyl siding, corrugated
cardboard, and tree stumps. In 1996 the U.S. produced an estimated 136 million tons of building-
related C&D debris.1 This estimate excludes road, bridge, and land-clearing materials, which can be
a significant portion of total C&D materials discarded.
How can C&D materials be recovered?
C&D materials can be recovered through reuse and recycling. In order for materials to be
reusable, contractors generally must remove them intact (windows and frames, plumbing
fixtures, floor and ceiling tiles) or in large pieces (drywall, lumber). Some materials may
require additional labor before they can be reused. For example, lumber may need to be
denailed and window frames may need some new panes. In order to be recyclable, materials
must be separated from contaminants (e.g., trash, nails, and broken glass). This can be
accomplished if contractors require workers to sort materials as they remove items from
buildings or as debris is produced. Many contractors simply use labeled roll-off bins for
storage of source-separated materials. For projects where on-site source separation is
not possible, contractors often use C&D materials processing firms.
Benefits of recovering construction and demolition materials
• Reduces the environmental effects of extraction, transportation, and processing of
raw materials.
• Reduces project costs through avoided disposal costs, avoided purchases of new
materials, revenue earned from materials sales, and tax breaks gained for
donations.
• Helps communities, contractors, and/or building owners comply with state and
local policies, such as disposal bans and recycling goals.
• Enhances the public image of companies and organizations that reduce disposal.
• Conserves space in existing landfills.
-------
Recovering C&D Materials
The choice of what and how
construction and demolition materials
can be recovered depends on many factors
including the type of project, space on the
building site, the existence of markets for
materials, the cost-effectiveness of
recovery, the time allowed for the project,
and the experience of the contractors.
Many C&D materials can be reused or
recycled.
Type of project: Demolition projects
produce much more debris than
renovation or new construction for
similar sized structures. Wood is a
primary component of most residential
structures, whereas, steel and concrete
are often a primary component of
commercial structures. Packaging
materials can often be a
significant portion of the debris
produced during renovation
and new construction
projects.
Space on the building site:
Materials recovery is often easiest if the
building site is spacious enough to allow
on-site sorting of materials. Having
separate containers for each type of
materials can reduce contamination.
Materials markets: Contractors can
maximize recovery by taking advantage
of all available markets for recovered
materials. In some areas of the country,
specialty hauling firms serving the
building industries have emerged. These
firms keep abreast of local markets and
can advise clients which materials have
strong local markets.
Cost-effectiveness: Hauling and
disposal costs, the value of
recovered materials, and labor costs
contribute to whether materials recovery
is more or less cost-effective than
disposing of materials. Recovery of low-
value materials may be cost-effective if
disposal costs are high and removal and
sorting are not labor-intensive. The
added labor necessary to remove items
for reuse may be offset by savings from
both the avoided costs of purchasing
new materials and avoided disposal
costs.
Project timeline: Source separation of
materials for reuse and recycling can
take more time than disposing of all
commingled materials and often projects
are on a tight schedule due to financing
arrangements. Contractors can maximize
materials recovery in the time allowed by
planning ahead. If necessary, contractors
can focus waste reduction efforts on off-
site source separation and recycling.
Contractor experience: Contractors well-
versed in recovery methods and local
markets may be able to recover more
materials than contractors unfamiliar
with reuse and
This fact sheet profiles building projects of four distinct types:
Construction: Putting together all or part of a structure. Most construction
site debris is generated from packaging and when raw materials are cut or
sized. Workers can save large scraps for use in other projects. Durable
packaging can be returned to suppliers. Smaller scraps and non-durable
packaging can be source separated when produced, and recycled.
Renovation: Partial removal of a building's interior and/or exterior
followed by construction. Contractors can adapt the same recovery
techniques as above for renovation projects.
Deconstruction: A"soft"demolition technique whereby workers dismantle
a significant portion of a building in order to maximize recovery of materials
for reuse and recycling.
Demolition: The complete removal of a building. On most demolition
projects, after extracting easily removable materials for reuse or recycling,
workers complete the demolition with sledgehammers, explosives, or heavy
equipment. Additional recyclables are often sorted from the rubble
generated during these demolition activities.
recovery techniques.
The need for project
coordinator
oversight and
educational efforts
can be lessened
when using a
contractor
experienced in C&D
recovery efforts.
Reuse
Many materials can be salvaged from
demolition and renovation sites and sold,
donated, stored for later use, or
reused on the current
project. More than 200 used
building materials stores
around the country buy and/or accept
donations of used building materials.
Contractors can avoid the cost of removal
by allowing private companies to salvage
materials from the site. Organizations that
have space may want to consider storing
high-value materials for later projects.
Many building materials may be reusable
during renovation projects and projects
where a new building is built following the
demolition of another. Planners can
increase reuse potential by making efforts
to use the same size and types of materials
as in the old construction. Inadequate
storage space for materials during the
interim from removal to reinstallation may
limit reuse as a materials recovery option.
Typical materials suitable for reuse include
plumbing fixtures, doors, cabinets,
windows, carpeting, bricks, light fixtures,
ceiling and floor tiles, wood, HVAC
equipment, and decorative items
(including fireplaces and stonework).
Recycling
Recycling is often easiest during
construction projects as opposed to
demolition and renovation projects.
During construction, crews can source
separate materials as debris is produced.
Demolition and renovation project
materials often consist of mixed materials
and require on- or off-site sorting.
Typical materials recycled from building
sites include metals, lumber, asphalt,
concrete, roofing materials, corrugated
cardboard, and wallboard.
-------
Model Programs — Some Numbers and Descriptions
Record-Setting
Program
Project Type
Project Highlights
Recovery Strategy
% Debris
Recovered
(by weight)
Bagley Downs Demolition and This project created 30 affordable housing
Apartments construction units, saved the University of Oregon
Eugene, OR demolition costs, and preserved a community
landmark.
Entire buildings saved by
moving them to a new
location.
73%
Erickson's New Erickson's planned to incorporate materials
Diversified construction recovery efforts during the construction of its
Corporate new corporate headquarters even though it
Headquarters expected to pay more than if it disposed all
Hudson,Wl materials generated. In fact, the company
diverted 69% of the project debris and saved
money.
Source separation of
materials during
construction by all
subcontractors.
69%
Four Times Demolition and Materials recovery was included in plans from
Square construction the beginning. The contract included
New York, NY requirements that subcontractors reduce
disposal and, as an incentive, they were
allowed to retain savings earned through
avoided disposal costs and materials revenues.
Pre-demolition salvage,
construction materials
sorted off-site because of
space limitations.
58%
Marion County Demolition Marion County and Salem Area Transit saved
Senator Block over $160,000 by diverting demolition
Salem, OR materials from disposal while using the project
as a tool to educate the public on recycling.
The county placed ads on TV and radio and
placed banners illustrating the project
recycling rate around the project site.
Salvage of usable items
before demolition. Hand
and mechanical sorting of
materials after demolition
to recover metals, concrete,
and asphalt.
82%
Ridgehaven Renovation The city of San Diego wanted to reduce,
Green Office recycle, and reuse renovation materials from
Building this project in order to comply with California's
San Diego, CA 50% recycling goal and reduce materials going
to the city-owned landfill. In addition to
diverting 51% of the renovation materials from
disposal, the city also saved $92,000.
Many existing materials
refurbished and reused.
Materials sorted into
labeled dumpsters for
recycling.
51%
Stowe Village Deconstruction This demonstration project not only recovered
Hartford, CT 50% of the materials from six public housing
units, it also trained nine public housing
residents in deconstruction techniques.
Buildings hand-dismantled
to recover maximum usable
materials.
50%
Whole Foods Renovation Recovery of renovation materials saved Whole
Market Foods over $32,000. Reuse of materials, such as
Corporate ceiling tiles, light fixtures, and doors, helped the
Headquarters company avoid the purchase of nearly $25,000
Austin, TX worth of supplies. The company was also able
to take an $8,000 tax deduction for donating
salvaged goods to non-profit organizations.
Contracts required
recycling and reuse.
Materials stockpiled and
moved about site for
storage due to limited
space.
42%
-------
Strategies for recovering construction and demolition materials
Include C&D recovery plans
in the project design
Some recovery options may be lost if
not considered at the project design
stage.
• Reuse of wall panels, ceiling panels, and
doors in the Ridgehaven Office Building
renovation was possible because the
architect planned the new interior to use
the same sizes and types of materials used
in the building before the renovation.
Include recovery
requirements and goals in
project specifications and
contracts
By including recovery requirements and
goals in project specifications and
contracts, project planners can signal
their commitment to recovery and make
subcontractors aware of their
responsibilities from the project outset.
• In its contract, Marion County required its
demolition contractor to divert materials
from area landfills. The county set a
diversion goal of 90% based upon
research of other similar efforts.
Although the general contractor for the
Ridgehaven Office Building project was
initially reluctant to recycle, its contract
required it to do so.
Educate contractors and
crews on materials recovery
techniques
Educating contractors and crews on
materials recovery techniques and
procedures such as sorting and storage
methods, recoverable materials, and
removal techniques can eliminate
contamination problems and increase
recovery rates.
• The materials management plan created
for the construction of Erickson's
Diversified's new headquarters building
provided subcontractors with
detailed instructions on reuse
and recycling techniques,
and sorting methods.
Hold subcontractors
accountable for
materials recovery
Incorporating a mechanism to
enforce contract provisions requiring
materials recovery gives project
managers leverage to ensure efforts are
a success.
The Four Times Square project's
environmental consultant included
contract requirements that construction
contractors anticipate packaging materials
generated on the project, work to reduce
them, and document their efforts. The
construction management firm
announced it would withhold payments
unless the contractors complied with the
contract requirements.
• Whole Foods did not process
payments to its general contractor until
the contractor submitted forms
summarizing its C&D debris recovery
efforts.
Deconstruct^
Provide incentives for
recovery
Providing incentives to contractors and
crews can create project buy-in.
• During the renovation of the Whole Foods
Market Corporate Headquarters Building a
portion of revenue from materials sales
was used to fund refreshments and a pizza
party for the crew.
• As an incentive to encourage recovery, the
owners of the Four Times Square office
building chose to allow their contractors
to retain revenues and savings from
materials recovery.
Follow up with contractors
and crews during the project
Without feedback, contractors and
crews may forget correct recovery
procedures or grow lax about
implementing them.
• Erickson's Diversified sent a representative
to weekly site meetings and its consultant
distributed newsletters to crews in order
to monitor project progress and keep
crews involved in recovery efforts.
Think outside the box
Recovery of C&D materials is a
growing field and offers
opportunities for creative
thinking.
• When the University of Oregon
planned to demolish Bagley
Downs Apartments, Saint
Vincent de Paul stepped
forward with the unique idea
of moving the buildings to a
new location and renovating
them. The University of
Oregon avoided the costs of
demolishing the buildings
and 30 affordable housing
units were created for
about half the cost of
building new structures.
• The Hartford Housing Authority
undertook the deconstruction of six
public housing units at Stowe Village as an
opportunity to train public housing
residents in the building trades and
simultaneously divert materials from
disposal.
-------
Construction and Demolition Materials Recovery
Some Questions and Answers
QHow can I get my subcontractors
to recover C&D materials?
A Include contract requirements that
subcontractors recover project
materials. Also incorporate an
enforcement mechanism. For example,
make contract payments due only after
your subcontractors provide
documentation of their recovery efforts.
QHow can I determine what is
recyclable or reusable?
A A little research should help you
identify what materials to
target for recovery. You can
talk to others in the
building trades to learn
what they have done on
similar projects. State and local
governments often publish directories
of recyclers and the materials they
accept. Also, check the telephone
directory for recyclers and used
building materials stores. It may be
easier to rely on professional advice.
Building site materials management
firms and companies specializing in
C&D materials recovery operate in some
regions and for a fee can handle some
or all materials from your site. Another
option is to hire a consultant who is
familiar with local conditions to draft a
materials management plan for your
project.
Q
I
How can I get my crews to
properly recover materials?
A Constant education and feedback
are necessary to ensure on-site
sorting and recovery efforts are
successful. Regular meetings among
client, contractors, and crews provide
opportunities to communicate project
successes and areas for improvement.
Also consider providing incentives to
crews as a reward for their efforts.
Crews may be more enthusiastic about
a program if they benefit personally
from it.
QHow can communities prevent
buildings from being demolished
without materials recovery?
A Some localities have incorporated
materials recovery requirements as
part of the permit process. Another
option is to pass a local ordinance
requiring recovery of C&D materials.
For example, Portland, Oregon, passed
an ordinance, effective January 1,1996,
requiring job-site recycling on all
construction projects with a value
exceeding $25,000. Localities could
pass similar ordinances requiring
recovery of demolition materials.
Q Won't my costs increase because
salvage and recycling are more
labor-intensive than disposal?
A Not necessarily. The costs of labor
to salvage and recycle should be
weighed against the
avoided costs to haul and
dispose of materials, and
the value of materials
that are recovered.
Materials recovery
often proves to be more
cost-effective than disposal.
Q
site?
How important is it to keep
materials separate on the job
A Very important. Materials
intended for salvage or reuse can
be damaged or destroyed if not
properly stored. Even a small amount of
other materials in a bin of recyclables
can make the entire bin unacceptable
for recycling.
"»UU
-------
Tips From Record-Setters
• Ensure that the client and design
team share the same environmental goals.
• Establish a clear numerical waste
reduction goal for the project.
• At minimum, choose a general
contractor and subcontractors who can
demonstrate commitment to reducing
disposal.
• Involve the general contractor early in
the design process.
• Include environmental procedures in
the project specifications that address
construction materials reuse and recycling.
• Require contractors to estimate waste
generated on site, including
packaging, so you can
anticipate the nature and
amount of the recyclable
materials that will be generated
on site.
• Host a pre-construction
meeting and site meetings early
in the construction process in
order to educate the contractor
and workers on the benefits of materials
recovery.
• Encourage communication among the
client, project facilitators, and contractors
over the course of the entire project.
• Create recycling and disposal
reduction incentives for the construction
crew such as pizza parties.
• Do not over-complicate materials
handling guidelines.
• Carefully coordinate reuse of smaller
materials such as door hardware.
• Carefully track all data on materials
recovery and communicate the results to
all involved parties.
• Provide source reduction,
reuse, and recycling forms to
project managers and waste
haulers to make data reporting easier.
Note
1U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Characterization of Building-Related
Construction and Demolition Debris in the
United States, (EPA530-R-98-010), 1998,
p. 2-11.
Tips for Municipal Planners
to Promote C&D Recycling
• Consider incorporating requirements
for recycling of C&D debris in your permit
process.
• Use the projects as a promotion to
raise awareness about recycling.
The Waste Reduction
Record-Setters Project
—Ji was developed under a
U.S. EPA grant by the Institute for Local
Self-Reliance (ILSR). For more information
on the project, contact ILSR, 2425 18th
Street, NW,Washington, DC 20009,
phone (202) 232-4108, fax (202) 332-
0463, Web site .
Resources
Organizations:
Construction Materials Recycling Association (CMRA)
PO Box 644, Lisle, Illinois 60532
630-548-4510
National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) Research Center
400 Prince George's Boulevard, Upper Marlboro, Maryland 20772-8731
301-249-4000
Used Building Materials Association (UBMA)
1096 Queen Street, Suite 126, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada B3H 2R9
877-221-UBMA (8262)
Publications:
Building for the Future: Strategies to Reduce Construction and Demolition Waste in
Municipal Projects, INFORM, Inc.: 120 Wall Street, New York, New York 10005-4001
212-361-2400
Construction Resources: A Waste Reduction Guide for Wisconsin's Builders and
Contractors, University of Wisconsin Extension, Solid and Hazardous Waste Education
Center: 610 Langdon Street, Room 527, Madison, Wisconsin 53703
608-262-0385
Residential Construction Waste Management: A Builder's Field Guide and Waste
Management and Recovery: A Remodeler's Field Guide, NAHB Research Center (contact
information listed above)
Resource Efficient Building - A Handbook for Building Owners, Designers and Project
Managers, Portland Metro: 600 NE Grand Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97232-2736
503-797-1650
Wastespec: Model Specifications for Construction Waste Reduction, Reuse,
and Recycling, Triangle J Council of Governments: P.O. Box 12276, Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina 27709
919-558-9343
Websites:
King County, Washington's Encompass site
The Smart Growth Network
The California Integrated Waste Management Board
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(5306W)
EPA-530-F-00-001a
June 2000
www.epa.gov/osw
Bagley Downs
Apartments
Eugene, Oregon
73% Reduction of Construction and
Demolition Materials
Bagley Downs is a 30-unit apartment complex in Eugene, Oregon, that was
built using 32 apartment units slated for demolition by the University of Oregon. Due
to student opposition, a demand for affordable housing, and the recycling and reuse
experience of Saint Vincent de Paul of Lane County, Inc. (SVDP), the University of Oregon
donated four buildings from the apartment complex to the City of Eugene. SVDP moved
the structures to a new site and used them as the base for constructing eight new buildings.
During the project, over 112 tons of material were recovered (86 tons through reuse and
salvage and over 26 tons through recycling) and the city saved over $ 1 million.
Project Description
The Bagley Downs Apartments appear to
have nine lives. Originally constructed in
Vancouver, Washington, and moved to the
University of Oregon in the 1940s, these
apartments were saved from the wrecking ball
a second time. In 1990, the University of
Oregon planned to raze a 244-unit student
housing complex in order to build new
housing. A student coalition opposed the
demolition and requested that the
University renovate the units. Although the
University was unable to renovate the
complex, the city committed time, energy,
land, and funds to save 32 of the units
in order to address a city shortage
of affordable housing. The city has
an overall vacancy rate of less than
1%. With city funding, Saint Vincent
de Paul moved 32 of the units to a
new site and reconstructed them,
saving part of a community landmark.
Saint Vincent de Paul, which has an
extensive history in recycling
and reuse, considers moving housing
units as a logical next step in
reducing the amount of construction
and demolition materials going into
area landfills.
An experienced moving crew removed
asbestos and lead, appliances, cabinetry, and
exterior fire escapes from the buildings prior to
cutting four buildings (eight units each) in half.
The crew used jacks, cribbing, and house-
moving dollies to separate the buildings from
their foundations. Then the crew loaded the
buildings onto special trucks, which carried the
buildings to a staging (storage) area.
Once the new site was prepared, the
contractor transported the building halves to
the new site, removed them from the truck, and
placed them on new foundations. The
contractor used new materials to seal the ends
of the buildings. The new housing complex
contains eight buildings with 30 living units plus
laundry facilities. After the ends of the buildings
were enclosed, the contractor renovated the
buildings' interiors and painted the exteriors.
During building removal, 24 tons of wood
were ground into mulch; over 2 tons of metal,
including the fire escapes and appliances, were
Materials Collected
Recycled
miscellaneous metal (fire escapes,
appliances), and wood
Reused
strutsjoist, rafters, sub floor, floor stringers,
framing, exterior shingles, and plumbing
fixtures
-------
recycled; 2 tons of plumbing fixtures were
salvaged; and 42 tons of gypsum
wallboard, vinyl flooring, wood, and
shingles were landfilled.
Costs/Benefits
The Bagley Downs project not only
diverted over 112 tons of demolition
and construction materials, and supplied
the city with 30 additional affordable
housing units but also saved the University
of Oregon demolition costs and the city of
Eugene construction costs. The University
of Oregon, which was originally going to
demolish the structures, saved
Project Summary
Date Started Spring 1993
Date Completed Summer 1995
Project Square Footage 20,000
Total Waste Generated (Tons) 154.5
Disposed (Tons) 42.0
Total Materials Diverted (Tons) 112.5
Recycled 26.5
Reused/Salvaged 86.0
Total Materials Diverted 73%
Total Project Cost $1,250,000
Hauling and Disposal Costs ($/ton) $48
Costs of Moving Building and Materials
Diversion
Planning and Development $50,000
Labor ~ NA
Hauling and Tip Fees NA
Revenue/Savings from Moving Building and
Materials Diversion
Revenue from Materials Sales NA
Savings from Materials Reuse NA
Savings from Avoided Disposal $5,400
Estimated Cost of Demolition $40,000
Estimated Cost of Similar New Construction
$2,320,000
Savings from Moving Building and Materials
Diversion NA
Savings Per Square Foot from Moving
Building and Materials Diversion NA
Key: NA = not available.
Notes: Estimated cost of demolition refers to the
cost the University of Oregon would have incurred
for demolishing the 32 units that were moved. The
University of Oregon estimated the demolition cost
based on the cost of removal of the remaining
units. The estimated cost of construction refers to
the cost that the City of Eugene would have
incurred to construct a similar complex. SVDP
estimated the construction cost of 30 units based
on a $2.78 million, 36-unit apartment construction
project SVDP finished in 1998.
approximately $40,000 in demolition
costs and over $5,000 in avoided
disposal costs. A similar, new 30-unit
complex would have cost the city over
$2.3 million to construct. Therefore, by
reusing the structures, the community
saved $1.07 million in the construction
of affordable housing.
The overall project costs of $1.25
million included the removing,
transporting, and renovating the
complex. Planning and development
costs of $50,000 were spread across the
project and included creating
partnerships with the student
coalition, the University of
Oregon, the City of Eugene, and
Lane County. During building
removal, labor costs were
increased because it
took longer for crews to
move the units than it
would have taken demolition crews to raze
them. Equipment costs, however, were
similar to those of demolition since large
trucks were necessary to move the
structures. Hauling and tip fees for
recyclables totalled $48 per ton and a local
salvage operation removed and hauled
salvageable materials at no cost.
During the construction phase, labor
costs were greatly reduced by avoiding the
need to construct a large portion of the
buildings. The cost of using large trucks
while moving the buildings was slightly
higher than the equipment costs of new
construction. The largest savings for the
city resulted from the reuse of the
structures and their components.
Tips for Replication
• Carefully plan the project and
coordinate with all participants.
• Watch project costs carefully.
• Work to develop collaborative
partnerships among the client/developer,
contractor, community, and other involved
parties.
• Encourage community participation
and seek public support.
• Allot enough time for project
completion.
fortl
• Use experienced building movers in
order to decrease time and cost.
Client/Developer:
St. Vincent de Paul
705 S. Seneca
P.O. Box 24608
Eugene, Oregon 97402
Contact: Anne Williams (Housing Programs
Director)
Phone: 541-687-5820 Fax: 541-683-9423
Web site: http://www.svdplanecounty.org
Architect
Donald H.Micken
1948 Olive
Eugene, Oregon 97405
Contact: Don H.Micken (Staff Architect)
Phone: 541-343-1990
General Contractor
2G Construction
1719 Irving Road
Eugene, Oregon 97402
Contact: David Coleman (Project Manager)
Phone: 541-689-3850 Fax: 541-689-3915
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(5306W)
EPA-530-F-00-001b
June 2000
www.epa.gov/osw
Erickson's Diversified
Corporate
Headquarters
Hudson, Wisconsin
69% Reduction of Construction Materials
Erickson's Diversified Corporation, a company that develops and manages grocery stores,
decided to incorporate environmental considerations into the construction of its new
headquarters. In order to reduce the impact on area landfills, Erickson's, along with its
consultants and contractor, developed a materials management plan that required
diversion of 75% of construction discards by volume. Erickson's reached this goal, diverting
69% of the materials by weight.
Project Description
Although the concept of recovering
construction materials was new to Erickson's
Diversified, it developed a materials
management plan that recovered 75% by
volume (69% by weight) of C&D debris
generated during the construction of its new
headquarters.
The newly constructed headquarters,
with almost 28,000 square feet of floor
space, consists of two floors and a
basement garage.
Implementation of the materials
management plan was responsible for
much of the project's success. The plan
provided subcontractors with instructions
on reduction, reuse and recycling
techniques, and sorting methods.
It required each subcontractor to:
• complete a report on their
predicted C&D debris generation;
• designate a contact person
who would attend staff meetings
and inform other crew members
about C&D debris management
requirements and project progress;
• source separate materials
and document materials generated
using a Waste Management
Periodic Report;
• minimize storage and packaging discards;
• consider the reuse potential of temporary
construction materials such as bracing; and
• use standard size product samples, such
as tile, so the samples could be used in the final
construction.
Good communication among team
members was another major factor in the
success of the project. The client, contractor, and
consultant presented the project's goals and
objectives to subcontractors and their crews in
simple, easily understood terms. The client
reinforced its commitment to achieving
environmental goals by attending weekly site
meetings and talking with workers. The project
consultant wrote and periodically dispersed
newsletters informing all workers of the project's
Materials Collected
aluminum cans, cardboard, concrete,
miscellaneous metal (cut offs,
banding, from shipments, ducts, steel
stud cut offs, mattress springs, roof
metal, rebar, roof decking), office
paper, wood (cut offs, pallets, crating
and packaging, old forms)
Salvaged for Reuse
bricks,canvas bags, carpeting,
concrete curing tarp, concrete mix,
gypsum board, insulation, lumber,
miscellaneous metal, metal angle,
plywood, steel frames, stone caps
and remnants, wire spools, wood and
pallets
-------
progress. The consultant invited the
general contractor and subs to go on field
trips to recycling facilities to reinforce the
purpose of recovery. Also, workers were
reminded of the project's objectives
through daily interaction with lead
contacts, the project superintendent, and
the project manager. Even the hauler
helped facilitate materials recovery and
reduce contamination by finding available
space for recycling bins, and providing
signs labeling each bin.
Erickson's Diversified and its
contractor encountered no major
obstacles during the project and found
that it was easy, cost-effective, and
enjoyable to create a C&D debris
management plan and implement it on
the construction site.
Costs/Benefits
During the construction of its new
headquarters, Erickson's Diversified
discovered that materials recovery saves
money. Initially, the contractor estimated
Project Summary
Date Started
November 1995
Date Completed December 1996
Project Square Footage 28,000
Total Waste Generated (Tons) 270.6
Disposed (Tons) 85.3
Diversion (Tons) 185.3
Recycled 157.3
Salvaged 28.1
Total Materials Diverted 68.5%
Total Construction Cost $4,700,000
Hauling and Disposal Costs ($/Ton) MA
Materials Diversion Costs (Savings)
Planning and
Development $4,300
Labor NA
Materials/Equipment NA
Hauling and Tip Fees NA
Revenue / Savings from Materials Diversion
Revenue from Materials Sales $0
Savings from Materials Reuse $0
Savings from Avoided Hauling
and Disposal NA
Cost/(Savings) from Diversion NA
Cost/(Savings) per Square Foot NA
Key: NA = not available.
that materials recovery would
increase the project costs
because of the need for
additional recycling bins and
separation of recyclables.
However, materials diversion
costs were less than predicted
and, in fact, project costs
would have been more if
Erickson's Diversified had not
required their general
contractor to recover
construction debris.
Recovering the 185 tons of
materials diverted required
more planning and labor than would have
been necessary if the materials had been
disposed. For example, Erickson's
Diversified paid a consulting firm over
$4,300 for planning, developing, and
reporting upon the project's progress. The
general contractor incurred additional
labor costs for source separation and
additional crew training. Not all
materials recovery methods
increased costs. Labor costs were
lowered through the reduction of
packing materials, because crew
members spent less time
unpacking materials and
hauling packaging to the bins.
The hauler handled the removal of
recyclables and charged lower rates for
this service than for landfilling.
Erickson's Diversified donated all
reusable materials to the public and did
not receive any revenue from materials
diversion.
Tips for Replication
• Establish a clear numerical goal for
the project.
• Choose a general contractor and
subcontractors who can demonstrate a
commitment to reducing disposal.
• Provide source reduction, reuse, and
recycling forms to project managers and
haulers to make data reporting easier.
• Communicate the goal and report
project progress, success, and failures to
«.;'
site.
the project
everyone involved.
• If possible, hire haulers who can offer
all-inclusive recycling and waste hauling
services.
Client
Erickson's Diversified
Corporation
509 Second Street
Hudson, Wisconsin 54016
Contact: Amy Briesacher (Director of
Environmental and Community Action)
Phone: 715-386-9315 Fax: 715-386-1013
Consultant
LHB Engineers & Architects
250 Third Avenue North, Suite 450
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55401
Contact: Joel Schurke (Project Manager)
Phone: 612-338-2029 Fax: 612-338-2088
E-mail: joel.schurke@LHBcorp.com
Web site: http://www.LHBcorp.com
General Contractor
Watson-Forsberg Co.
1433 Utica Avenue South, Suite 252
Minneapolis, Minnesota 55416
Contact: Paul Kolias (Project Manager)
Phone: 612-544-7761 Fax: 612-544-1826
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(5306W)
EPA-530-F-OO-OOIc
June 2000
www.epa.gov/osw
Four Times Square
New York, New York
58% Reduction of Demolition and
Construction Materials
As of its fifth quarter of construction, the Four Times Square office tower
project has demonstrated that materials recovery makes good sense and
can save money. ByMarch 1999, project participants had diverted an
average 58% of total demolition and construction discards (59% by weight
of demolition debris and, so far, 58% by weight of construction discards) from disposal.
Contractors saved over $780,000 in disposal fees and earned over $105,000 in revenue from
materials sales by diverting 17,800 tons of materials from disposal.
Project Description
Four Times Square is a 48-story office tower
located at the intersection of Broadway and
42nd Street. It is the first office tower to be built
in Manhattan since 1988. It is also, due to the
commitment of its owners, one of the first office
towers of its size designed to address
environmental building issues, such as energy
efficiency and indoor air quality. The
implementation of responsible construction
techniques led to the recovery of 58% of
overall demolition and construction debris.
The project involved both a demolition
phase and a construction phase. Before
construction could begin, crews had to
remove six buildings. Extensive salvage
combined with recycling resulted in the
recovery of over 15,000 tons of materials. Prior
to demolition, private groups removed
all salvageable materials such as
doors, copper facial corners, and 112
tons of wood beams. As the structures
were removed, the waste hauler
carted away over 15,800 tons of
metal and rubble for recycling, and
the demolition contractor disposed of
almost 11,100 tons of materials
including unsalvageable bricks and
commingled wood, insulation, and
gypsum board.
To assure that materials were
recovered during the construction
Times Square building.
phase, project coordinators worked closely with
the demolition contractor and required it to
report tonnage data on materials recycled or
reused. Prior to construction, the owners,
principal architects, and construction manager
held a pre-construction meeting with the
construction contractors to discuss the
importance of materials efficiency and recovery.
The environmental consultant adjusted the
contract to include language that maximized
recovery. She also created forms that contractors
could use to anticipate packaging waste
Materials Collected
Recycled
(Demolition) steel, scrap metal, brick,
concrete, dirt, (Construction)
aluminum, miscellaneous metal,
cardboard, wood, dirt, and rock
Salvaged for Reuse
ornate stone work, office doors, copper
facial corners, and wood timbers.
-------
generated during the construction process.
The construction management firm
threatened to withhold payments unless
the contractors adhered to the contract and
completed the forms. Although some
contractors were reluctant to complete the
forms, no payments were withheld. By the
fifth quarter of construction (March 1999),
the contractor had recovered 1,900 tons of
the construction debris generated.
There was little room to sort and
collect recyclables, no space to place drop-
off containers, and no room for multiple
trucks to pick up materials for recovery or
disposal at the construction site. Hoist and
Project Summary
Date Started August 1996
Projected Date of Completion July 1999
Project Square Footage
Demolition
Construction
Total Waste Generated (Tons)
Demolition
Construction
Disposed (Tons)
Demolition
Construction
Total Materials Diverted (Tons)
Recycled
Demolition
Construction
Salvaged
Demolition
Construction
Total Materials Diverted
Demolition
Construction
Disposal Costs ($/ton)
Landfill
462,500
1,600,000
30,314
27,027
3,287
12,480
11,097
1,383
17,833
15,805
1,904
125
0
58.4%
58.9%
57.9%
$44
Revenue/Savings from Demolition Materials
Diversion
Planning and Labor Costs NA
Tip Fees for Recyclables NA
Revenue from Materials Sales $92,3 75
Value of Materials Salvaged $12,500
Savings from Avoided Disposal $700,920
Revenue / Savings from Construction
Materials Diversion
Planning and Labor Costs NA
Tip Fees for Recyclables NA
Savings from Avoided Disposal $83,755
Total (Savings) from Diversion NA
Key: NA = not available.
Notes: Data reflects figures as of March 1999, before
construction was complete. Contractors received all
revenue from materials sales. Hauling costs for
materials landfilled were not available. Materials
diversion through source reduction is not reflected
in the percentage of materials diverted.
elevator operators, busy performing
construction tasks, had little time to make
multiple trips to move recyclables. Instead
the contractor practiced "post-collection
recycling" by having all debris hauled to a
central site and then sorted.
In addition to recovering materials for
reuse and recycling, contractors practiced
source reduction during the project.
Contractors reduced waste by requiring
suppliers to reduce packaging or use
durable packaging and by returning some
packaging, such as pallets, to suppliers.
Costs/Benefits
The project contractor realized all
savings resulting from materials
recovery. The building owners chose to
use the possibility of savings as an
incentive to encourage recovery and lower
contract costs rather than collect the
savings themselves. Although cost data
attributed to materials recovery are
unavailable, the environmental consultant
reported that the materials recovery was
cost-effective. Disposal tip fees
of $44 per ton saved the
demolition contractor over
$700,000 in avoided
disposal costs and the
construction contractor
over $83,000 from avoided
disposal as of March 1999. When
combined with the revenue received
from the sale of steel and scrap metal
($92,375), wood beams ($7,500), and
other salvaged materials ($5,000), the
demolition contractor believes these
savings far outweighed waste reduction
costs for planning, additional labor, and
tip fees for recycled materials. The
planning and development costs
included the fees of the environmental
consultant for writing additions to
contracts, creating materials tracking
forms, organizing team meetings, and
overseeing all materials recovery efforts.
Project facilitators considered post-
collection recycling the most cost-
effective materials recovery technique,
because on-site labor was very
expensive.
Tips for Replication
• Obtain instructions from the top and
communicate them to all project
participants.
• Educate contractors about materials
recovery techniques and the importance of
resource conservation. Ask for their help.
• Ask contractors to avoid generating
waste by using reusable containers and
requesting materials with reduced
packaging.
• Require contractors to estimate waste
generated on site, including packaging, so
you can anticipate the nature and amount
of the recyclable materials that will be
generated on site.
• Encourage
communication among
the client, project
facilitators, and
contractors.
Environmental Consultant
Durst Organization
1155 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10036
Contact: Pamela Lippe
Phone: 212-922-0048 Fax: 212-922-1936
E-mail: plippe@aol.com
Web site: http://www.durstny.org
Architect
Fox and Fowle Architects
22 West 19th Street
New York, New York 10011
Contact: Daniel Kaplan (Project Architect
and Principal)
Phone: 212-627-1700 Fax: 212-463-8716
Construction Manager
Tishman Construction
666 5th Avenue
New York, New York 10103
Contact: Mel Ruffini (Project Director)
Phone: 212-399-3600
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(5306W)
EPA-530-F-00-001d
June 2000
www.epa.gov/osw
Marion County
Senator Block
Salem, Oregon
82% Reduction of Demolition Materials
Marion County and Salem Area Transit saved almost $160,000 when their
contractor demolished all the buildings on the city's Senator Block to make
space for Salem's new courthouse square. The contractor exceeded the county's
landfill diversion goal of 90% by diverting 92% of demolition materials: 13,700 tons (82%)
through recycling and reuse, and 1,600 tons (10%) through the generation of wood chips
for use as fuel in industrial boilers. Recycling and reuse saved Marion County and Salem
Area Transit over $165,000. An additional $58,000 in equipment and labor costs for
materials recovery were offset by $188,000 savings in hauling and disposal tip fees and
$36,000 in revenue from materials sales.
J J
Project Description
n 1997, Marion County set an example for
other demolition projects in the area when it
required its demolition contractor, Staton
Companies, to divert waste from area landfills
while clearing the site for Marion County's new
courthouse square and transit station. The
county set a goal of 90% landfill diversion
based upon its research of other recovery
efforts.1
The Marion County Senator block
consisted of seven buildings, including a
parking garage, retail stores, and an
apartment building. Prior to demolition,
Marion County's Facility Management
Department salvaged more than 20
types of items for future reuse, such
as light fixtures, air conditioners, and
fire prevention equipment. The
contractor's crews then removed
metal pipes and HVAC ducts from
each room using a small loader. The
crews also removed asphalt roofing,
concrete, and wood, such as large, old
growth timbers, small timbers, and
doors.
After salvage operations were
completed, the contractor's crew
demolished the buildings using a
large track excavator and a crane with
a wrecking ball. The crew then sorted the
remaining wreckage, both mechanically and by
hand and delivered metal (590 tons), asphalt and
asphalt roofing (845 tons), and concrete (11,571
tons) to local recycling companies. These
companies recycled these materials into new
metal, roadbed mix, and slope stabilization
materials. In response to calls from local
residents requesting bricks, the contractor had
crew members sort 661 tons of bricks into a pile
and surrounded the pile with a safety fence. The
county then sponsored the "Great Brick
Materials Collected
scrap metal (including HVAC
ductwork, framing, pipes, conduit,
lighting fixtures, structural steel, doors
and window frames), structural
lumber and trees and stumps, asphalt
and asphalt roofing, and concrete
Salvaged for Reuse
bricks, wood (including old growth
and small timbers), engraved cinder
blocks, marble fireplace, windows,
safety equipment (including
emergency lights,fire alarm pulls and
bells, fire extinguishers , and sprinkler
heads), electrical breakers, light
fixtures, lighting controls and sensors,
time clocks, electrical outlets, water
heaters, heat exchangers, circulating
pumps, water meters, air conditioners,
heaters, thermostats, humidifiers,
handicapped accessibility
fixtures.toilets and urinals, and doors
-------
J3
Giveaway,"a program inviting citizens to
take the bricks for reuse. The contractor
delivered 1,578 tons of wood to a
processor for chipping and use as
industrial boiler fuel and the remaining
1,345 tons of mixed demolition materials
to various local landfills.
The Marion County Solid
Waste Management
Department used the
demolition as a tool to
educate the public about
recycling. The County placed
advertisements on TV and radio,
publicized materials giveaways in
the newspaper, and placed highly-
visible site banners illustrating the
recycling rate of the project.
Project Summary
Date Started May 1997
Date Completed August 1997
Project Square Footage 17a780
Total Waste Generated (Tons) 16,649
Disposed (Tons) 2,923
Landfilled 1,345
Wood Chips for Fuel 1,578
Total Materials Diverted 82%
Total Materials Diverted (Tons) 13,726
Recycled 13,006
Salvaged for Reuse 720
Total Demolition Cost MA
Hauling and Disposal Costs ($/Ton)
Landfilled varied
Incinerated for Energy Recovery $28
Materials Diversion Costs
Planning and Development $0
Labor " $22,500
Equipment $35,900
Hauling and Tip Fees $94,500
Revenue/Savings from Materials Diversion
Revenue from Materials Sales $36,000
Savings from Avoided Hauling
and Tip Fees $283,000
Cost/(Savings) from Diversion ($165,700)
Cost/(Savings) per Square Foot ($1)
Key: NA = not available
Notes: Figures may not add to total due to rounding.
Disposal tip fees varied by type of materials disposed.
Savings from avoided disposal resulted from avoiding
costs of hauling and disposing of metals, timbers,
bricks, asphalt roofing, concrete, and asphalt. Tonnage
diverted does not include materials salvaged by the
county because the county did not track these
materials tonnages. Materials diverted through
salvage by the contractor includes 661 tons of bricks,
56 tons of old growth timbers, and 279 doors
(approximately 3 tons).
Costs/Benefits
The County and Salem
Area Transit saved over
$160,000 ($1 per square &
foot) by diverting demolition 3
c
waste. The project was cost- |
effective because of a ^
g
savings in hauling and |
disposal fees for waste. The \
contractor paid $94,500 to
haul and tip recyclable
materials. Disposal of these
materials would have cost
$283,000.
The savings from
avoided disposal combined with
$36,000 in revenue from materials sales
offset the cost of 577 additional labor
hours ($22,500) and $35,900 in heavy
equipment that were required to sort
materials. Revenue from the sale of metal
and timbers were $25,000 and $11,000,
respectively. The contractor paid to tip all
other recyclables.
The contractor did not recover
materials, with the exception of asphalt
roofing, if the cost was more to recycle it
than to dispose of it. According to the
contractor, window glass, ceiling tile, and
gypsum wallboard could have been
recycled, but the hauling and removal
costs would have been more than the
materials revenue and disposal savings.
The contractor also chose to dispose of
most of the mixed demolition materials
from the largest building because sorting
concrete and steel from gypsum board
and insulation was too costly.
Overall, the County and Salem Area
Transit reduced their demolition costs by
5% and stockpiled tons of reusable
building components while diverting 82%
of demolition materials from disposal.
Tips for Replication
• Be careful not to contaminate the
recovered materials, so that the materials
can be delivered to the processor in a
usable form.
• Include reuse, recycling, and waste
prevention strategies early in the process.
• Set a goal and require the contractor
to recycle.
• Involve and educate the public.
Marion County's goal was
based on avoiding
landfill disposal.
According to its
definition, the County
surpassed its goal;
diverting 82% of the project
demolition materials through
recycling and reuse and 10% through burning of wood
chips as industrial boiler fuel. EPA considers incineration
to be disposal; therefore, by EPA's definition, Marion
County's diversion rate for the project is 82%.
Client
Marion County Department of
Solid Waste Management
388 State Street, Suite 735
Salem, Oregon 97301
Contact: Jim Sears
Phone: 503-588-5169 Fax: 503-588-3565
E-mail: jsears@open.org
Web site: http://www.open.org
Recycling Engineer
Harding Lawson Associates
115 SW Ash Street, Suite 325
Portland, Oregon 97204
Contact: David Allaway
Phone: 503-227-1326 Fax: 503-227-3864
E-mail: dallaway@harding.com
Web site: http://www.harding.com
Demolition Contractor
Staton Companies
85386 Highway 99S
Box 7515
Eugene, Oregon 97401
Contact: Mike Staton
Phone: 541-726-9422 Fax: 541-726-9837
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(5306W)
EPA-530-F-00-001e
June 2000
www.epa.gov/osw
Ridgehaven Green
Office Building
San Diego, CA
51% Reduction of Renovation Materials
When the City of San Diego's Environmental Services Department (ESD)
renovated the Ridgehaven Office Building into a green building it required
that its general contractor divert materials for reuse. The ESD and the city diverted
51% of renovation debris, saved over $93,000, lengthened the life of the local landfill, and
showed that cities can help meet California's AB 939 law through the recovery of
construction and demolition material. The general contractor also learned that material
diversion makes sense. Despite its initial reluctance to follow the reuse and recycling
procedures in the project specifications, the company now recovers materials on all
construction projects.
Project Description
In 1994 the City of San Diego's Environmental
Services Department (BSD), which manages
the city's trash and recycling, expanded its office
space by purchasing the Ridgehaven Office
Building. The department decided to renovate
the office structure as a Green Building
Demonstration Project, requiring (1) the use of
green building materials (containing recycled
content or recyclable) and (2) the reduction,
recycling, and reuse of all possible
renovation materials. BSD was encouraged
to divert materials because of AB 939,
California's law which requires all state
municipalities to reduce their waste by 50%
by the year 2000. ESD's ownership of
the city landfill was an additional
incentive to reduce construction and
demolition disposal from the project.
During the renovation, the
general contractor removed all
internal components, such as
furniture, window blinds, doors and
assemblies, gypsum panels from
interior walls, and acoustical ceiling
panels. Crews then stored these
materials for refurbishment and
reinstallation.
The general contractor
recovered other materials through
recycling and salvaging. Crew members hand-
sorted recyclables into bins and took them to
nearby processors. Workers also removed 3,700
square yards of carpet, 450 light fixtures, and 60
mechanical heat pumps. Salvaging companies
then removed salvageable materials for reuse by
others, saving the city removal, hauling, and
tipping fees.
The general contractor's reluctance to
recycle was initially an obstacle to materials
recovery. The project specifications included
requirements, developed by the environmental
consulting architect, for the salvage and reuse of
building materials and the recycling of
construction debris. Project facilitators (BSD, the
project architect, and the environmental
consulting architect) worked together to assure
Materials Collected
Recycled
scrap metal, concrete, wood
(including pallets),cardboard,
ceramic toilet fixtures, gypsum
wallboard.and cellulose insulation
Reused On-Site
wall panels, acoustical ceiling panels,
doors (including frames, thresholds,
and hardware), wall coverings, and
cabinets and shelves
Salvaged for Reuse
carpet, light fixtures, and mechanical
heat pumps
-------
that the contractor followed these
specifications. As part of this joint effort,
BSD labeled site dumpsters for recycling,
clearly identifying them for separate
materials.
Another difficulty encountered during
the project was the theft of recyclables
from the site. These thefts served to
illustrate the value of recyclable materials.
Costs/Benefits
Traditionally, debris from most
renovation projects are disposed in
landfills. BSD, however, saved $93,000 by
diverting 51% of the materials removed
during their renovation of the Ridgehaven
Green Office Building. This savings
convinced the general contractor to
practice recycling on future projects.
Planning costs were incurred for
developing the environmental procedures,
Project Summary
Date Started 1994
Date Completed 1996
Project Square Footage 73,000
Total Waste Generated (Tons) 366.0
Disposed (Tons) 180.0
Total Materials Diverted (Tons) 186.0
Recycled 80.1
Reused On-Site 62.3
Salvaged for Later Reuse 43.6
Total Materials Diverted 51 %
Disposal Tip Fee ($/ton)
Landfill $43
Materials Diversion Costs
Planning and Development $13,500
Labor " $13,500
Hauling and Tip Fees $0
Revenue/Savings from Materials
Diversion
Materials Sales $1,250
Materials Reuse On-Site $68,800
Materials Salvage $15,000
Avoided Disposal $8,000
Avoided Hauling $13,500
Subcontracting Fees $13,500
Cost/(Savings) from Diversion ($93,050)
Cost/(Savings) per Square Foot ($1.27)
Notes: Figures may not add to total due to
rounding. Lynn Froeschle estimated materials
diversion costs, savings from avoided hauling, and
savings from avoided subcontracting fees as a
percentage of the total project costs.
which addressed the reuse,
salvaging, and recycling of
renovation materials;
educating and training the
general contractor,
subcontractors, and crew; and
checking to assure that the
project's environmental
specifications were followed.
During the project, additional
labor was required to remove,
refurbish and reinstall the
wall panels, ceiling tiles, doors
and door frames, and window
blinds. Source separating
recyclables also required
more labor than simply
throwing all renovation materials into one
container. Neither the contractor nor ESD
paid any fees to haul or tip recyclables.
ESD offset the labor, hauling, and
planning costs for the materials recovery
program with a $68,800 savings in avoided
materials purchases on the Ridgehaven
project, the salvage of $15,000 worth of
components for use in later projects, over
$1,200 in materials revenue, and $21,500 in
avoided hauling and disposal fees. The
general contractor refurbished and reused
many materials, such as wall panels, doors
and assemblies, and ceiling tiles, at a lower
cost than purchasing new items. The city
received materials revenue from the sale of
28 tons of scrap metal ($1,136) and 4 tons
of cardboard ($113). The contractor also
saved by avoiding the removal, hauling,
and tipping of 3,700 square yards of carpet
($10,000); 450 light fixtures ($3,000); and
60 mechanical heat pumps ($2,000), which
were salvaged for off-site reuse.
Furthermore, total subcontractor costs
were $13,500 lower than projected as a
result of the waste reduction efforts.
Tips for Replication
• Ensure that the client, the design
team, and the contractor share the same
environmental goals.
• Identify all possible recyclable and
reusable materials prior to renovation.
• Include environmental procedures in
the project specifications that address
construction materials reuse and recycling.
during the r
Building.
• Require the contractor to develop a
construction recycling plan that
compliments the project specifications.
• Host a pre-construction meeting and
site meetings early in the
construction process in
order to educate the
contractor and workers on
the benefits of materials
recovery.
Client:
City of San Diego
Environmental Services
Department
9601 Ridgehaven Court
San Diego, California 92123
Contact: Lisa Wood
Phone: 858-573-1236
Architect of Record
Platt/Whitelaw Architects, Inc.
3953 Goldfinch
San Diego, California 92117-4730
Contact: Alison M.Whitelaw, AIA
Phone: 619-260-1818
Environmental Consulting Architect
Lynn Froeschle, AIA, Architects
4472 Mount Herbert Avenue
San Diego, California 92117-4730
Contact: Lynn M. Froeschle, AIA, CSI
Phone: 858-571-2858 Fax: 858-571-7073
E-mail: LFroeschle@aol.com
General Contractor
Soltek Pacific, Inc.
2424 Congress Street, Suite A
San Diego, California 92110
Contact: Neal Jellison
Phone: 619-296-6247
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(5306W)
EPA-530-F-00-001f
June 2000
www.epa.gov/osw
Stowe Village
Hartford, Connecticut
50% Reduction of Demolition Materials
As an alternative to demolition, the Hartford Housing Authority undertook a
demonstration project that trained nine public housing residents to
deconstruct (hand-dismantle) six public housing units in Stowe Village.
Upon completion of the project, the workers had recovered 50% of the
materials from the buildings (40% through salvage and 10% through recycling).
Project Description
I
n fall 1998 the Hartford Housing Authority
(HHA) tested an alternative to traditional
demolition for removing obsolete buildings
from the Stowe Village public housing
complex. The complex, built in 1953 and
located in the northern section of Hartford,
Connecticut, comprised 31 residential
buildings (598 units) and related support
structures. In this pilot project, staff trained
public housing residents in deconstruction
techniques (hand-dismantling) while
removing Building #28, an 8,250-square-
foot building containing six housing units.
HHA's primary project goal was to extend its
Family Reunification and Employment
Program, which encourages parents to
assume their responsibilities as family
members and community residents. Because
of this goal, the HHA was the first housing
authority to require a deconstruction
training program as part of
development proposals. The project
general contractor, Manafort
Brothers, Inc. worked with the HHA,
Self-Reliance Inc., and the Laborers'
International Union to recruit and
train nine public housing residents in
deconstruction techniques. The
general contractor entered into
partnership with the HHA and the
nine resident workers to form the
Hartford Community Deconstruction
Service Company.
aterialsforreuse.
Prior to building removal, a skilled examiner
reviewed and documented all salvageable
materials. The crew members of the
Deconstruction Service Company then removed
the plumbing and electrical fixtures, windows,
floors, non-load bearing walls, ceiling, roof
rafters, and sub-flooring. Crew members
dismantled the windows and aluminum frames,
and removed, denailed, trimmed, and stacked all
salvageable lumber on site. Then a demolition
crew, using heavy equipment, knocked down
the outer walls and remaining roof components,
and removed the foundation. Deconstruction
Materials Collected
Recycled
metal (copper, aluminum, ferrous);
cement, aggregate, wood
Salvaged for Reuse
lumber (flooring, roof rafters, floor
joist, wall studs); cast iron radiators,
sinks, aluminum frame windows, bricks
-------
workers finally gleaned the piles of rubble
to recover usable bricks and wood. When
finished, the deconstruction crew had
recovered 109 tons of materials from
Building #28. The remaining materials
were removed by a demolition firm for
processing (27 tons) and disposal (136
tons).
Costs/Benefits
Because the deconstruction of Building
#28 was a pilot project that involved
training, the cost of deconstructing the
building was higher than normal. A great
deal of planning and development was
necessary to implement the program. The
recovery of materials (such as plasterboard
Project Summary
Date Started
October 1998
Date Completed December 1998
Project Square Footage 8,250
Total Waste Generated (Tons) 265.5
Disposed (Tons) 132.8
Total Materials Diverted (Tons) 132.8
Recycled
Reused
Total Materials Diverted
26.6
106.2
50%
Hauling and Disposal Costs ($/ton) $23
Net Deconstruction Costs $72,107
Planning & Development $20,000
Labor ~ $60,400
Hauling and Recycling Fees $617
Disposal Tip Fee $3,083
Materials Sales ($300)
MaterialsSalvaged ($8,610)
Avoided Disposal ($3,083)
Net Cost per Square Foot $9
Potential Net Deconstiuction Cost $4,700
Labor $10,000
Hauling and Recycling Fees $600
Disposal Tip Fee $3,100
Miscellaneous $3,000
Materials Sales ($300)
MaterialsSalvaged ($8,600)
Avoided Disposal ($3,100)
Potential Net Cost per Square Foot $1
Notes: SRI calculated potential cost and
revenue/savings based upon the following
assumptions: (1) at least 30% deconstruction of a
building equivalent to Building #28 in size, location,
and materials composition; (2) the deconstruction
performed injoint-venture with an established
demolition company; (3) $23 per ton hauling and
disposal costs; (4) $600 for hauling and recycling tip
fees; (5) miscellaneous costs including 15% of total
for overhead, equipment, and cost of sales; and (6) a
crew of five fully-trained deconstruction workers
receiving wages and benefits of $200 per day.
and small wall studs) for
training purposes greatly
increased the cost of labor.
The one-time planning and
development cost ($20,000)
included the costs of
organizing meetings, training
deconstruction workers, and
recording and reporting data.
Once trained, deconstruction
crews working in collaboration
with an established demolition
firm could deconstruct the
same square footage for an
estimated $10,000 in labor.
This would reduce the labor
cost on future deconstruction projects by
83%. Therefore, trained crews could
deconstruct buildings of similar square
footage and materials composition
as Building #28 at a cost of $2 per
square foot, $1 less than the
general contractor's estimate for
traditional demolition.
Deconstruction costs of Building #28
were reduced by $300 in revenue from
metal recovered for recycling, $8,610 in
revenue from sales of salvaged materials,
and over $3,000 from avoided hauling and
disposal costs. The potential net
deconstruction costs on future projects
would be reduced to a total of $1 per
square foot if these revenues and savings
were combined with reduced labor and
planning costs.
Overall, the project coordinators
believe that the Stowe Village Project
achieved the HHA's primary goal and
proved to be a cost-effective training
program. The project coordinators
estimated that deconstruction training
cost only $5,600 per worker. The
industry/government standard cost for
training a worker is $15,000.
Tips for Replication
• Use the request for proposals process
to identify a developer and contractor that
are experienced with and/or are willing to
practice materials recovery.
• Use the Laborers' International Union
to train workers in materials recovery
methods.
rew
uMing#28 atSto*eVillage.
• Carefully track all data on materials
recovery and communicate the results to
all involved parties.
• Involve city agencies to gather
political and financial support.
Client
Hartford Housing Authority
475 Flatbush Avenue
Hartford, Connecticut 06106
Contact: Greg Lickwola
Phone: 860-275-8421 Fax: 860-233-7820
Web site: http://www.hartnet.org
Project Manager/ Sustainability
Consultant
Self-Reliance Inc. (SRI)
2425 18th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20009
Contact: Neil Seldman (President)
Phone: 202-232-4108 Fax: 202-332-0463
E-mail: ilsr@igc.org
Web site: http://www.ilsr.org
General Contractor
Manafort Brothers, Inc.
414 New Britain Avenue
Plainville, Connecticut 06062
Contact: Modesto Rey
Phone: 860-229-4853 Fax: 860-747-5299
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(5306W)
EPA-530-F-00-001g
June 2000
www.epa.gov/osw
Whole Foods Market
Corporate
Headquarters Building
Austin, Texas
42% Reduction of Renovation Materials
When Whole Foods renovated its corporate headquarters in fall 1998, with the goal to
create a "green" commercial building, it required all contractors to reduce, reuse, or recycle
their waste. Contractors recovered 42% of the project waste while saving Whole Foods over
$2 per square foot. Whole Foods reached this reduction level despite being located in a city
tha t has few established markets for recyclables and four landfills tha t keep disposal ra tes
low.
Project Description
Whole Foods expanded its corporate
headquarters by renovating 4,000 square
feet on the third floor of its existing building and
over 11,500 square feet on the third floor of an
adjacent building. The renovation involved
removing all existing materials except for the
frame and exterior wall. In order to create a
seamless transition between the two
buildings, the contractor had to lower one
part of the floor and raise the roof of the
adjacent building. Whole Foods began
planning for the expansion in January 1998
with an overall goal to create a "green"
commercial structure within reasonable cost
and available technology. To meet this goal,
Whole Foods allowed a 10 percent
price preference for sustainable
building techniques and materials,
and the project manager required all
contractors to reduce, reuse, and
recycle, C&D debris.
The project manager, who was
also the sustainability consultant,
included a section in the project
contract on materials management.
This section specified acceptable
procedures for reusing and recycling
renovation materials. The project
manager also required contractors to
complete a Summary of Waste
Generated and Recycled for the Project form. To
enforce the provisions in the contract, Whole
Foods did not process payments unless the
general contractor submitted this form. As an
incentive for crew members, the contract allowed
for a portion of materials sales revenue to fund
refreshments for them.
The general contractor was in charge of all
materials management, including recycling
structural steel and other metals, and salvaging
other building materials. The builder used many
salvaged materials in the renovation and donated
other reusable materials to various organizations,
such as Habitat for Humanity. Overall, project
participants diverted 42% of materials generated
during the renovation from disposal.
Because the renovation took place on the
Materials Collected
structural steel, miscellaneous metals
(metal studs, ceiling grid and support
wire, conduit, strapping from lumber
and deliveries, tubing, piping, and
rebar), and cardboard
Reused On-site
mop sink, fire-rated ceiling tiles, light
fixtures, HVAC devices, and fire-rated
doors and hardware sets
carpeting, spotlights and track lights,
wooden doors, plywood, medium
density fiberboard (MDF), soundboard,
accordion-folding wall, ceramic floor
tile, ceiling fans, cabinets, mirrors, and
structural wood and flooring
-------
third floor, staff had to load all materials
into a freight elevator and transport it
through the loading dock. The loading
dock had only enough space for one
30-cubic-yard roll-off at a time and,
therefore, staff had to rotate roll-offs
for disposal and recycling. Staff had
to store materials on the job site
until they could be placed into the
appropriate roll-off.
Costs/Benefits
The Whole Foods Market
Corporate Headquarters Expansion
Project has not only served as a prototype
for "green" commercial building in Austin,
but was also cost-effective. By recycling
and reusing materials, Whole Foods saved
over $32,000. Even though the company
was willing to pay more for using
sustainable building techniques, it actually
paid less. Reusing materials, such as fire-
rated ceiling tile, light fixtures, and HVAC
diffusers, saved almost $25,000 in new
Project Summary
Date Started January 1998
Date Completed October 1998
Project Square Footage 15,500
Total Waste Generated (Tons) 55.0
Disposed (Tons) 31.8
Total Materials Diverted (Tons) 23.2
Recycled 9.3
Reused 5.4
Donated 8.5
Total Materials Diverted 42%
Hauling and Disposal Tip Fees ($/ton)
Landfill $51.42
Materials Diversion Costs
Planning and Development $1,400
Labor " $209
Hauling and Tip Fees $0
Revenue/Savings from Materials Diversion
Revenue from Materials Sales $226
Savings from Materials Reuse $24,675
Savings from Avoided Disposal $1,193
Tax Deductions from Donations $8,335
Cost/(Savings) from Diversion ($32,820)
Cost/(Savings) per Square Foot ($2.10)
Notes: Figures may not add to total due to rounding.
Shellie Reott calculated savings from materials reuse
using avoided purchase price of new materials.
Savings from avoided disposal resulted from avoided
hauls and disposal of 117 cubic yards of materials.
materials purchases. Avoided disposal
saved the project almost $1,200, while
revenue from materials recovery totaled
over $200. Labor costs for the project
totalled almost $83,000 and included costs
for the general contractor (6,000 hours),
costs for general cleanup (930 hours), and
all subcontracted labor. Due to careful
planning and the relatively small site area,
labor costs for moving materials for reuse
to and from on-site storage locations were
only $209. Materials diversion did not
appear to increase fees subcontractors
charged for labor. Materials diversion
required additional design, planning, and
consulting, which cost approximately
$1,400 more than if the project had no
materials diversion. Overall, these
increased costs were offset by lower costs
for waste hauling, disposal, materials
purchases, and revenue from materials
sales.
Tips for Replication
• Communicate your needs in the
specifications and at pre-bid and pre-
construction meetings to all players,
including the job foreman, materials
salesmen, and the project superintendent.
• Involve the general contractor early in
the design process.
• Usejob-site safety meetings to
communicate waste reduction goals.
• Do not over-complicate waste
handling guidelines.
• Carefully coordinate reuse of smaller
materials such as door hardware.
• Create recycling and waste reduction
incentives for the construction crew such
as pizza parties and doughnuts for breaks.
• If space is limited, use a separate
storage facility for reusable items to avoid
unnecessary moving of materials.
Client
Whole Foods Market
601 N. Lamar Boulevard,
Suite 300
Austin, Texas 78703
Contact: Mike Willoughby (Facility Manager)
Phone: 512-477-4455 Fax: 512-477-1301
E-mail: mike.willoughby@wholefoods.com
Web site: http://www.wholefoods.com
Project Manager/Sustainability Consultant
Earthly Ideas
510 E.Mary Street
Austin, Texas 78704-3143
Contact: Shellie Reott (Principal)
Phone: 512-444-0980 Fax: 512-444-7743
E-mail: earthly@io.com
Web site: http://www.io.com/earthly
General Contractor
White Construction Company
5806 Mesa Drive,
Suite 335
Austin, Texas 78731-3742
Contact: David Frame (Project Manager)
Phone: 512-302-1177 Fax:512-302-3009
E-mail: davidf@whiteconst.com
Web site: http://www.whiteconst.com
------- |