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

-------