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
------- |