Construction and Demolition Waste Minimization - Nctcog

Construction and Demolition Waste Minimization 

Strategies for the North Central Texas Region 

Table of Contents 

Letter of Transmittal 


List of Tables 

List of Figures 

Section 1 Executive Summary.................................................................................. 1-1 

1.1 Background.............................................................................................. 1-1 

1.2 Purpose..................................................................................................... 1-2 

1.3 Case Study/Cost Benefit Analysis ........................................................... 1-2 

1.4 Elements of Successful Waste Minimization Strategies.......................... 1-8 

1.5 Strategic Approach................................................................................. 1-10 

Section 2 Green Building Case Study...................................................................... 2-1 

2.1 General Description ................................................................................. 2-1 

2.2 Implementation ........................................................................................ 2-1 

2.3 Keys and Impediments to Success........................................................... 2-6 

2.4 Cost Benefit Analysis .............................................................................. 2-7 

2.5 Key Findings and Recommendations .................................................... 2-10 

Section 3 C&D Material Recovery Facility Case Study ........................................ 3-1 




3.4 Cost Benefit Analysis ............................................................................ 3-10 


Section 4 On-Site Grinding Case Study .................................................................. 4-1 




4.4 Cost Benefit Analysis .............................................................................. 4-7 


Section 5 LEED Deconstruction Case Study .......................................................... 5-1 



9/14/05


5.3 Keys and Impediments to Success......................................................... 5-11 

5.4 Cost Benefit Analysis ............................................................................ 5-11 


Section 6 LEED Renovation Case Study ................................................................ 6-1 

Section 7 Best Management Practices..................................................................... 7-1 

7.1 Practical Application of Waste Minimization Practices.......................... 7-1 

7.2 Efficient Building Practices..................................................................... 7-3 

7.3 Technical Assistance Resources............................................................ 7-10 

Section 8 Public Sector Initiatives ........................................................................... 8-1 

8.1 C&D Waste Diversion Programs............................................................. 8-1 

8.2 Increasing Participation through Incentives ............................................ 8-7 

8.3 Increasing Participation through Ordinance .......................................... 8-12 

Section 9 Legal Summary......................................................................................... 9-1 

9.1 Temporary Crushing Rules...................................................................... 9-1 

9.2 “Sham” Recycling ................................................................................... 9-2 

9.3 Green Building Legislation...................................................................... 9-3 

9.4 Clean-Air Legislation .............................................................................. 9-4 

9.5 Opportunities for Additional Legislation................................................. 9-4 

Section 10 Funding Mechanisms ........................................................................... 10-1 

10.1 C&D Waste Minimization Funding Opportunities................................ 10-1 

10.2 Green Building Funding Opportunities ................................................. 10-3 

Section 11 Strategic Approach............................................................................... 11-1 

11.1 Regional Government - NCTCOG ........................................................ 11-2 

11.2 Local Governments................................................................................ 11-7 

11.3 Recycling and Construction Industries.................................................. 11-8 

Appendix A: Local Government Assistance Documents 

Appendix B: C&D Materials Summary 

Appendix C: Hensley Site Phase I Material Diversion Analysis 

Appendix D: Hensley Site Phase II Material Diversion Analysis 

Appendix E: Waste Management Plan and Reporting Template 

Appendix F: Public Awareness Materials 

ii 9/14/05


This study was funded through a solid waste management grant provided by the Texas 

Commission on Environmental Quality through the North Central Texas Council of 

Governments. This funding does not necessarily indicate endorsement or support of 

the study’s findings and recommendations. 

This report has been prepared for the use of the client for the specific purposes identified in the 

report. The conclusions, observations and recommendations contained herein attributed to 

R. W. Beck, Inc. (R. W. Beck) constitute the opinions of R. W. Beck. To the extent that 

statements, information and opinions provided by the client or others have been used in the 

preparation of this report, R. W. Beck has relied upon the same to be accurate, and for which no 

assurances are intended and no representations or warranties are made. R. W. Beck makes no 

certification and gives no assurances except as explicitly set forth in this report. 

Copyright 2005, R. W. Beck, Inc. 

All rights reserved. 

9/14/05 iii


List of Tables 

Table 2-1 Green Building Program Staffing Recommendations.................................2-3 

Table 2-2 Funding Methods for Green Building Programs.......................................2-10 

Table 3-1 Source of C&D Debris ................................................................................3-2 

Table 3-2 Source of C&D Debris ................................................................................3-3 

Table 3-4 Distribution of C&D Disposal.....................................................................3-7 

Table 3-5 Model Facility Capital Expenses...............................................................3-10 

Table 3-6 Model Facility Operating and Maintenance Expenses..............................3-11 

Table 3-7 Cost per Ton Comparison..........................................................................3-11 

Table 3-8 Model Facility Revenue and Expenses......................................................3-11 

Table 3-9 Tipping Fees with Co-Located Facility.....................................................3-13 

Table 4-1 Major Waste Generating Periods.................................................................4-2 

Table 4-2 Custom Home Cost Benefit Analysis Based on 10 Homes 

Annually ......................................................................................................4-9 

Table 4-3 Production Home Cost Benefit Analysis Based on 50 Homes 

Annually ....................................................................................................4-10 

Table 5-1 Phase One – Material Recovery Results .....................................................5-3 

Table 5-2 HVAC System Component Disposal Summary..........................................5-5 

Table 5-3 Electrical System Component Disposal Summary......................................5-6 

Table 5-4 Plumbing System Component Disposal Summary......................................5-7 

Table 5-5 Deconstruction Related Labor Hours by Material.......................................5-8 

Table 5-6 Salvaged Materials ......................................................................................5-9 

Table 5-7 Recycled Materials ......................................................................................5-9 

Table 5-8 Deconstruction Cost Analysis ...................................................................5-12 

Table 5-9 Cost Comparison of Solid Waste Management Methods..........................5-12 

Table 10-1 C&D Recycling Grant Information.........................................................10-6 

Table 10-2 C&D Recycling Grant Information.........................................................10-7 

Table 11-1 Public Awareness Campaign Examples ..................................................11-3 

Table 11-2 Five-year Action Plan – Strategic Approach...........................................11-9 

List of Figures 

Figure 3-1: Process Flow Diagram .............................................................................3-4 

Figure 4-1: On-Site Grinding Process.......................................................................4-14 

iv 9/14/05

Section 1 

Executive Summary 

1.1 Background 

Through its SEE Less Trash Regional Solid Waste Management Plan, the North 

Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) identified construction and 

demolition (C&D) recycling, reuse and reduction as an objective under one of its 

primary goals, which is Time to Recycle. The NCTCOG recognized the need to 

evaluate C&D waste minimization strategies as an opportunity to increase overall 

waste diversion efforts in the North Central Texas region. 

Traditionally, waste diversion efforts in North Central Texas have focused on the 

municipal solid waste (MSW) stream. After implementing recycling programs that 

focus on residential and commercial sources of MSW, many communities and private 

companies within the region have recognized a need to explore additional options to 

increase their diversion rates. Several communities and private companies have 

started evaluating the feasibility to increase diversion efforts by implementing 

effective C&D waste minimization strategies. This concept follows trends in other 

parts of the U. S. where communities and private companies have successfully 

developed waste minimization strategies that focus on the C&D stream. 

By evaluating opportunities to increase the diversion of C&D debris, NCTCOG also 

has the opportunity to positively impact the other two primary regional solid waste 

management goals: Assure Capacity for Trash and Stop Illegal Dumping. 

From a landfill capacity perspective, the North Central Texas region faces a potential 

long-term landfill capacity shortage. 1 By evaluating options to increase the diversion 

of C&D materials, the opportunity exists to prolong the life of existing facilities and to 

delay the need for future expansions or new facilities. 

Additionally, as identified in the NCTCOG’s 2001 Targeted Illegal Dumper Study, 

C&D waste represents a significant type of illegal dumping in the North Central Texas 

region. Contractors and builders often dispose of C&D waste illegally to avoid 

tipping fees. Local governments throughout the region dedicate thousands of dollars 

to cleaning up these dumpsites annually. 2 By developing effective C&D waste 

minimization strategies, there may be an opportunity to reduce the illegal disposal of 

C&D debris. 

1 Source: Metroplex Area Sub-Regional Solid Waste Study. Dallas County. 2004. 

2 Source: Stop Illegal Dumping Cost/Benefit Analysis, NCTCOG, 2003. 

9/14/05

Section 1 

1.2 Purpose 

In 2004, the NCTCOG and the Time to Recycle Subcommittee (TTR Subcommittee) 

retained R. W. Beck, Inc. (R. W. Beck) to conduct this study. The primary goal of the 

study is to evaluate what C&D waste minimization programs and practices are 

currently in place or may be feasible in the North Central Texas region. 

R. W. Beck focused on examining three fundamental questions about C&D waste 

minimization in the region. 

• What emerging or existing C&D waste minimization programs and practices are 

economically and operationally feasible for implementation in the North Central 

Texas region? 

• What specific elements would comprise a successful C&D waste minimization 

program or practice for communities or businesses in the North Central Texas 

region? 

• If C&D waste minimization is feasible in the North Central Texas region, how 

can it be implemented throughout the entire region? 

To answer these questions, R. W. Beck completed case study analyses of five C&D 

waste minimization programs. Each case study included a cost benefit analysis that 

focused on evaluating the feasibility of the program in the North Central Texas region. 

R. W. Beck also researched best management practices that could be employed by the 

construction and recycling industries, as well as a review of programs that local 

governments could implement to foster C&D waste minimization programs and 

practices. 

Based on the results of this analysis, R. W. Beck assisted NCTCOG staff and members 

of the TTR Subcommittee to develop a strategic approach for C&D waste 

minimization efforts in the North Central Texas region. The goal of the strategic 

approach is to determine specific roles, responsibilities and timelines for the 

NCTCOG, local governments, and the construction and recycling industry to 

coordinate implementing C&D waste minimization efforts. 

1.3 Case Study/Cost Benefit Analysis 

With significant input from NCTCOG staff and the TTR subcommittee, R. W. Beck 

selected the five case studies based on concepts that are innovative and could provide 

an opportunity for meaningful future C&D waste minimization results in the future 

within the North Central Texas region. For each case study, R. W. Beck developed a 

cost benefit analysis, key findings and recommendations. The five case studies 

include: 

• Green Building 

• C&D MRF 

• On-Site Grinding 

• LEED Deconstruction 

1-2 R. W. Beck 9/14/05


• LEED Renovation 

Included below is a brief description of each case study, and the key findings and 

recommendations. 

1.3.1 Green Building 

Green building is an environmentally responsible approach to land development and 

housing construction in an effort to conserve natural resources. A green building 

approach can involve virtually every aspect of design and construction. For the case 

study, R. W. Beck focused on the C&D waste minimization aspect of green building. 

The case study/cost benefit analysis focused on two programs located in Texas, the 

cities of Austin and Frisco. For each program, R. W. Beck interviewed City staff to 

understand the various components of their program. Based on our analysis of these 

programs, a series of key findings and recommendations for green building programs 

was developed. Section 2 includes the complete case study. 

Key Findings and Recommendations 

1. Based on existing green building programs, waste minimization is often one of 

several key components with others being energy efficiency, water conservation, 

sustainable site planning and indoor environmental quality. 

2. Changes within the building industry may occur gradually over time; provided 

builders have an assurance that green building will have a positive impact on 

profitability and market share. 

3. Communities in the United States, including North Central Texas, already have 

energy conservation programs through their electric utility. Efforts could be made 

with the electric utilities to make their programs more comprehensive by 

addressing additional green building approaches that would include waste 

minimization. 

4. When implemented during the preliminary stages of a construction project, green 

building programs can be implemented with minimal or no cost increases. In fact, 

over the life-cycle of a building, green building can provide an opportunity to 

reduce costs. Cost increases will occur when new technologies are used or poor 

planning during the design stages takes place, from 0-2 percent to up to 8-10 

percent. 

5. Providing builders with multiple options to implement waste minimization efforts 

provides the best opportunity for success. Green building programs can assign 

varying points within a rating system to provide incentives for builders to achieve 

greater waste minimization results. A waste management plan can be an effective 

tool for evaluating opportunities for waste minimization. The management plan 

should be a specific part of the rating system. 

6. In order to recycle significant quantities of material from construction sites, 

supporting infrastructure such as on-site grinders and C&D MRFs ideally need to 

be in place. 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 1-3

Section 1 

7. Given that C&D recycling infrastructure is still developing in the North Central 

Texas region, green building programs should identify multiple, voluntary 

opportunities to achieve waste minimization within a rating system. 

8. Since there are approximately 20 to 30 established green building programs across 

the country, communities developing new programs can research these other 

programs concerning the best approaches to developing and implementing a 

program. 

9. To achieve cost efficiencies in green building, careful planning during the design 

phase of the project as well as marketing to consumers must be in place during the 

initiation of the project. 

10. While individual communities can develop successful green building programs, 

consideration should be given to the development of regional (i.e. NCTCOG) or 

sub-regional (i.e. multiple cities in a common geographic area) green building 

programs in the North Central Texas region. A regional program could provide 

economies of scale to more efficiently fund public awareness and technical 

assistance needs. 

11. End markets for materials as well as affordable recycled building materials should 

be established or available to decrease the cost of using these materials for 

builders. 

12. There is an opportunity for green building to have a greater presence in the North 

Central Texas region in the future. However, to achieve this change a major shift 

must occur in how builders and consumers perceive green building. In order for 

change to occur, a builder will need to incorporate green building into their 

business model, which could influence consumers and force competitors to adjust 

accordingly. 

1.3.2 C&D MRF 

A C&D Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) is a processing center that accepts mixed 

C&D waste, and then sorts it by material type. The concept is similar to MRFs that 

process recyclable material from the MSW stream. While several C&D MRFs exist in 

the U. S., none are in Texas. R. W. Beck evaluated the feasibility of a C&D MRF 

based on data from the region (e.g. landfill tipping fees, waste flow) and fiscally 

conservative assumptions. Based on our analysis, a series of key findings and 

recommendations for a C&D MRF was developed. Section 3 includes the complete 

case study. 


1. Based on the results of the cost benefit analysis included in this section, 

preliminary findings indicate that a C&D MRF would be feasible in the North 

Central Texas region. However, this analysis should be considered preliminary as 

several key assumptions were made regarding the quantity and composition of inbound 

materials, end markets, facility size, equipment and location. 

1-4 R. W. Beck 9/14/05


2. NCTCOG should consider a more detailed examination of the feasibility of 

locating a C&D MRF in the region. The conduct of this analysis should focus on 

evaluating the quantity and composition of materials, identifying a potential 

facility location, estimating facility size and processing equipment, and identifying 

end markets for processed materials. 

3. Although the markets exist for materials from a C&D MRF, C&D waste 

minimization efforts is relatively new to the North Central Texas region. Any 

local government or other entity should complete a more thorough analysis of the 

market before deciding to implement a C&D MRF. The potential operator should 

develop confidence that haulers will bring mixed C&D debris to the facility and 

that there would be buyers for the sorted material. As mentioned earlier, markets 

can vary by region and what can be sold in one area may have to be given away in 

another. 

4. As discussed in Section 3.2.1, it is important to locate a C&D MRF as close to the 

sources of C&D debris as possible. Combined with competitive tipping fees, this 

will increase the incentive for haulers to choose the C&D MRF over other 

alternatives. As noted in Table 3-1, it is estimated that only 8 percent of total 

C&D generated is from new construction. Although evidence of new residential 

construction is easily noticeable, R. W. Beck recommends that all sources of C&D 

be considered when doing an analysis of C&D generation. 

5. In 2003, Dallas, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, and Tarrant Counties retained 

R. W. Beck to conduct a Metroplex Area Sub-Regional Solid Waste Study 

(Study). This study analyzed the projected landfill capacity in this five-county 

region. One of the conclusions of this study was that the five-county sub-region 

faces a potential long-term landfill capacity shortage. To address this shortage, the 

most likely scenarios include increased landfill tipping fees or the construction of 

new landfills. With the continued population growth of the sub-region, these new 

landfills would likely have to be located further away from the developing areas, 

thus increasing the transportation costs to and from the landfills. In either case, the 

cost to dispose of C&D debris would increase, thus improving the feasibility of a 

C&D MRF in the North Central Texas region. 

6. Co-location of the C&D MRF with another permitted MSW facility can provide 

synergies that will help reduce the incremental cost of a C&D MRF. If the C&D 

MRF is co-located with another MSW facility, the costs associated with the scale 

house, support building, land, labor, and possibly some rolling stock may all be 

reduced or eliminated. For comparison purposes, R. W. Beck assumed that the 

C&D MRF could be co-located with a landfill in the tri-county area of Collin, 

Dallas, or Denton Counties. Table 3-9 provides the cost per ton if the scale house, 

support building, and land costs are all eliminated. R. W. Beck also assumed that 

would be some overlap in labor and rolling stock and reduced some the associated 

expenses. 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 1-5

Section 1 

Table 1-9 

Tipping Fees with Co-Located Facility 

Facility 

Cost per Ton 

C&D MRF $17.14 - $22.36 

Weighted Average Landfill Disposal $19.83 

An additional benefit, which is not reflected in the MRF costs listed in Table 3-9, 

is that if the facilities are co-located, the MRF could dispose of residual at the 

landfill at a reduced rate and reduced transfer costs. 

Lastly, locating a C&D MRF at a currently permitted MSW facility will reduce the 

permitting costs associated with the facility since a separate MSW permit is not 

required by TCEQ when the facilities are co-located. 

7. The NCTCOG and the communities within the region should support policies, 

regulations or legislation that will increase the requirements for recycling C&D 

debris. If contractors have incentives or are required to divert a certain level of 

C&D debris from construction and demolition projects, then there would be a 

greater demand for C&D waste minimization options. 

8. The NCTCOG and the communities within the region should also support other 

C&D waste minimization efforts. Although this may create some level of 

competition for the C&D MRF, increased awareness of C&D waste minimization 

should benefit all C&D waste minimization efforts. 

1.3.3 On-Site Grinding 

On-site grinding is the practice of grinding and crushing building materials and 

depositing them onsite as a soil amendment or for use in erosion control. From a 

waste minimization perspective, on-site grinding can effectively divert C&D waste 

generated from new home construction. 

This case study examined on-site grinding for custom and production home builders in 

the North Central Texas region, based on scenarios where a builder would (1) own and 

operate an on-site grinder; and (2) contract with another company for on-site grinding 

services. Based on our analysis, a series of key findings and recommendations for a 

on-site grinding was developed. Section 4 includes the complete case study. 


1. Contracting on-site grinding services may be a cost-effective alternative compared 

to traditional waste disposal for production home builders in the North Central 

Texas region. From a financial perspective, the cost-effectiveness of this may 

depend on cost of the service and implementation of cost-avoidance strategies. 

2. Based on R. W. Beck’s analysis of on-site grinding for production homes, a 

superintendent who chooses to subcontract on-site grinding services may see a 

reduction in waste related costs of approximately $180 per home. 

1-6 R. W. Beck 9/14/05


3. Using on-site grinding as a means of C&D waste reduction for custom homes is 

currently not a cost-effective method of reducing waste and may cost 

approximately $1,200 to $1,800 more per home than disposal. 

4. The indirect benefits of on-site grinding may have a substantial impact on the 

likelihood that home builders will use on-site grinding as a means of waste 

disposal in the future. 

5. Production home builders subcontracting on-site grinding services is the most 

economically feasible option for this solid waste management method. 

6. With the widespread use of waste minimization strategies such as on-site grinding, 

the long-term benefits of diverting C&D waste from landfills in the North Central 

Texas region will continue to benefit the North Central Texas region. 

1.3.4 LEED Deconstruction 

Deconstruction is the selective dismantlement or removal of materials from buildings 

for reuse or recycling. 3 As an alternative to demolition, deconstruction can serve as an 

effective way of reducing a significant amount of waste from landfills. The LEED 

rating system is a scale on which projects are judged based on their environmental 

friendliness. A component of LEED is C&D waste minimization. 

The case study examined the partial deconstruction of the Hensley Field Operations 

Site under the direction of the City of Dallas. R. W. Beck visited the site on several 

occasions throughout the process and collected tonnage and cost data from the 

contracting firm. Based on our analysis, a series of key findings and recommendations 

for a deconstruction was developed. Section 5 includes the complete case study. 


1. The deconstruction of commercial buildings in the North Central Texas region is 

feasible for implementation based on the economic and indirect benefits achieved 

through this process. 

2. R. W. Beck’s recommends based on its initial analysis of the C&D waste stream 

and deconstruction in the North Central Texas region, developing infrastructure 

and a market for C&D materials is imperative in the region for the continued 

expansion of C&D waste minimization efforts. To accomplish this, the region 

should pursue the development of a C&D MRF. Prior to establishing a C&D 

MRF in the region, a more thorough and detailed analysis should be conducted. 

The conduct of this analysis should focus on identifying the location, size and 

market for the C&D MRF. 

3. From an operational perspective, deconstruction may require additional training of 

low-skilled and semi-skilled labor to ensure that the maximum amount of C&D 

waste is diverted from the waste stream. 

3 

“A Report on the Feasibility of Deconstruction.” U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development – Office of Policy Development and Research. 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 1-7

Section 1 

4. The establishment of a waste management plan helps to ensure that contractors 

have a set of established goals and guidelines which they can follow throughout 

the course of the deconstruction process. In conjunction with LEED building 

mandates, the institution of a waste management planning policy prior to the 

construction or deconstruction process may improve future projects the City of 

Dallas undertakes. 

5. Deconstruction has many indirect benefits, including risk mitigation, waste 

reduction and jobsite cleanliness, which contribute to its feasibility for 

implementation on a greater scale in the North Central Texas region. 

1.3.5 LEED Renovation 

Renovation is generally defined as the modification or rehabilitation of the interior 

and/or exterior of an existing structure. Green building practices may be applied to 

renovation activities through recycling, reusing or recovering the various building 

materials generated during a renovation project. This process can serve as an effective 

way of reducing the amount of recoverable materials from entering the waste stream. 

The LEED rating system is a scale on which projects are judged based on their 

environmental friendliness. A component of LEED is C&D waste minimization. 

The case study examined the renovation phase of the Hensley Field Operations Site 

under the direction of the City of Dallas. The case study focused solely on the 

reconstruction of the interior of the building. R. W. Beck conducted site visits and 

interviews with key staff to collect all the tonnage and tonnage data. Based on our 

analysis, a series of key findings and recommendations for a renovation was 

developed. Section 6 includes the complete case study. 


1. On a cost per ton basis, the labor and disposal costs associated with waste 

minimization activities is approximately $79. The $79 per ton includes labor and 

disposal associated with the removal and processing of waste. The cost per ton is 

competitive with the $65 per ton rate for the traditional method of renovation 

2. Labor costs for LEED certified projects may increase compared to traditional 

renovation projects, however these costs can be offset by avoiding tipping fees at 

the landfill and the sale of recoverable materials. 

3. Revenue generated from the sale of recyclable material is significantly lower in 

Phase II of the project since much of the material generated is considered 

packaging or excess material. The economic benefit in LEED renovations is the 

cost avoidance associated with tipping fees. 

4. Based on input provided by HWH and Mart, the overall project time associated 

with the completion of Phase II was not affected significantly by the waste 

minimization strategies required by the City of Dallas. 

5. Through the use of source separating techniques, renovation projects have the 

ability to divert a significant amount of the project’s total waste from the landfill. 

In Phase II of the Hensley Field Project, HWH and Mart was able to divert nearly 

75 percent of the total waste by weight. 

1-8 R. W. Beck 9/14/05


6. In projects seeking LEED accreditation, provisions in subcontractor’s legal 

agreements should include clauses designating that wastes generated on-site 

should be recycled or reused on-site. This would provide general contractors with 

more control of subcontractor’s disposal methods. 

7. General contractors should educate their subcontractors on C&D waste 

minimization strategies prior to beginning work on a LEED renovation project. 

8. R. W. Beck’s recommendation based on its initial analysis of the C&D waste 

stream and construction projects in the North Central Texas region, developing 

infrastructure and a market for C&D materials is imperative in the region for the 

continued expansion of C&D waste minimization efforts. To accomplish this, the 

region should pursue the development of a C&D MRF. Prior to establishing a 

C&D MRF in the region, a more thorough and detailed analysis should be 

conducted. The conduct of this analysis should focus on identifying the location, 

size and market for the C&D MRF. 

9. R. W. Beck would like to stress that Phase II of the Hensley Field Project was 

solely focused on the renovation of the building. All deconstruction of the interior 

of the building was accomplished as a part of Phase I. This case study may not 

completely compare with other renovation or complete demolition projects, since 

they may encompass tasks outside the scope of this project. R. W. Beck 

recommends that a contractor or a city use this case study as a planning tool and 

each project must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. 

1.4 Elements of Successful Waste Minimization 

Strategies 

Based on the key findings and recommendations included in the case study/cost 

benefit analysis, R. W. Beck evaluated the various key components of successful C&D 

waste minimization programs or practices. This phase of the study describes feasible 

strategies that can be implemented by both the public and private sector. 

In addition, R. W. Beck researched legal issues that affect C&D waste minimization as 

well as funding sources available to the public and private sector. This was included 

in the study as a tool and resource to serve both the public and private sector. 

1.4.1 Best Management Practices 

Participation in C&D waste minimization activities within the construction and 

recycling industry is fundamentally necessary to achieve success. The best 

management practices, which are included in Section 7, focus on providing the 

construction and recycling industry with the tools, resources and information to 

successfully implement C&D waste minimization strategies. 

Based on field and literature research, R. W. Beck identified C&D waste minimization 

strategies that can be cost-effectively employed in a variety of manners for the three 

major areas of construction: new construction, deconstruction and renovation projects. 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 1-9

Section 1 

In addition, this section focuses on efforts that can provide more efficient building 

practices. These include: 

• Waste management planning 

• On-site grinding and crushing 

• Materials collection methods 

• Material hauling and recovery 

• Alternative erosion control measures 

This section concludes with a review of several technical resources available to the 

construction and recycling industries. These resources include governmental technical 

assistance programs, internet websites and industry associations and organizations. 

1.4.2 Public Sector Initiatives 

In conjunction with participation from the private sector, local governments have the 

ability to foster increased involvement in C&D waste minimization activities. R. W. 

Beck has provided a number of options that the public sector can incorporate into their 

community plan in Section 8. This includes: 

• Green Building 

• LEED Rating System 

• Waste Management Planning and Reporting 

• Reuse Facility Program 

The discussion of the practical application of public sector incentives and ordinances 

provides local governments with examples of programs and initiatives developed in 

Texas and around the nation. These programs, ordinances and incentives for 

participation include: 

• Rebates for Contractors 

• Government Grants for the Private Sector 

• Contractor Education Programs 

• Fast Track Permitting 

• First Choice Programs 

• Deposit Requirements 

• Franchise Fees for C&D Waste Disposed at Landfills 

• Fines and Penalties 

It is important to note that some of the topics discussed may not be appropriate for all 

communities. However, they have been included to provide local governments with a 

comprehensive of a list of possible options. 

1-10 R. W. Beck 9/14/05


1.4.3 Legal Summary 

As local governments and the private sector consider C&D waste minimization 

strategies, it is necessary to understand the governing laws. R. W. Beck has 

researched various state laws regulating recyclers, local government programs and 

construction and recycling firms. Issues discussed in Section 9 include temporary 

crushing and grinding, air quality, C&D recyclers, and relevant green building 

legislation. 

1.4.4 Funding Mechanisms 

Like many new and emerging fields within the solid waste industry, implementing 

C&D waste minimization programs and activities can benefit from additional shortterm 

funding. This funding may come through a grant from a foundation or a lowinterest 

loan. There are several foundations and organizations throughout Texas and 

the nation that could provide funding to C&D waste minimization efforts. Many of 

these programs are described in Section 10. 

1.5 Strategic Approach 

Throughout this study, R. W. Beck provides specific information regarding C&D 

waste minimization strategies that can be implemented in the North Central Texas 

region. C&D waste minimization represents a relatively new focus for the North 

Central Texas region. Therefore, effectively implementing these strategies requires a 

strategic approach to implementing both the programs and the public awareness 

campaign. 

To assist in implementing C&D waste minimization activities through the region, R. 

W. Beck worked with NCTCOG staff and members of the TTR Subcommittee to 

develop a strategic planning approach for regional and local governments and the 

construction and recycling industry. In addition, R. W. Beck has developed a fiveyear 

action plan for use in facilitating the strategic approach. 

1.5.1 Regional Government 

NCTCOG as the regional association of local governments should take a lead role in 

implementing the strategic approach for waste minimization programs and the public 

awareness campaign. Additional roles and responsibilities include: 

• Become the regional coordinator for C&D waste minimization strategies. 

• Establish a subcommittee for coordination of C&D waste minimization programs 

and public awareness campaigns. 

• Further Investigate the Feasibility of a C&D MRF in the North Central Texas 

region. 

• Provide outreach and technical assistance activities for local governments. 

• Develop a regional public awareness campaign. 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 1-11

Section 1 

• Provide grant assistance to local governments for development of waste 

minimization programs. 

• Develop a website that promotes C&D waste minimization efforts in the North 

Central Texas region. 

• Develop and implement regional green building program. 

1.5.2 Local Governments 

Local governments who have an interest in implementing waste minimization 

programs in their community should participate in all aspects of the regional C&D 

waste minimization efforts. The roles of the local government should include: 

• Participate in NCTCOG waste minimization subcommittee, if established. 

• Develop methods for increasing participation from the recycling and construction 

industries. 

• Work with NCTCOG in developing and distributing public awareness materials 

focused on the recycling and construction industries. 

• Work with NCTCOG in developing and distributing public awareness materials 

focused on the consumers. 

1.5.3 Construction and Recycling Industry 

In order to implement waste minimization strategies, builders will need to “buy into” 

the concept that these strategies will benefit them. It is imperative that the 

construction industry understand that their participation in waste minimization efforts 

will drive the success of the programs. Some of the roles and responsibilities of the 

recycling and construction industry include: 

• Participate in NCTCOG waste minimization subcommittee, if established. 

• Utilize Builders’ Associations as primary resource for construction industry. 

• Construction industry needs to recognize the value of and begin the 

implementation of waste minimization strategies. 

• Recycling industry must be proactive in marketing services. 

• Incorporate the benefits of waste minimization strategies in marketing campaigns. 

1-12 R. W. Beck 9/14/05

Section 2 

Green Building Case Study 

2.1 General Description 

Green building is an environmentally responsible approach to land development and 

housing construction in an effort to conserve natural resources. A green building 

approach can involve virtually every aspect of design and construction. The following 

summarizes approaches that are typically included in green building: 

• Waste minimization during construction and throughout the life of the home. 

• Selection of materials based on recyclability, durability and the amount of energy 

used to create the material. 

• Sustainable site planning. 

• Safeguarding water and water conservation. 

• Energy efficiency. 

• Indoor environmental quality. 

Green building programs are usually administered by a local/regional government, 

local utilities and/or a home builders’ association. Communities with green building 

programs are typically responsible for developing evaluation criteria and certifying 

whether a building meets the criteria. Many green building efforts occur based on 

voluntary programs developed to encourage the use of green building practices in the 

construction industry. Denver, Colorado and Austin, Texas are often sited as having 

the largest and most established green building programs in the United States. Some 

cities, such as Frisco, Texas and Boulder, Colorado, have mandatory programs that 

require builders to comply with their green building programs in order to obtain 

building permits. 

Today, there are 20 to 30 established green building programs across the country; 

however, more cities are developing green building programs on a regular basis. 

Nationwide, there were 18,887 homes built to local green building program guidelines 

from 1990 - 2001. In 2002 alone, there were 13,224 green homes built. It appears that 

the number of new green building homes will increase going forward given recent 

increases in the number of newly established programs across the United States. 

2.2 Implementation 

R. W. Beck focused its implementation research on the two green building programs 

in place in Texas, the cities of Austin and Frisco. R. W. Beck researched two green 

9/14/05

Section 2 

building case studies in an effort to provide different approaches to developing and 

implementing a program. As a part of this research, R. W. Beck conducted a literature 

review as well as conducted interviews with City staff and industry experts. The 

primary difference between the two case studies is based on the Austin program being 

voluntary and the Frisco program being mandatory. 

2.2.1 City of Austin 

The City of Austin, through its electric utility (Austin Energy), developed the first 

green building program in the United States in 1990. Austin Energy originally piloted 

this program in order to promote energy conservation. The initial idea was to work 

with builders to identify and develop opportunities to improve energy code 

compliance. Based on the success of this effort, Austin Energy expanded the program 

to include other factors such as water conservation, waste management, site 

development and impact on the community. While the program is primarily 

voluntary, it is required in the downtown district and for affordable housing projects. 1 

2.2.1.1 Program Requirements 

Austin Energy has a five-level certification system, ranging from one to five stars. To 

determine the level of certification, Austin Energy uses a comprehensive, weighted 

checklist. All buildings must meet certain mandatory requirements, as well as attain 

points from specific requirements in categories that include energy, materials, water 

and health/safety. The materials category includes waste management issues. The 

mandatory requirements primarily focus on energy conservation issues, but also 

include limited water conservation measures. A copy of the certification sheet is 

located in Appendix A. 

2.2.1.2 Solid Waste Management 

As discussed in the “Program Requirements” section, waste management is a 

component of the program’s rating system. Builders have an option of deciding which 

of the following waste management alternatives they would like to accomplish: 

• At least one 50 percent recycled-content material used. 

• Lumber longer than two feet is used or recycled. 

• Jobsite garbage is recycled according to the City of Austin Solid Waste Services 

guidelines including: paper, plastic bottles, glass bottles and jars, and metal cans 

(no paint cans, no hazardous materials). 

• Construction waste: the following construction waste is separated and re-used or 

recycled: 

• Stone, concrete and masonry rubble; 

1 Austin Energy staff stated green building is required for affordable housing projects in an effort to 

reduce future, long-term utility costs. Furthermore, their research has indicated that green building can 

occur for these projects without added costs to the four star level in their rating system (see the 

following section for further details concerning the rating system). 

2-2 R. W. Beck 9/14/05


• Metal scraps; and 

• Corrugated cardboard. 

Staff from Austin Energy stated that having a waste management plan as a part of the 

construction process is very important, as it specifically guides how waste will be 

managed. Staff also stated that on-site grinders have been used successfully in the 

Austin area. Based on discussions with an on-site grinder subcontractor in the Austin 

area, some home builders were initially skeptical about using on-site grinding due to 

their unfamiliarity with this approach. However, since the subcontractor was able to 

provide their service at the same cost as disposal, the builder chose to try the on-site 

grinding. In addition, the builder has been very pleased with many of the 

consequential benefits including site maintenance and increased marketability. 

From a long-term perspective, Austin Energy recommends using materials that will be 

more durable over time, as this will eliminate or delay the need for replacement, which 

will increase disposal quantities. For example, masonry is preferred over siding. 

Also, roofs using high quality shingles are recommended. 

2.2.1.3 Staffing 

Austin Energy has a green building staff of approximately 14 full-time employees 

(FTEs). This staffing level is significantly higher than typical staffing levels at other 

green building programs in other cities. Austin Energy is able to fund and support its 

staffing level due to its focus on energy conservation initiatives. During interviews, 

Austin Energy staff recognized that the Austin Energy program has more FTEs than a 

typical green building program. Based on this observation, Austin Energy staff 

provided R. W. Beck with staffing recommendations and job descriptions for a more 

typical program as described in Table 2-1. 

Table 2-1 

Green Building Program Staffing Recommendations 

Title 

Recommended 

Staffing Level 

Job Duties/Description 

Program Administration 1-2 FTE Oversees program management and program 

development 

Administrative Staff 1 FTE Markets to building industry and consumers 

Monitoring Staff 1-2 FTE Provides technical assistance to builders as 

well as addresses any compliance issues in 

the field 2 

2 Austin Energy staff also mentioned another option for programs that do not have the ability to fund 

positions for monitoring and conducting plan reviews. This option would be to have builders retain 

independent inspectors during the building process to review compliance. 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 2-3

Section 2 

2.2.1.4 Public Awareness 

Austin Energy focuses its public awareness efforts on the building industry and 

consumers. The following summarizes the focus of Austin Energy’s public awareness 

efforts for these sectors: 

• Builders 

• Green building efforts can provide an advantage compared to other builders 

who are not implementing green building techniques. 

• Green building represents a better approach to construction. 

• Green building homes are healthier and better for customers. 

• Consumers 

• Green building homes reduce electric and water utility expenses. 

• Green building homes are healthier and safer. 

• Green building homes provide an improved quality of life. 

Austin Energy implements its public awareness efforts on a continual basis. Elements 

of its public awareness campaign include the following: 

• Internet site (www.ci.austin.tx.us/greenbuilder/mighome.htm); 

• Articles for local newspapers, industry publications and real estate publications; 

• Advertisements via television and radio; 

• Public speaking at industry events (home builders’ associations, real estate 

associations) and community events; and 

• Telephone calls to answer questions from builders and consumers. 

2.2.1.5 Training and Technical Assistance 

Austin Energy offers multiple training and technical assistance to the building 

industry. Austin Energy will conduct formal seminars for members on a monthly 

basis that focus on specific topics. Austin Energy is proactive in attracting green 

building conferences to the city, which provides opportunities for builders to access 

valuable information in a cost-effective manner. 

One-on-one technical assistance to members is a key component of the program. 

Austin Energy staff will meet directly with builders and frequently conducts research 

for its members. Builders have stated to Austin Energy staff that this is a valuable 

resource that they feel comfortable using on a regular basis. 

2.2.2 City of Frisco, Texas 

The City of Frisco is one of the fastest growing areas in North Central Texas. The 

current population of the city is approximately 73,000, with expectations to reach 

build-out capacity of 275,000 people in approximately 20 years. With its rapid growth 

2-4 R. W. Beck 9/14/05


occurring over a relatively short period of time, the city decided to adopt a green 

building ordinance in 2001. 

2.2.2.1 Program Requirements 

The City of Frisco green building program (Frisco green building program) is a 

mandatory program for all single-family residential buildings platted after May 2001. 

All new single-family construction must meet minimum standards for energy 

efficiency, water conservation, indoor air quality and waste recycling. A complete list 

of the city’s minimum standards is included in Appendix A. 

2.2.2.2 Solid Waste Management 

The city’s ordinance established the following specific minimum standards for waste 

recycling: 

• Construction waste (brick and wood) hauled from the building site by the builder 

shall be taken to a site or facility legally empowered to accept it for recycling as 

approved by the County and State in which the facility is located. 

• Construction waste minimization / reuse plan written and followed by builder. 

• Donate unwanted building materials to a non-profit building organization. 

• Provide a built-in recycling center option with two or more bins (minimum of 5 

gallons each) for homebuyers. 

• Provide a composting system option installed in yard for homebuyer 

(manufactured or made at site). 

Since adopting this ordinance, the city has encountered several challenges 

implementing sections of the ordinance that require construction waste hauled from 

the building site to be taken to a facility that has been legally approved to recycle the 

material. It has especially been challenging to identify a company that can properly 

process the material for recycling. For example, one company started to provide this 

service, but eventually discontinued this service because it faced problems marketing 

processed materials due to questions about meeting needed specifications. Since then, 

the city has issued a request for proposals to retain a company that will collect and 

process construction waste from new construction sites in the city. The city has 

identified three companies that are in the process of either providing this service or 

developing a facility that can process these construction waste materials. Once the 

city can get a better sense of how these companies can meet the city’s needs, the City 

of Frisco hopes to provide on-site collection services for the recycling of construction 

waste. 


The city staffs the green building program with employees from the planning and 

environmental services (which includes solid waste) departments. Three employees in 

the planning department spend a portion of their time working on the green building 

program, in addition to their general planning work. The manager of environmental 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 2-5

Section 2 

services also allocates a portion of time toward the green building program. Efforts 

completed by city staff focus on builder’s compliance and marketing of the green 

building program. Staff stated that they cannot spend a sufficient amount of time 

working on the green building program due to multiple demands on their time. 

2.2.2.4 Public Awareness 

The city’s public awareness efforts have been in the developmental stages and can be 

characterized as relatively informal to date. The city recently created a Builder’s Task 

Force comprised of builders in Frisco to discuss important green building issues. The 

city expects to use the task force as a forum to conduct workshops for builders 

concerning green building. The city has primarily relied on “word of mouth” to 

communicate the benefits and elements of the city’s green building program. The 

city’s website does provide information on the green building program, which is 

available at: 

http://www.ci.frisco.tx.us/developmentsvcs/greenbuilding/greenbuilding_home.htm. 

The city also developed a green building video, with financial assistance from the 

U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6 office in Dallas. 

2.2.2.5 Training and Technical Assistance 

Efforts to provide training and technical assistance have been similar to those 

described in the “Public Awareness” section. The city expects to provide training to 

builders via workshops, and uses its website to announce and reference training and 

technical assistance opportunities. Currently, the city does not have a specific training 

and technical assistance program. 

2.3 Keys and Impediments to Success 

Based on research and case studies, R. W. Beck identified several keys and 

impediments to a successful green building program. Keys to success include the 

following: 

• Providing builders with a rating system that offers a variety of options that 

builders can choose to complete allows for a greater degree of flexibility to apply 

green building to many different communities and situations. 

• A straight forward and clearly defined rating system can often help ensure 

compliance with a green building program. 

• Effectively communicating the benefits of a green building program is critical to 

obtaining buy-in from builders and consumers. 

• Construction management plans are a key to successful waste minimization 

efforts, as these plans provide a complete description of how waste will be 

managed throughout all phases of the construction project. 

• When green building is incorporated into the design phase of a project, often the 

costs incurred during construction do not increase significantly, if at all. 

2-6 R. W. Beck 9/14/05


• If a demand for green building products and techniques exists in consumers as 

well as developers, green building homes will be more attractive in the open 

market and will become a more cost-effective way of home building. 

Impediments to success include the following: 

• A lack of infrastructure (e.g. a C&D MRF) or services (on-site grinding 

companies) can make it difficult for builders to achieve some waste minimization 

goals. 

• Changing the approach of the construction industry to focus more on waste 

minimization can be a daunting challenge. 

• Builders are often reluctant to try alternative building methods and materials or 

take the risk of implementing green building techniques, since the status quo 

method of home building works. 

• Builders typically lack the financial incentive to incorporate green building 

techniques into home building, since C&D disposal is relatively inexpensive in 

the North Central Texas region. 

• There is a perception among builders that the data on green building, which 

illustrates how green building can be implemented successfully and costeffectively, 

is biased. 

• Many builders and consumers are unaware of green building, how it can be 

achieved in a cost-effective manner, as well as many of the benefits of green 

building. 

2.4 Cost Benefit Analysis 

To evaluate the costs and benefits of a green building program, R. W. Beck considered 

the economic impacts on individual buildings and communities in general. To 

examine these economic impacts, R. W. Beck conducted research specific to this 

project and also conducted a literature review, since there is substantial existing 

research on this topic. 

2.4.1 Building Level 

During the design and construction phases, the opportunity exists to implement green 

building in a relatively cost-effective manner. For example, staff from Austin Energy 

estimated that green building houses can be built for no additional cost up to a fourstar 

rating (out of a five-star scale) provided that efforts are made during the initial 

project design stages. Austin Energy staff emphasized that a green building approach 

must be considered during the initial development stages in order to ensure proper 

planning. 3 Another example supporting the concept of cost-effective green building is 

3 There have been some cases where decisions have been made to develop a green building after design 

and construction have started. In these scenarios, costs associated with green building can be expensive 

due to the need to make substantial changes. 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 2-7

Section 2 

from The Costs and Financial Benefits of Green, 4 which is considered one of the most 

comprehensive cost and benefit studies of green building that has ever been 

conducted. This report states that: 

While the environmental and human health benefits of green building 

have been widely recognized, this comprehensive report confirms that 

minimal increases in upfront costs of 0-2 percent to support green 

design will result in life cycle savings of 20 percent of total 

construction costs – more than ten times the initial investment. 

Based on subsequent discussions with industry and green building experts conducted 

by R. W. Beck, some green building projects may see as much as an 8-10 percent cost 

increase. This is often due to two primary reasons: 

• Green building is achieved through new technologies which are often expensive 

to implement, such as low-emittance (low-e) windows or photovoltaic systems. 5 

• The initial project planning was not completed with green building in the plans 

instead efforts are made during the construction phase to implement green 

building techniques. 

Specific to this project, R. W. Beck evaluated the economic feasibility of several 

methods that can be used to reduce the quantity of solid waste generated for disposal. 

On-site grinding, discussed in Section 4, represents an opportunity to achieve green 

building program goals that focus on waste minimization. By using an on-site grinder 

or an on-site grinder subcontractor, C&D waste that would typically be disposed at the 

landfill may be minimized by almost 85 percent. In addition, grinded material is often 

returned to the soil as an amendment, erosion control around the jobsite, or fill for 

future driveways or walkways. 

Other waste minimizations efforts can be implemented in a relatively cost-effective 

manner. For the most part, these decisions focus on changing building practices from 

traditional approaches, but would not necessarily have a significant cost. These efforts 

can include, but are not limited to the following activities during construction: 

• Use of recycled content material; 

• More efficient use of materials; 

• Use of building materials that are more durable and easier to repair and maintain; 

• Design to generate less scrap material through dimensional planning; and 

• Reuse of building material. 

There are also the following lifetime waste minimization initiatives: 

4 Source: Kats, Greg, Capital E. The Costs and Financial Benefits of Green Buildings: A Report to 

California’s 

Sustainable Building Task Force. October 2003. 

5 Low-e windows are high-efficiency windows that are intended to allow for the installation of smaller 

heating or cooling systems. Photovoltaic systems are a type of solar energy that are designed to 

produce electricity for individual buildings. 

2-8 R. W. Beck 9/14/05


• Development of indoor recycling program and space; 

• Design for deconstruction; and 

• Design for flexibility through the use of moveable walls, raised floors, modular 

furniture, moveable task lighting and other reusable building components. 

2.4.2 Community Level 

While the costs associated with administering a green building program can be 

quantified, it is more challenging to quantify the benefits of a green building program. 

From a cost perspective, the costs associated with green building programs have a 

wide range. At the upper end, Austin Energy has an annual budget of approximately 

$1 million. Much of the cost associated with this program focuses on energy 

efficiency efforts. 

Based on R. W. Beck’s research, the cost for the Austin Energy program is an 

exception as budgets for many other programs are substantially lower. For example, 

costs associated with the City of Frisco’s green building program are just a part of ongoing 

efforts within the planning and solid waste divisions of the city. Frisco city staff 

estimated that their annual costs are approximately $25,000 to $30,000 annually. 

These costs are based on the proportional amount of time staff work on the green 

building program ($20,000) and public awareness efforts ($5,000 to $10,000). City 

staff stated that current funding levels are insufficient to adequately fund this program. 

The National Association of Builders’ (NAHB) publication, A Guide to Developing 

Green Building Programs, 6 summarizes first year budgets for several green building 

programs. 7 Four programs were reviewed: Kitsap County, Washington, Central New 

Mexico, Denver and Atlanta. Annual hard costs, which included advertising, 

surveys/focus groups, marketing materials and builder handbooks, ranged from 

approximately $15,000 to $57,000. Labor associated with developing and 

implementing the programs during the first year ranged from approximately $45,000 

to $98,000. 8 After funding the first year budget, programs can expect to maintain 

costs for advertising and marketing materials and for staff to administer the program. 

To offset these expenses, there are several funding methods to consider. These 

include a combination of general revenue and specific green building program fees. 

Table 2-2 describes specific green building program fees, and provides a range of 

typical amounts based on existing green building programs. Communities should 

determine specific fees based on the cost of service to operate the green building 

program. 

6 Source: National Association of Home Builder’s Research Center. A Guide to Developing Green 

Builder Programs. Upper Marlborro, Maryland. February 2000. 

7 This guide was developed in 1999, which means that cost data is approximately five years old. 

R. W. Beck has not adjusted the amounts for inflation. 

8 With the development of A Guide to Developing Green Building Program, the opportunity exists to 

reduce labor costs associated with program development, since this publication includes guidance on 

how to develop a green building program. 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 2-9

Section 2 

Table 2-2 

Funding Methods for Green Building Programs 

Funding Methods 

Fee Range 

Annual Fee for Builders $50 – 295 (HBA members) $250 – 750 (non-HBA members) 

Per Project Fee for Builders $50 – 75 (HBA members) $50 – 150 (non-HBA members) 

Annual Fee for Associates $250 – 295 

Program Partners or Sponsors $10,000 – 50,000 

There are multiple community benefits associated with green building programs, as 

follows: 

• Higher property values: A green building rating can translate to increases in 

property values. 

• More desirable place to live: Communities with green building programs typically 

place a high value on quality of life issues, which can translate into being a more 

desirable place to live. 

• Delay future capital costs: A successful green building program can delay future 

capital costs for utility expansions (e.g. power plants, landfills, water treatment, 

etc.) based on conservation efforts. 

• Avoided environmental costs: Waste minimization efforts can lead to fewer 

hazardous substances and greenhouse gases due to the greater use of recycled 

material. 

2.5 Key Findings and Recommendations 

1. Based on existing green building programs, waste minimization is often one of 

several key components with others being energy efficiency, water conservation, 

sustainable site planning and indoor environmental quality. 

2. Changes within the building industry may occur gradually over time; provided 

builders have an assurance that green building will have a positive impact on 

profitability and market share. 

3. Communities in the United States, including North Central Texas, already have 

energy conservation programs through their electric utility. Efforts could be made 

with the electric utilities to make their programs more comprehensive by 

addressing additional green building approaches that would include waste 

minimization. 

4. When implemented during the preliminary stages of a construction project, green 

building programs can be implemented with minimal or no cost increases. In fact, 

over the life-cycle of a building, green building can provide an opportunity to 

reduce costs. Cost increases will occur when new technologies are used or poor 

planning during the design stages takes place, from 0-2 percent to up to 8-10 

percent. 

2-10 R. W. Beck 9/14/05


5. Providing builders with multiple options to implement waste minimization efforts 

provides the best opportunity for success. Green building programs can assign 

varying points within a rating system to provide incentives for builders to achieve 

greater waste minimization results. A waste management plan can be an effective 

tool for evaluating opportunities for waste minimization. The management plan 

should be a specific part of the rating system. 

6. In order to recycle significant quantities of material from construction sites, 

supporting infrastructure such as on-site grinders and C&D MRFs ideally need to 

be in place. 

7. Given that C&D recycling infrastructure is still developing in the North Central 

Texas region, green building programs should identify multiple, voluntary 

opportunities to achieve waste minimization within a rating system. 

8. Since there are approximately 20 to 30 established green building programs across 

the country, communities developing new programs can research these other 

programs concerning the best approaches to developing and implementing a 

program. 

9. To achieve cost efficiencies in green building, careful planning during the design 

phase of the project as well as marketing to consumers must be in place during the 

initiation of the project. 

10. While individual communities can develop successful green building programs, 

consideration should be given to the development of regional (i.e. NCTCOG) or 

sub-regional (i.e. multiple cities in a common geographic area) green building 

programs in the North Central Texas region. A regional program could provide 

economies of scale to more efficiently fund public awareness and technical 

assistance needs. 

11. End markets for materials as well as affordable recycled building materials should 

be established or available to decrease the cost of using these materials for 

builders. 

12. There is an opportunity for green building to have a greater presence in the North 

Central Texas region in the future. However, to achieve this change a major shift 

must occur in how builders and consumers perceive green building. In order for 

change to occur, a builder will need to incorporate green building into their 

business model, which could influence consumers and force competitors to adjust 

accordingly. 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 2-11

Section 2 

(This page intentionally left blank) 

2-12 R. W. Beck 9/14/05

Section 3 

C&D Material Recovery Facility Case Study 


Approximately 1,540,934 tons of the municipal solid waste (MSW) disposed in the 

North Central Texas region in fiscal year 2003 (September 1, 2002 – August 31, 2003) 

was classified as construction and demolition (C&D) debris, which represents 17 

percent of the total MSW disposed in the region. 1 Recognizing that this number may 

not reflect the exact amount of C&D disposed in Texas, 2 it provides a basic 

understanding of the magnitude of C&D debris that is ultimately disposed in Type I 

and Type IV landfills in the NCTCOG region. C&D debris contains material such as 

concrete, wood, metal and cardboard that is generated from construction, demolition, 

and renovation projects. This material has a net economic value if it can be recovered 

and reused less expensively than disposed in a landfill. Diverting this material from 

landfills also extends the remaining life of landfills in the North Central Texas region. 

There are several ways to reuse and recycle C&D material. One way is through the 

use of a material recovery facility (MRF), which is a processing center that accepts 

mixed C&D debris, and then sorts it by material type. The MRF operator can then sell 

materials with an economic value. The remaining material that has little or no value, 

called residual, must be landfilled or otherwise disposed or reused. 


While there are many options available for building and operating a C&D MRF, 

R. W. Beck made several assumptions for the purposes of this case study. A model 

facility was chosen based on limited observations of currently operating facilities 

across the country and other industry research. Used throughout this case study, the 

term “model facility” refers to the facility described below. This model facility 

assumes: 

• Average amount of material processed daily: 580 tons per day. 

• Operations five days a week, eight hours a day. 

• Resides on approximately seven acres of land. 

• All processing equipment is enclosed in a 52,500 square-foot building. 

1 Source: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, 2003 Survey of Texas MSW Facilities. 

2 The TCEQ depends on self-reporting from the landfills for this data. Landfills may not correctly 

classify all C&D debris accepted at the landfill for disposal. For instance, some debris may be 

classified as commercial, and vice versa. 

9/14/05

Section 3 

• Scale house with both in-going and out-going scales. 

• Pre-engineered 1,000 square-foot building with a break area and small office 

space. 

All MSW facilities that accept mixed material and process it for further use must be 

permitted or registered with the TCEQ unless the facility has a residual rate less than 

10 percent. R. W. Beck’s research of other facilities indicates that achieving a residual 

rate of 10 percent or less at a C&D MRF is difficult to achieve, thus applying for 

registration or a permit is a likely step in the implementation process of a C&D MRF. 

3.2.1 Solid Waste Management 

3.2.1.1 In-bound Materials 

A C&D MRF collects mixed C&D debris from construction, demolition, and 

renovation projects. While in some instances loads of in-bound material will consist 

of one primary type of material, the typical load will be composed of a mixture of 

material. The purpose of a C&D MRF is to sort mixed C&D material in an efficient 

manner. 

Table 3-1 illustrates potential sources of building related C&D material. Debris from 

road construction is not included in this table. The information in Table 3-1 is based 

on a study completed by the U.S. EPA and may not represent the true character of the 

C&D waste stream in the North Central Texas region. 

Table 3-1 

Source of C&D Debris 

Source 

Residential Nonresidential Combined 

Tons 

(in thousands) 

Percent 

Tons 


Percent 

Tons 


Percent 

Construction 6,560 11% 4,270 6% 10,830 8% 

Renovation 31,900 55% 28,000 36% 59,900 44% 

Demolition 19,700 34% 45,100 58% 64,800 48% 

Total 58,160 100% 77,370 100% 135,530 100% 

Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Characterization of Building-Related Construction and Demolition Debris in the United States 

The North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources conducted a 

study that included an estimate of the overall composition of C&D debris. The results 

are shown in Table 3-2. Since no waste composition data was available for the North 

Central Texas region, R. W. Beck used these assumptions for the C&D MRF analysis 

to determine the composition of the incoming C&D waste stream and the amount of 

material recovered at the MRF. 

3-2 R. W. Beck 9/14/05


Table 3-2 

Source of C&D Debris 

Material 

% of C&D Waste Stream 

(by weight) 

3.2.1.2 Equipment 

Wood 27.5% 

Drywall 13.4% 

Cardboard 2.7% 

Metals 8.8% 

Plastics 0.5% 

Masonry 4.8% 

Concrete 18.4% 

Roofing 12.0% 

Asphalt 0.1% 

Miscellaneous 11.8% 

Total 100.0% 

Source: North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural 

Resources, Construction & Demolition Commodity Profile Markets 

Assessment 1998 

The two primary categories of equipment used at a C&D MRF include: 

• Processing equipment used to separate the mixed C&D material. 

• Heavy machinery, known as rolling stock, used to maneuver the material within 

the facility. 

Processing Equipment 

From a capital perspective, the processing equipment is the focus of a C&D MRF. 

The facility and other equipment all serve a supporting role to the processing 

equipment. The primary components of the processing line include: 

• Vibrating screen; 

• Conveyors; 

• Manual picking lines; 

• Magnetic sorter; 

• Trommel screen; 

• Storage bins; 

• Rock/concrete grinder; and 

• Wood grinder. 

Figure 3-1 provides a process flow diagram of R. W. Beck’s model facility, which is 

typical of C&D MRF of this size. 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 3-3

Section 3 

Figure 3-1: Process Flow Diagram 

Rolling Stock 

Rolling stock is the name used to describe equipment that maneuver the C&D debris 

within the building. For this model facility, R. W. Beck assumed that an excavator 

would be used at the tipping floor to lift the mixed C&D debris onto the vibrating 

screen, which, as shown in Figure 3-1, is the first component of the processing line. 

Another excavator would be used to place commodity materials into the outbound 

trucks and also to feed wood into the grinder, which is used to convert brush into 

mulch. 

3-4 R. W. Beck 9/14/05


This model facility assumes that residual material is moved into the transfer trucks for 

disposal at the landfill using a wheeled front-end loader. The transfer trucks would be 

in a bay that lies below grade so that the top of the trailer is level with the floor of the 

MRF. This allows the front-end loader to simply push the material into the transfer 

trailer. Another wheel loader would also be used around the MRF floor to maneuver 

commodity materials and any brush at the MRF. 

3.2.1.3 Facilities 

The facilities at the MRF site include three primary buildings: 

• Main building that contains the processing equipment. 

• Support building. 

• Scale house at the entrance/exit. 

Processing Building 

The primary building at the MRF site encloses the processing equipment discussed in 

Section 3.2.1.2. For this case study, the building was assumed to be 175 feet by 300 

ft, or 52,500 square feet. In addition to the processing equipment, this building 

encloses the tipping floor, a limited amount of storage space, and the bay used by the 

transfer trucks that haul non-recoverable residuals to the landfill. 

The building also includes large overhead doors on each side that provide access to the 

commodity materials. Trucks can pull up to these doors and allow the excavator to 

load the trailer with the appropriate material. 

Support Building 

The support building would provide a break area and restrooms for the MRF 

employees and also provide enough space for a small office and meeting space. For 

the model facility, the building was assumed to be a 1,000 square foot pre-engineered 

building. 

Scale House 

A scale house would be at the entrance/exit of the MRF. The scale house would reside 

between the in-bound and out-bound scales. All trucks entering the facility are 

weighed. For those trucks bringing material to the MRF, the entry weight is 

subtracted from the exit weight to measure the amount of material contained in the 

truck. For those trucks that enter to the facility to haul away the recovered materials, 

the exit weight is subtracted from the entry weight to determine the amount of the 

material sold. Also, trucks that transfer non-recoverable waste to the landfill are 

weighed to ensure road safety requirements are met. 


There are several categories of staffing required at a C&D MRF. Table 3-3 provides 

an overview of the full-time staff requirements for the model facility. 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 3-5

Section 3 

Table 3-3 

Staffing Requirements 

Staff Position 

FTE Required 

Heavy Equipment Operators 3-4 

Pickers for Overs Manual Picking Line 8-12 

Pickers for Unders Manual Picking Line 3-4 

Picker for Rock Crusher Line 1 

Floor Workers 4-6 

Scale House 1-2 

Crew Leader 1-2 

Supervisor 1 

Mechanic 1-2 

Administrative Assistant 1 

Total 24-35 

While the function of most of these staff positions is evident by examining the process 

flow diagram in Figure 3-1, the following descriptions provide some additional 

insight. 

Picker for Rock Crusher Line 

After the “unders” material (10 inches and under in diameter) has passed through the 

manual picking line, the remaining items are largely masonry, stone, concrete, and 

non-recoverable material. This material passes by a blower that blows the lighter 

weight material onto the MRF floor for transfer to the landfill. The heavier material is 

conveyed to the rock crusher. To ensure the absence of contaminants, a picker is 

placed on this conveyor line to remove material that should not be run through the 

rock crusher. 

Floor Workers 

In the MRF, floor workers are tasked with numerous jobs, including helping to pull 

contaminants from the tipping floor, directing in-bound and out-bound traffic, and 

keeping the MRF floor clear of large debris that could obstruct the rolling stock. 

Mechanics 

For the purposes of this case study, R. W. Beck assumed that there would be at least 

one full-time mechanic that will help maintain both the processing equipment and the 

rolling stock. Since equipment downtime can be costly, having properly trained 

maintenance personnel is important for the MRF operation. 

3.2.1.5 Location 

The ideal location for a C&D MRF in the North Central Texas region would be one 

that is in close proximity to as many C&D debris sources as possible. However, the 

cost of the land and political or regulatory restrictions should also be considered. 

3-6 R. W. Beck 9/14/05


In fiscal year 2003, the most recent year for which landfill data is available from the 

TCEQ, approximately 1,540,934 tons of C&D debris material was disposed in North 

Central Texas region landfills. Table 3-4 provides the distribution of C&D disposal, 

by county. 

Table 3-4 

Distribution of C&D Disposal 

County 

C&D Disposed 

(Tons) 

% of C&D 

Collin 110,424 7.2% 

Dallas 386,591 25.1% 

Denton 727,370 47.2% 

Ellis 53,738 3.5% 

Erath 3,943 0.3% 

Hood - 0.0% 

Hunt 14,380 0.9% 

Johnson 4,582 0.3% 

Kaufman - 0.0% 

Navarro - 0.0% 

Palo Pinto - 0.0% 

Parker 3,030 0.2% 

Rockwall - 0.0% 

Somervell - 0.0% 

Tarrant 236,876 15.4% 

Wise - 0.0% 

Total 1,540,934 100.0% 

Source: Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, 2003 Survey 

of Texas MSW Facilities 

Collin, Dallas, and Denton counties received approximately 80 percent of the C&D 

debris that was disposed in the North Central Texas region in 2003. In addition, 

assuming 2.8 pounds per person per day of C&D debris generation, these three 

counties also represent about 60 percent of the C&D generation in the North Central 

Texas region. 3 

Based on these two facts, locating a C&D MRF in one of these counties would place 

the MRF in close proximity to the majority of C&D debris generated in the North 

Central Texas region. C&D debris generated in Tarrant County, which is also a large 

source of C&D debris, is also within a reasonable distance to these counties. 

3 Source: Environmental Protection Agency, Characterization of Building-Related Construction and 

Demolition Debris in the United States – June 1998. 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 3-7

Section 3 

3.2.1.6 End Markets 

There are two categories of material available at a C&D MRF, those that have an 

economic value and those that do not. However, as new processes or products are 

developed, the list of materials that are considered non-valuable will become shorter. 

Commodity Materials 

The more valuable products of a C&D MRF include: 

• Wood: Generally, the markets for recovered wood include use as a component of 

engineered woods, landscape mulch, animal bedding, compost additive, and 

boiler fuel. These markets vary by region and depend on other available materials 

and which industries are located in the region. 

• Metal: Scrap metals, both ferrous and non-ferrous, have well-developed markets. 

Although prices can suffer from large fluctuations, the demand is consistent. 

• Concrete: Concrete and other masonry products can be ground up and used in 

paved roads as aggregate base, gravel roads as surfacing, and as base for building 

foundations. 

• Cardboard: Although cardboard represents a relatively small portion of the mixed 

C&D waste stream, it is currently a valuable commodity with an established 

market. However, the revenue from selling cardboard may depend on whether the 

MRF has enough cardboard to interest a potential buyer. 

Non-Recoverable Materials with Alternative Uses 

While some of the by-products of a C&D MRF are not considered valuable in the 

marketplace, the MRF operators may be able to find customers that are willing to 

accept the material at no cost, rather than landfilling the material and paying a tipping 

fee. 

For example, the 3/8-inch trommel screen in the model facility allows very small size 

material to pass through and drop to the one of the collection bins below. This 

material, called residual screen material (RSM), is similar in many respects to dirt. 

While the RSM may not be sufficient some uses, neighboring landfills may accept this 

material without charge for use as alternative daily cover or road stabilization. 

3.2.2 Public Awareness 

From a public awareness perspective, the objective of a C&D MRF is to convince 

consumers or private haulers to dispose of C&D material at the MRF rather than at a 

landfill. The value proposition should be that it is a cheaper alternative to landfills. 

3.2.2.1 Economic and Environmental Considerations 

The goal for the C&D MRF is to be completely self-sustaining, meaning that it can 

generate enough revenue from operations to cover the operational and capital 

expenses. In order to convince potential customers to use this facility, the cost of 

using it must be less than the next best alternative. 

3-8 R. W. Beck 9/14/05


Consider, for example, a company that builds residential homes. The builder has two 

options for disposing of commingled construction waste. There is a nearby landfill 

that accept C&D debris and charges a certain tipping fee. The C&D MRF has a less 

expensive tipping fee, but is further away. So, although the builder would pay less per 

ton to dispose of the construction waste, the increased fuel cost and additional time 

required to travel to the MRF may offset the cost savings. 

In the case that the tipping fee at the C&D MRF is more expensive that the tipping fee 

at a nearby MSW or C&D landfill, there is little economic incentive to use the C&D 

MRF. However, with the growing pressure on local governments and commercial 

businesses to make decisions that have less environmental impact, there are chances 

for a C&D MRF to succeed, provided that the tipping fee is not significantly higher. 



impediments to operating a successful C&D MRF in the North Central Texas region. 

Keys to success include the following: 

• Locating the C&D MRF as close to the sources of C&D as possible will 

strengthen the incentive for haulers to use the MRF since it would be less 

expensive to transport the C&D debris from the job site to the MRF than to a 

landfill or transfer station. 

• Reducing the expenses through efficient operations will help keep the C&D MRF 

competitive with other C&D disposal or diversion options. The primary operating 

expenses at a C&D MRF include labor, residual disposal costs, equipment 

operation and maintenance, and utilities. 

• Controlling the in-bound contamination rate will allow the equipment and labor at 

the C&D MRF to work more efficiently. If contamination rates are not 

controlled, the MRF will waste valuable resources separating material that has no 

value. 

• Minimizing residual material that must be disposed of in a landfill will help the 

MRF reduce expenses. Although mentioned earlier, this aspect of operating 

expense is particularly important. To help avoid the expense associated with 

landfilling residual material, the MRF operator should find alternative uses for 

non-recoverable material. 

• Effectively communicating the importance of disposing of C&D at a MRF is 

helpful in obtaining support from the consumers and private haulers. 

• Continuing to examine the issue of C&D MRF at a more region-specific level 

through the conduct of a feasibility Study could foster development of a C&D 

MRF in that region. At this time, more region specific data is needed for those 

interested in establishing a C&D MRF in the region. 


9/14/05 R. W. Beck 3-9

Section 3 

• The cost per ton to dispose of MSW in Texas is low relative to many other states. 

In the North Central Texas region, the weighted-average cost per ton is $19.83. 4 

As a comparison, for year 2000, the weighted average landfill disposal fee in 

California, where several C&D MRFs operative, was approximately $35. 5 

Disposal alternatives must be able to compete with these lower tipping fees to 

remain a viable option. 

• A waste composition and characterization study analyzing the C&D waste stream 

in the North Central Texas area has not been conducted. Therefore, estimates 

were used to determine the amount or type of C&D debris is available for those 

planning the development of a C&D MRF. 

• The construction and demolition industry has disposed of debris in landfills for 

many years. Changing the momentum of the status quo will be a challenge for 

any C&D disposal alternatives. 

• Texas lacks regulations and incentives that exist in other states, which promote or 

require C&D waste minimization. 


A common theme throughout this case study is that a C&D MRF must be able to 

compete with the landfills in the North Central Texas region. Tipping fees at Type I 

and Type IV landfills in the North Central Texas region average $19.83 per ton. 

One of the assumptions of this case study is that this model facility would be owned 

and operated by a governmental entity, meaning that taxes are assumed to be zero for 

this discussion. Table 3-5 provides an estimate of the capital expenses associated with 

the model facility described in this case study. Each expense category includes a low 

and high estimate based on R. W. Beck’s research. 

Table 3-5 

Model Facility Capital Expenses 

Total Cost Annual Funding Cost 1 

Expense Low High Useful Life Low High 

Land 90,000 400,000 30 7,253 32,235 

Buildings and Site Improvements 3,555,349 5,333,024 20 335,600 503,400 

Processing Equipment 1,850,000 2,275,000 7 343,273 422,134 

Rolling Stock 1,365,000 1,560,000 5 332,911 380,469 

Total $6,860,349 $9,568,024 $1,019,037 $1,338,238 

1 Amortized over the useful life of the capital assuming 7% interest rate. 

4 Based on FY 2003 data from the TCEQ. The weighted average tipping fee for all landfills in the 

North Central Texas region that report fees on a per ton basis is $19.83. 

5 According to a survey conducted by the California Integrated Waste Management Board. 

3-10 R. W. Beck 9/14/05


Table 3-5 provides some insight into the capital financing requirements for the model 

facility. R. W. Beck recommends aligning the financing terms of the investment 

vehicle with the useful life of each type of capital expense. 

Table 3-6 provides the annual operating and maintenance costs of the model facility 

based on the assumptions discussed throughout this study. 

Table 3-6 

Model Facility Operating and Maintenance Expenses 

Total Cost 

Expense Low High 

Labor 666,536 1,197,872 

Utilities 75,000 125,000 

Residual disposal costs 1,648,043 1,832,319 

Equipment maintenance 150,000 250,000 

Total $2,539,579 $3,405,191 

Based on the expenses presented in Tables 3-5 and 3-6, R. W. Beck estimated a range 

of costs per ton required to sustain a C&D MRF in the North Central Texas region. 

These revenues assume that the MRF can recover approximately 60 percent of the inbound 

material and that the remainder must be disposed of at a landfill. These costs 

per ton also assume that the model facility revenues equal the expenses incurred. If 

the MRF operator intends to fund a reserve account or generate a profit, the tipping 

fees would need to be appropriately adjusted. Table 3-7 provides these estimated 

tipping fees. 

Table 3-7 

Cost per Ton Comparison 

Facility 

Cost per Ton 

C&D MRF $18.45 - $24.23 


Table 3-8 provides the annual revenues and total annual expenses of the model 

facility, based on these costs per ton. As noted, the analysis assumes the model 

facility operates at zero profit. 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 3-11

Section 3 

Table 3-8 

Model Facility Revenue and Expenses 

Revenue and Expenses 

Low 

High 

Expenses 

Capital 1,019,037 1,338,238 

Operating and Maintenance 2,539,579 3,405,191 

Revenue 

Sale of recovered material 763,487 1,072,304 

Tipping fees 2,795,129 3,671,126 

Total $0 $0 


Table 3-7 suggests that the cost per ton for the model facility are within the range of 

Type I and Type IV landfill tipping fees in the North Central Texas region. However, 

there are several factors to consider when deciding to implement a C&D MRF. 

1. Based on the results of the cost benefit analysis included in this section, 

preliminary findings indicate that a C&D MRF would be feasible in the North 

Central Texas region. However, this analysis should be considered preliminary as 

several key assumptions were made regarding the quantity and composition of inbound 

materials, end markets, facility size, equipment and location. 

2. NCTCOG should consider a more detailed examination of the feasibility of 

locating a C&D MRF in the region. The conduct of this analysis should focus on 

evaluating the quantity and composition of materials, identifying a potential 

facility location, estimating facility size and processing equipment, and identifying 

end markets for processed materials. 

3. Although the markets exist for materials from a C&D MRF, C&D waste 

minimization efforts is relatively new to the North Central Texas region. Any 

local government or other entity should complete a more thorough analysis of the 

market before deciding to implement a C&D MRF. The potential operator should 

develop confidence that haulers will bring mixed C&D debris to the facility and 

that there would be buyers for the sorted material. As mentioned earlier, markets 

can vary by region and what can be sold in one area may have to be given away in 

another. 

4. As discussed in Section 3.2.1, it is important to locate a C&D MRF as close to the 

sources of C&D debris as possible. Combined with competitive tipping fees, this 

will increase the incentive for haulers to choose the C&D MRF over other 

alternatives. As noted in Table 3-1, it is estimated that only 8 percent of total 

C&D generated is from new construction. Although evidence of new residential 

construction is easily noticeable, R. W. Beck recommends that all sources of C&D 

be considered when doing an analysis of C&D generation. 

3-12 R. W. Beck 9/14/05


5. In 2003, Dallas, Ellis, Johnson, Kaufman, and Tarrant Counties retained R. W. 

Beck to conduct a Metroplex Area Sub-Regional Solid Waste Study (Study). This 

study analyzed the projected landfill capacity in this five-county region. One of 

the conclusions of this study was that the five-county sub-region faces a potential 

long-term landfill capacity shortage. To address this shortage, the most likely 

scenarios include increased landfill tipping fees or the construction of new 

landfills. With the continued population growth of the sub-region, these new 

landfills would likely have to be located further away from the developing areas, 

thus increasing the transportation costs to and from the landfills. In either case, the 

cost to dispose of C&D debris would increase, thus improving the feasibility of a 

C&D MRF in the North Central Texas region. 

6. Co-location of the C&D MRF with another permitted MSW facility can provide 

synergies that will help reduce the incremental cost of a C&D MRF. If the C&D 

MRF is co-located with another MSW facility, the costs associated with the scale 

house, support building, land, labor, and possibly some rolling stock may all be 

reduced or eliminated. For comparison purposes, R. W. Beck assumed that the 

C&D MRF could be co-located with a landfill in the tri-county area of Collin, 

Dallas, or Denton Counties. Table 3-9 provides the cost per ton if the scale house, 

support building, and land costs are all eliminated. R. W. Beck also assumed that 

would be some overlap in labor and rolling stock and reduced some the associated 

expenses. 

Table 3-9 

Tipping Fees with Co-Located Facility 

Facility 

Cost per Ton 

C&D MRF $17.14 - $22.36 


An additional benefit, which is not reflected in the MRF costs listed in Table 3-9, 

is that if the facilities are co-located, the MRF could dispose of residual at the 

landfill at a reduced rate and reduced transfer costs. 

Lastly, locating a C&D MRF at a currently permitted MSW facility will reduce the 

permitting costs associated with the facility since a separate MSW permit is not 

required by TCEQ when the facilities are co-located. 

7. The NCTCOG and the communities within the region should support policies, 

regulations or legislation that will increase the requirements for recycling C&D 

debris. If contractors have incentives or are required to divert a certain level of 

C&D debris from construction and demolition projects, then there would be a 

greater demand for C&D waste minimization options. 

8. The NCTCOG and the communities within the region should also support other 

C&D waste minimization efforts. Although this may create some level of 

competition for the C&D MRF, increased awareness of C&D waste minimization 

should benefit all C&D waste minimization efforts. 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 3-13

Section 3 


3-14 R. W. Beck 9/14/05

Section 4 

On-Site Grinding Case Study 


On-site grinding is the practice of grinding or crushing building materials, which 

would traditionally be disposed of at a landfill, and depositing them onsite as a soil 

amendment or used as erosion control. From a waste management perspective, on-site 

grinding can divert up to 85 percent of C&D waste generated from new home 

construction from the waste stream. 

Home builders have two options for on-site grinding. The home builder may choose 

to own and operate a grinder or subcontract on-site grinding services. Both options 

use on-site grinders to process materials from the production of homes that have been 

designated for disposal. Once separated, the material is processed onsite into smaller 

chips or dust. This material is typically deposited onsite as a soil amendment or silt 

fencing. Included at the end of this section are photographs of reduced material, 

onsite application and a grinder. 

The economic feasibility of on-site grinding can vary depending on the following 

factors: 

• How the on-site grinding service is operated. 

• Number of homes being built in the area. 

• Whether the homes are production or custom built homes. 

Grinders are available in a variety of sizes, which will determine the amount of 

throughput they are able to process. The throughput capacity of a grinder is most 

often affected by its size, age, type of material and quantity of material it is processing 


During the completion of this case study, R. W. Beck conducted interviews with onsite 

grinding contractors and home builders within the North Central Texas region and 

a review of available literature regarding on-site grinding and new home construction 

nationwide. 


Based on discussions with on-site grinder operators, the size of materials processed, 

the loading and location of the machine as well as maintenance schedule are 

operational considerations that can affect the performance of the grinder. 

9/14/05

Section 4 

4.2.1.1 Materials Handling and Loading 

Grinders are ideal for processing wood, stone/masonry, drywall and corrugated 

cardboard. C&D waste such as wood or drywall typically must be trimmed, 

shortened, or split prior to loading them into the grinder. Initially cutting them into 

sections, will increase the machines ability to grind the material without stoppages as 

well as allow for more material to be loaded at one time. 

Table 4.1 illustrates the major waste generating periods of a development and the 

materials that are typically generated for each phase of construction. Based on 

discussions with a home builder, the slab, frame, and sheetrock cleanup phases 

generate the greatest amount of debris and require the most time for clean-up related 

activities. 

Table 4-1 

Major Waste Generating Periods 

Period 

Slab Cleanup 

Frame Cleanup 

Wood 

Wood 

Type of Waste 

Cornered Cleanup Stone/Masonry 1 

Rough Mechanical Cleanup Corrugated Cardboard 

Sheetrock Cleanup 

Drywall 

Trim Cleanup 

Wood 

Final Mechanical Cleanup Corrugated Cardboard 

Notes: 

1 

Based on discussions with grinder operators, breakdowns will most 

often occur during the grinding of stone, masonry or other dense 

materials. 

Residual materials may be used as either a soil amendment or could be used as erosion 

control in lieu of silt fencing. Using C&D materials as a means of supplanting a 

portion of the amount of common fill dirt applied to the site at the end of the job could 

save a builder approximately 50 cubic yards that would otherwise be purchased and 

hauled from offsite. 

In addition, the use of wood chips as a means of erosion control in lieu of silt fencing 

can also be more effective as well as cost avoidance for the builder. Section 4.4.1 

provides a more in-depth discussion of cost avoidance strategies. 

Grinders can be loaded manually or by using a small front-end loader. The loading 

method frequently depends on the size of the grinder, the degree of accessibility to the 

machine, and the amount of material designated for grinding. 

Based on discussions with grinder operators, manual loading of the grinder is the 

preferable option unless there is a significant amount of material. 

4-2 R. W. Beck 9/14/05



On-site grinders are towed using a one-ton truck and can be stationed on either 

asphalt, concrete or hard ground. The mobility of the grinder enables it to be easily 

moved from job to job, repositioned in a different direction (when wind may be a 

factor), or relocated onsite. Provided there is adequate space for both the truck and 

grinder, a grinder may be angled or directed in a variety of manners based on the 

needs of the builder. The following provides a description of the three most common 

scenarios in which a grinder is used. R. W. Beck would like to note that the 

application of these scenarios is often dictated by the manner in which the builder 

separates the debris around the jobsite. 

Stockpiling 

Stockpiling the reduced material into several piles in a single central or several smaller 

locations is a strategy that may be employed during the slab cleanup phase of a build 

when material is abundant. For example, during this time wood used to form the 

foundation of the house will be removed and available for reduction. This scenario is 

especially suitable when there is an open or unused area that is easily accessible and is 

away from any busy roads. 

Direct Application 

Direct application of processed material onto a particular area is often the simplest and 

quickest method of on-site grinding. This technique is ideal for situations where the 

building materials and the discharge area are co-located. It may also be applicable 

during the final mechanical cleanup phase of construction, when the amount of 

residual material decreases and the processed material will be used as fill material in 

small quantities. 

Truck Bed/Trailer 

In situations where processed material needs to be deposited in numerous stockpile 

locations or immediately applied to one or more lots, materials can be discharged into 

a truck bed or trailer. Typically, a grinder can be positioned in a single location while 

the vehicle can position into the bed of a truck or dumpbody trailer under the 

discharge line. This scenario allows the operator a greater degree of maneuverability 

to independently and quickly apply processed materials. 

When using truck beds without a hydraulic dumping body, a retractable tarp can be 

attached to the tailgate. The tarp should be unrolled and cover the bottom of the truck 

bed prior to grinding so that material can collect on the tarp. Once the processing of 

material is complete, the materials can then be transported and easily emptied at the 

desired location using the tarp once the tailgate is released. 

4.2.2 On-site Grinder Operations 

On-site grinding may be implemented in two manners; the first would involve a home 

builder purchasing an on-site grinder and the second would involve a home builder 

subcontracting grinding services on a regular basis. The second scenario operates in 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 4-3

Section 4 

much the same manner as a typical regular disposal service would. For the purposes 

of the case study analysis, R. W. Beck chose to focus on the various operational issues 

associated with both scenarios. 

4.2.2.1 Owning and Operating a Grinder 

In the event that a home builder chooses to purchase an on-site grinder, several factors 

must be taken into consideration to achieve the level of cost effectiveness. Most 

importantly, if a builder chooses to own and operate a grinder, the builder must 

consider whether or not they have enough developments to keep the grinder running 

and whether they have the manpower to dedicate to the grinder. 

Staffing 

The on-site grinding process requires staffing for two main areas of the operation: the 

source separation of materials and the operation of the grinder itself. Staffing for 

source separating the materials can be manned by four to five low-skilled laborers who 

would stockpile waste by material. 

Using the traditional method of waste disposal, these laborers would be tasked with 

disposing of all waste into a container. Therefore, explaining and demonstrating this 

source separation to these laborers is often not difficult. Based on estimates provided 

by a home builder, there are typically seven periods where the majority of the waste 

generated can be traced as described in Table 4.1. Each laborer would typically 

dedicate approximately 20 hours per home over the six month build to source 

separation activities. 

The other team of employees would be tasked with the operation and maintenance of 

the grinder. Unlike the manual laborers who would normally be used on the jobsite 

already, this team would be comprised of existing staff capable of operating heavy 

equipment or new staff hired by the home builder. 

This team would need to be trained on the grinder operation and be retained for other 

concurrently running jobs or additional ones in the future. Typically, it would take no 

more than two to three employees to operate a grinder. 

Maintenance 

It is important to note that proper cleaning and maintenance of the grinder will lead to 

fewer breakdowns and downtime for repair. A grinder manufacturer estimates that the 

maintenance cost for a grinder is approximately $6.00 per running hour. 

Location 

During the grinding process the grinder may be setup at a variety of locations across 

the build site. As described in Section 4.2.1.2, the builder may use the stockpiling, 

direct application, or truck bed/trailer method of application. The primary difference 

between owning and operating a grinder and subcontracting grinding services is the 

storage of the grinder during non-operation by the home builder. 

In the scenario where a builder owns and operates the grinder, the short term and long 

term storage of the grinder must be accounted for. Since home builders rarely own a 

4-4 R. W. Beck 9/14/05


significant amount of their own heavy equipment, if at all, a staging or storage area for 

the equipment would be a significant barrier to implementing this option. 

4.2.2.2 Subcontracting Grinding Services 

On-site grinding may also be implemented through retaining the services of an on-site 

grinding service provider. Currently, one of the most significant impediments for 

home builders who wish to use this service is that only a few on-site grinding service 

providers exist in the North Central Texas region. However, the number of service 

providers may increase based on the demand for this service by home builders. 

From a planning perspective, home builders and subcontractors must initially decide 

on several different issues: 

• Pricing: Subcontractors typically price their service based on the number of 

square footage of the house. This price may range from $0.45 to $0.60 per square 

foot depending on the number of houses served in an area, frequency of 

collection, and distance the subcontractor must travel. 

• Frequency: Services may be provided on a weekly, semi-weekly or on-call basis. 

The frequency of the service may have an impact on the negotiated price. Based 

on discussions with service providers, home builders often schedule grinding 

services to coincide with open-houses or near the weekend when potential 

customers visit the development. 

• Additional Waste Services: In some cases, service providers will also dispose of 

all non-grindable material (shingles, plastics, etc.). The cost of this service is 

typically built into the negotiated service price. This accounts for less than 15 

percent of the total waste generated by a home building project. 

• Location: The home builder and subcontractor should determine the location of 

all source separated material as well as the location where the residuals should be 

deposited. The locations will vary between custom and production home projects 

and may change depending on the phase of the construction. 

Staffing 

No additional staffing for the home builder would be required for subcontracting 

grinder. Low-skilled laborers, who would otherwise gather material and deposit them 

in a disposal container, would be retasked to source separate materials by source in a 

designated area. Based on discussions with home builders who have retained these 

services, the number of hours dedicated to disposal activities has not changed since 

using the service. 

Location 

The location of the source separated materials and the grinding operation should be 

discussed between the home builder and the subcontractor during the planning phase 

of the project. It is important that the subcontractor and home builder communicate 

regularly to ensure that both parties are in agreement as to where the material should 

be separated and deposited at the various stages of the project. 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 4-5

Section 4 


Public awareness for on-site grinding as a means of waste reduction to the residential 

new construction industry should initially focus on small to midsize production home 

builders. These home builders are typically willing to try new methods for 

construction and would be a target audience for this campaign. 

Introducing new products or procedures, such as this one, directly to large production 

home builders may not be successful and may meet with some resistance since it has 

yet to be proven within the industry. A home builder from the North Central Texas 

region, with several years experience in the industry, explained that often home 

builders are reluctant to change to a new procedure if unproven to save them money or 

operate smoothly. One method to encourage larger home builders to utilize on-site 

grinding services is to identify large production home builders that have already 

implemented on-site grinding in other parts of the US. 

The focus of the public awareness should center on the economic benefits and indirect 

benefits such as safety and cleanliness. Based on discussions with on-site grinding 

companies, home builders are initially most responsive to the economic benefits of the 

process and often do not make their decision based on the environmental impacts of 

this new process. However, once home builders are able to see the process in action 

throughout the course of a build, they are typically pleased with the aesthetic benefits 

of on-site grinding. These benefits are described in further detail in Section 4.4.4. 



impediments to a successful on-site grinding operation. Keys to success include the 

following: 

• Communication between parties is necessary to ensure that the service provider 

and home builder have a successful working relationship during the project and 

that grinding services may be considered as a viable option in the future. 

• In cases where the services of a grinder are retained, regular scheduled grinding 

times should be established in accordance with neighborhood restrictions as well 

as with the construction operation of the home. 

• Providing the home builder with informational resources detail the intended uses 

of reduced material, scheduling process, and tangible and intangible benefits of 

using on-site grinding can be an effective method of addressing any skepticism 

that a builder may have regarding the on-site grinding process. 

• The determination of the location of the source separated materials and reduced 

materials should initially be established and maintained throughout the course of a 

job. In the event that there is a need to change the location of operation proper 

communication should take place between parties. 


4-6 R. W. Beck 9/14/05


• Some home builders may believe or are advised by disposal companies that the 

status quo method of C&D waste disposal is effective. Overcoming this 

preconceived notion and illustrating the benefits of on-site grinding may prove to 

be an obstacle to instituting on-site grinding as a feasible method for home 

builders to use to divert C&D materials from the waste stream. 

• Currently, relatively few on-site grinding service providers exist in the North 

Central Texas region. Some home builders with an interest in on-site grinding 

may not be able to utilize the service due to the limited number of providers. 

• Production and custom home builders traditionally subcontract all services and do 

not own their own equipment because of maintenance and storage costs. Home 

builders may be very hesitant or skeptical about owning and operating an on-site 

grinder. 

• Laborers who are not accustomed to separating materials by source or who may 

carelessly mix non-grindable materials with those that can be reduced, may cause 

a problem for the grinding operation. 

• Dust caused by the grinding of drywall or stone/masonry may be problematic 

during windy periods and undesirable to site workers or residents nearby. While 

dust control systems work well in limiting the amount of excess dust, it does not 

completely prevent fly-out. 


To evaluate the costs and benefits of on-site grinding, R. W. Beck compared the costs 

and benefits between traditional disposal versus using an on-site grinder at new 

housing developments. For the purposes of this cost benefit analysis, R. W. Beck 

developed two scenarios based on two types of home building: custom home building 

and production home building. 

• Scenario One - Custom Homes: A custom home may be described as a “one-of-akind” 

home that is designed for a specific client and for a certain location. A 

custom home is typically based on a design created by an architect or professional 

home designer. Due to the fact that each house is unique it reduces the number of 

homes a custom home builder may build in a given year. For the purposes of this 

analysis, R. W. Beck used the conservative estimate of 10 to 12 homes built by a 

custom home builder in a normal year. 

• Scenario Two - Production Homes: Production homes are those built from using a 

stock set of specifications; however these homes may be customized by selecting 

a variety of options. Typically, a superintendent is in charge of between 15 to 25 

homes in a specific area at one time. From an operational perspective, these 

homes may be built during the same period, depending on the contractor, and a 

project may last from four to six months. For the purposes of this study, 

R. W. Beck estimated that a production superintendent may construct 50 to 75 

homes annually. 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 4-7

Section 4 

Within each scenario, R. W. Beck presented three options that a home builder may 

choose to implement. 

• Status Quo (Traditional Waste Disposal): The most common method for home 

builders to dispose of C&D waste generated by the building of custom or 

production homes is through a contracted waste disposal service. Typically, a 

container is delivered to the site where C&D debris is loaded manually. The 

container is then hauled away and the waste is disposed at a landfill by the service 

provider. 

• Owning and Operating a Grinder: As described in Section 4.2.2.1, a builder may 

choose to own and operate an on-site grinder to be used at one or more 

developments. 

• Subcontracting Grinding Services: As described in Section 4.2.2.2 a builder may 

retain the services of an on-site grinding service provider to reduce waste at the 

development. 

For each scenario R. W. Beck examined all the costs related to waste disposal 

including: labor related to disposal or source separation, equipment costs, and hauling 

or grinding costs. For the purposes of the cost benefit analysis of owning and 

operating a grinder, R. W. Beck assumed two operator employees dedicating 

approximately 13 hours per home over the course of the build. R. W. Beck would 

note that these employees may have significant amounts of downtime during nonoperation. 

The operators may be reassigned by the home builder as deemed necessary 

or institute on-site grinding at other developments. In addition, these labor estimates 

do not include the possible transportation time associated with moving the grinder 

from site to site, if the builder were to use the grinder at different jobsites. 

4.4.1 Cost Avoidance Analysis 

Additional cost savings may be achieved through using on-site grinding versus 

traditional disposal options through the reuse of the reduced material onsite. The two 

primary cost saving strategies are alternative erosion control and soil amendments 

methods. 

4.4.1.1 Erosion Control 

Through the use of chipped wood to create a protective berm in place of silt fencing, a 

home builder has the opportunity to avoid the cost of purchasing silt fencing. The cost 

avoidance of silt fencing may be a significant amount per home. In the case of a 

production home builder who builds 50 homes annually, the cost avoidance of silt 

fencing may be up to $13,150. Figure 4.1, located at the end of this section, illustrates 

how a mulch berm may be used for erosion control. 

The home builder gains an additional benefit through avoiding the labor costs 

associated with of installing, maintaining and tearing down the silt fence. These 

additional savings have not been captured in this cost benefit analysis but may prove 

to be considerable with a greater number of homes. 

4-8 R. W. Beck 9/14/05


From an operational perspective, protective berms are more effective in capturing soil 

as compared to silt fencing during heavy rains that occur frequently in the North 

Central Texas region. While this method may require some maintenance by the 

subcontractor or laborers, the protective berm may be easier to rebuild in some 

scenarios. 

4.4.1.2 Soil Amendment 

Application of reduced materials such as wood, brick/masonry, drywall and 

corrugated cardboard onto the site can have a substantial impact on the amount of 

common fill needed to level the home and landscape. Based on estimates provided by 

service providers, grinding may replace approximately 50 cubic yards of common fill 

needed by the home builder. This may account for approximately one-third or onefourth 

of the total fill costs for the property. From a cost benefit perspective this may 

be a significant amount per home, an estimated $25,000 annually for a production 

home builder who builds 50 homes annually. 

4.4.2 Scenario One – Custom Homes 

For the purposes of this cost benefit analysis, R. W. Beck assumed that a typical 

custom home superintendent builds approximately 10 to 12 homes with the average 

home being 4,500 square feet. Based on the waste generation model developed by the 

U.S. Environment Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), there are approximately 108 cubic 

yards of C&D waste for each home. 

Based on R. W. Beck’s analysis of on-site grinding for custom homes, it would 

potentially cost a custom home builder an additional $1,200 to $1,800 per home to use 

the on-site grinding method more than the traditional disposal method. One reason for 

the additional cost for grinding service is that service providers may need to charge 

custom home builders a premium for their service. Service providers stated that 

transportation costs to the site and labor inefficiencies due to servicing only one or two 

houses instead of several houses at a location contribute to this additional cost. 

Based on discussions with grinder service providers, the provider may be willing to 

negotiate a comparable price to landfill disposal in order to establish a rapport with 

home builders in the area. As one would expect, this negotiated price would not be 

able to be maintained over time based on the current cost of the service. However, 

once the service provider expands its business and the cost of their service were to 

decrease, they may be able to compete more effectively with landfill disposal in the 

future. 

From an impact on the waste stream perspective, custom home builders typically make 

up a relatively small number of total home builders in the region. Therefore the 

percentage of the C&D waste stream from this sector is a smaller portion of the 

amount of C&D disposal at landfills. In order to confirm this statistic, a composition 

study of the C&D waste stream in the North Central Texas region analyzing the point 

of generation for C&D waste would be necessary. 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 4-9

Section 4 

Table 4.2 illustrates the costs of each solid waste management method for custom 

home builders over the course of a normal year. 

Table 4-2 

Custom Home Cost Benefit Analysis Based on 10 Homes Annually 

Costs 

Disposal 

Own/Operate 

On-Site Grinding 

Subcontract 

Labor 2,475 7,275 2,475 

Equipment - 24,288 - 

Fuel and Maintenance - 5,000 - 

Disposal Services 9,000 1,350 - 

Grinding Services - - 29,250 

Total Costs 11,475 37,913 31,725 

Total Costs per Home 1,148 3,791 3,173 

Cost Avoidance 

Erosion Control - (2,630) (2,630) 

Soil Amendment - (5,000) (5,000) 

Total Cost Avoidance - (7,630) (7,630) 

Net Cost $11,475 $30,283 $24,095 

Net Costs/(Savings) 

Related to Disposal 

$18,808 $12,620 

Net Cost/(Savings) Related 

to Disposal per Home 

$1,881 $1,262 

R. W. Beck would note that a custom home builder may still choose to use on-site 

grinding as a means of waste reduction if requested by a client or as a marketing 

strategy for their product. 

4.4.3 Scenario Two – Production Homes 

For the purposes of this cost benefit analysis, R. W. Beck assumed that a typical 

production home superintendent builds approximately 50 to 75 homes with the 

average home being 2,500 square feet. Based on the waste generation model 

developed by the US EPA, there are approximately 50 cubic yards of C&D waste for 

each home. 

Table 4.3 illustrates the costs of each solid waste management method for production 

home builders over the course of a normal year. 

Based on R. W. Beck’s analysis of on-site grinding for production homes, a 


reduction in waste related costs of approximately $180 per home. This cost reduction 

4-10 R. W. Beck 9/14/05


is achieved through offsetting some or all of the costs of silt fencing and soil 

amendments. 

In the future, the cost of service providers charge may decrease even further as it 

becomes more competitive with landfill disposal. This would most likely occur 

through service providers achieving economies of scale and the development of 

relationships with service providers. 

Table 4-3 

Production Home Cost Benefit Analysis Based on 50 Homes Annually 

Costs 

Disposal 

Own/Operate 

On-Site Grinding 

Subcontract 

Labor 14,231 41,831 14,231 

Equipment - 24,288 - 

Fuel and Maintenance - 7,000 - 

Disposal Services 20,833 3,125 - 

Grinding Services - - 50,000 

Total Costs 35,065 76,244 64,231 

Cost per Home 701 1,524 1,284 

Cost Avoidance 

Erosion Control - (13,150) (13,150) 

Soil Amendment - (25,000) (25,000) 

Total Cost Avoidance (38,150) (38,150) 

Net Cost $35,065 $38,094 $26,081 

Net Costs/(Savings) 

Related to Disposal 

$3,030 ($8,983) 

Net Cost/(Savings) Related 

to Disposal per Home 

$60 ($180) 

4.4.4 Indirect Benefits of On-Site Grinding 

Waste related issues are traditionally topics that few home builders pay much attention 

to when developing a construction plan. However, based on discussions with home 

builders, the status-quo disposal process currently used by many home builders lends 

itself to a number of problems that can be addressed by on-site grinding. 

These indirect benefits are often overlooked or may not be deemed as substantially 

beneficial in relation to the costs of this process by a home builder. However, 

R. W. Beck believes these benefits may be just as important as a means of solving 

some operational issues builders are faced with as well as a means of marketing their 

home to consumers. 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 4-11

Section 4 

4.4.4.1 Illegal Use of Disposal Containers 

Residents who seek to illegally dump bulky items often misuse waste containers that 

are located on the jobsite as a means of illegal disposal. Items such as couches, 

televisions, chairs and mattresses are most often found to be dumped during the night 

when the site is vacant. From a cost benefit perspective, home builders may lose a 

significant amount of container space from these bulky items that may force them to 

increase the amount of pulls per container. 

Through on-site grinding, the need for disposal containers is generally diminished 

greatly or completely avoided, therefore the individuals who would seek to illegally 

use disposal containers would seek to dispose of their waste elsewhere. 

4.4.4.2 Risk Mitigation 

From a risk management perspective, improperly or carelessly discarded C&D waste 

in work areas may pose a significant threat to the health and welfare of contractors and 

laborers in the work area. In the event a technician or laborer was to injure himself on 

the job, it could result in workers compensation claims and unnecessary downtime for 

that individual. 

Since on-site grinding requires materials to be systematically source separated in 

designated areas and ultimately reducing excess materials quickly, the amount of 

waste scattered across a jobsite and the length of time in which waste is stockpiled is 

often reduced dramatically. From a cost benefit perspective, on-site grinding leads to 

a safer work environment for all employees and reduces risk to the home builder. 

4.4.4.3 Aesthetics 

New housing developments that grind materials frequently have cleaner and safer 

work environments. The home builder may be viewed by the consumer in a positive 

manner and may associate a cleaner work environment to a better built home. 

Based on discussions with a production home builder, potential homebuyers who have 

visited the development a day to two days after grinding have commented positively 

on the site cleanliness and work environment. 

4.4.4.4 Local Ordinance Restrictions 

Restrictions may exist in some communities that prohibit the use of disposal 

containers onsite. This may force some home builders to use unsound, makeshift 

disposal containers. Through the use of on-site grinding, a home builder could operate 

normally in accordance with all local ordinances. 

4.4.4.5 Downtime after Inclement Weather 

Home builders often must shut down operations after heavy rains due of the buildup of 

mud around a home or the general work area. Depending on the magnitude and 

stretch of inclement weather, a jobsite may stay muddy for a significant period of 

time. As a result, crews that resume work or potential customers who visit the site 

may track mud in the houses during walkthroughs or would be unable to reach the site. 

4-12 R. W. Beck 9/14/05


As a means to resolving this problem, applying reduced drywall to the soil has been an 

effective measure in reducing the amount of mud in the area. The reduced drywall 

acts as a sponge that soaks up moisture in the ground. Since many home builders are 

already unable to work during the actual storm, the quicker crews can resume work the 

less of an impact the inclement weather will have on the project schedule. 

4.4.4.6 Marketing Strategy 

Home builders who use on-site grinding may benefit from using this fact as a selling 

point to potential clients or developing marketing materials that include a brief 

description of their waste disposal process. To the consumers, a home builder who 

implements on-site grinding as a way to reduce the amount of C&D waste disposed of 

at landfills may be viewed as environmentally conscious or different from other home 

builders. 

4.4.4.7 Green Building 

Waste minimization efforts like on-site grinding are typically included in green 

building rating programs. More information on green building and the benefits of this 

program may be found in the case study analysis on green building in Section 2. 


1. Contracting on-site grinding services may be a cost-effective alternative compared 

to traditional waste disposal for production home builders in the North Central 

Texas region. From a financial perspective, the cost-effectiveness of this may 

depend on cost of the service and implementation of cost-avoidance strategies. 

2. Based on R. W. Beck’s analysis of on-site grinding for production homes, a 


reduction in waste related costs of approximately $180 per home. 

3. Using on-site grinding as a means of C&D waste reduction for custom homes is 

currently not a cost-effective method of reducing waste and may cost 

approximately $1,200 to $1,800 more per home than disposal. 

4. The indirect benefits of on-site grinding may have a substantial impact on the 

likelihood that home builders will use on-site grinding as a means of waste 

disposal in the future. 

5. Production home builders subcontracting on-site grinding services is the most 

economically feasible option for this solid waste management method. 

6. With the widespread use of waste minimization strategies such as on-site grinding, 

the long-term benefits of diverting C&D waste from landfills in the North Central 

Texas region will continue to benefit the North Central Texas region. 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 4-13

Section 4 

Figure 4-1: On-Site Grinding Process 

Photograph of an on-site grinder. 

Part of a chipped wood stockpile that can be 

used as a soil amendment. 

Reduced masonry and brick that can be used as 

a soil amendment. 

Mulch berm that can be used as an alternative to 

silt fencing. 

4-14 R. W. Beck 9/14/05

Section 5 

LEED Deconstruction Case Study 


Deconstruction is defined as the selective dismantlement or removal of materials from 

buildings for reuse or recycling. This process, as an alternative to the more traditional 

demolition of a building, can serve as an effective way of reducing a significant 

amount of waste from entering the waste stream. 

Deconstruction is also one of the many activities used under the Leadership in Energy 

and Environmental Design (LEED). LEED is defined as a rating system used to set 

standards and provide evaluation criteria to determine if construction or 

deconstruction has occurred in an environmentally friendly manner. In other words, 

LEED is a green building rating system for commercial or institutional buildings such 

as office buildings or multi-use facilities. 

The LEED rating system is made up of a checklist of 69 possible points and 

recommends strategies that enable a building project to earn these points. These 

points are based on a number of different categories including: 

• Sustainable sites; 

• Water efficiency; 

• Materials and resources; 

• Indoor air quality; and 

• Energy and atmosphere; 

• Innovation and design process. 

Since these structures are typically much larger than homes, the potential impact of 

commercial building on the waste stream is significant. Instituting a program, such as 

LEED, is one way to encourage waste minimization activities in commercial building. 


R. W. Beck focused its case study research on the partial deconstruction of a building 

and the materials and resources component of the LEED rating system. The Hensley 

Field Operations Center 25 (Hensley Field), which will ultimately house the 

Equipment and Building Services Division for the City of Dallas (Dallas), was chosen 

as the subject of the case study analysis. 

Hensley Field is an 80,000 square foot complex that will house the fleet maintenance 

operations for all City of Dallas departments as well as retrofitting of all police 

automobiles. It is located in the west central area of Dallas on the closed Hensley Air 

Force Base. Included at the conclusion of this section are photographs of the facility. 

9/14/05

Section 5 

The Hensley Field project is under the management of the Environmental Services 

Division for Dallas. The project manager oversees various aspects of the project since 

its initiation including, building design, construction and waste management planning, 

and acting as liaison for Dallas during deconstruction. 

The project manager worked very closely with all related parties during the three 

month process including attending regular weekly meetings, offering input regarding 

waste minimization and analyzing preliminary tonnage data. 

Harrison Walker & Harper, L.P. (HWH) is the acting construction management firm 

for the Hensley Field project and is responsible for all aspects of the process. Mart, 

Inc. (Mart) has been retained as a subcontractor to HWH to perform the 

deconstruction of the interior and exterior of the Hensley Field project. 

5.2.1 Program Requirements 

In 2003, the City of Dallas passed an ordinance requiring all public buildings that are 

at least 10,000 square feet and are to be demolished or constructed receive a LEED 

rating no less than LEED Certified. 1 Several new construction projects for the City of 

Dallas have been produced under the LEED guidelines, however none have received a 

rating at this time. Hensley Field is the first LEED rated deconstruction project for the 

City of Dallas. 

As a result of implementing the deconstruction process, the Dallas hopes to receive a 

LEED Silver rating for the deconstruction of the building. The LEED Silver rating is 

issued to those projects which have diverted more than 80 percent of their waste from 

the waste stream. 


Prior to the project initiation Dallas requested that a waste management plan be 

established detailing all relevant aspects of the deconstruction process. The waste 

management plan developed by Mart and HWH detailed the following: 

• Waste Management Goals: Recognized Dallas’ goal of the 80 percent waste 

reduction to be achieved during this project. 

• Communication Plan: Provided an overview of the expectations for 

communications at all contractor meetings and ensured that all employees would 

be aware of the waste management goals of this project. 

• Definitions: Defined various keywords and topics to be covered in the project. 

• Construction Plan: Detailed strategies which would be employed to deconstruct 

the various components of the building. Table 5.10 describes the hauler, disposal 

method (recycled or landfill), disposal location and on-site collection method. 

• Quantity Verification Procedure: Described the techniques that would be used to 

ensure that all material was properly disposed or recycled, weighed correctly and 

accounted for. 

1 A discussion of the LEED rating system is included in the Best Management Practices section of this 

report in Section 7.1.2. 

5-2 R. W. Beck 9/14/05


• Indoor Air Quality: Addressed the manner in which indoor air quality would be 

ensured during the conduct of deconstruction. This focused on: Heating and 

Ventilation and Cooling (HVAC) protection, source control, pathway 

interruption, housekeeping, and scheduling. 

5.2.2.1 Materials 

Based on the waste management plan, Mart and Dallas staff were able to take a 

proactive approach to the deconstruction process. 

Table 5-1 

Phase One – Material Recovery Results 

Category 

Materials Processed (Tons) 

Percentage 

Total 

Diverted Disposed 

Recycled 

Fencing 0.13 - 0.13 100% 

Rigid Foam Insulation - 0.68 0.68 0% 

Window Glass - 0.15 0.15 0% 

Salvaged Equip. & Access. 0.21 - 0.21 100% 

Lead 4.50 - 4.50 100% 

Carpet & Pad - 0.29 0.29 0% 

Ceiling 12.14 1.75 13.89 87% 

HVAC 50.25 27.05 77.29 65% 

Electrical 32.70 2.06 34.75 94% 

Plumbing 4.26 9.00 13.26 32% 

Structural Steel 8.78 - 8.78 100% 

Decking 4.83 - 4.83 100% 

Mezzanine Concrete 11.00 - 11.00 100% 

Concrete 1,452.02 - 1,452.02 100% 

CMU Block 619.45 - 619.45 100% 

Laminated Plywood - 5.41 5.41 0% 

Gypsum Board - 33.22 33.22 0% 

Wood Studs & Plywood 11.19 - 11.19 100% 

Metal Studs 3.54 - 3.54 100% 

Hollow Metal Materials 5.24 - 5.24 100% 

Doors 2.79 - 2.79 100% 

Total 2,222.99 79.60 2,302.59 97% 

Notes: 

1 Tonnages based on disposal and recycler ticket data provided by Mart, Inc. 

2 The data for some materials in this table has been grouped together, a more detailed breakout of tonnage 

data may be found in Appendix C. 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 5-3

Section 5 

In many cases, Mart had already identified and contacted recyclers and salvage yards 

in the area to investigate recycling options. These also provided Mart with a sense of 

what materials would be revenue neutral, generate revenue or would have a cost 

associated with disposal. Table 5.1 describes the tonnages associated with various 

materials recovered during deconstruction and their disposal method. 

Based on the data provided by the contractors, approximately 97 percent of the 

material by weight was diverted from the landfill. A brief description of the recovery 

process, broken out by material type follows. 

Ceiling 

All uncontaminated ceiling tiles and grid materials were deconstructed and recovered 

manually. As discussed in Appendix B, ceiling tiles were stacked on wooden pallets 

and were picked up by a manufacturer and recycled. Deconstructed grid materials 

were stockpiled along with other tin materials in a container and then recycled at a 

salvage facility. 

Mart and Dallas staff reported that a heavy storm blew the roof off of two buildings, 

including the building where the materials were stored. From a waste diversion 

perspective, if these palletized ceiling tiles were not properly sealed and exposed to 

the elements, the ceiling tile manufacturer could have refused pick-up and the tiles 

would have been sent to the landfill. Fortunately, in this case the contractors had 

taken the appropriate measures to palletize and seal the materials. 

An additional issue that was faced with regards to ceiling tile recycling was that the 

manufacturer had a policy that it would not remove less than 30,000 cubic yards of tile 

and the project only had approximately 28,000 cubic yards of tile to be reclaimed. 

Fortunately, the manufacturer picked up the tiles, however, in the event that they did 

not, the costs for transportation to the recycling facility would have been significant. 

Approximately 85 percent of ceiling material was recycled which accounted for an 

estimated 12 of the 14 tons collected. 

Interior Walls 

Many of the interior walls of the complex were constructed of Concrete Masonry Unit 

(CMU’s) 2 and mortar or drywall and studs. 

These interior walls composed of CMU’s were often toppled using a wheeled loader 

and all in-tact CMU’s were stacked manually on pallets. Based on discussions with 

Mart staff, using the small front-end loaders worked very well and the bricks did not 

often sustain severe damage. A photograph of the CMU’s has been included at the 

end of this section. 

Initially, the CMU’s were to be hauled to a recycling facility to be ground. However, 

an alternative reuse opportunity presented itself when a local business needed CMU’s 

to construct a storage facility. The individual and the contractor negotiated a price of 

$0.25 per CMU (including pickup). Therefore, Mart did not incur any disposal or 

transportation costs associated with the reuse of those materials. 

2 Also more commonly known as “cinder blocks.” 

5-4 R. W. Beck 9/14/05


The interior walls composed of drywall and metal or wood studs were source 

separated to be recycled or disposed. Based on Mart’s waste management plan, the 

sheetrock was disposed of due to the unknown origins and compositions of the wall 

finish. However, all metal or wood studs were recovered and sent to an appropriate 

processing facility. Approximately 94 percent of the interior wall materials were 

recycled, which accounted for an estimated 634 of the 672 tons collected. 

Finishes 

Items such as doors, frames, flooring and other finishes were recovered whenever 

possible and separated by material at various location around the interior of the 

complex. Any doors and frames were separated manually to be potentially used again 

by the City of Dallas. The deconstruction of the doors was one of the first steps taken 

in the entire process, and was useful in opening up the area for deconstruction crews. 

Heating and Cooling System 

The HVAC system is comprised of several components and runs throughout the entire 

complex. For the purposes of this project, the HVAC system was manually 

deconstructed, separated by source and prepared for disposal or recycling. Table 5.2 

describes the various components of the HVAC and the disposal method for each 

material. 

Table 5-2 

HVAC System Component Disposal Summary 

Component 

Description/Process 

Waste 

Management 

Ductwork 

Manually deconstructed, stockpiled, crushed and 

delivered to scrap yard 

Recycled 

Insulation Removed from duct and discarded Disposed at Landfill 

Flexible Duct Removed from system and discarded Disposed at Landfill 

Fiberglass Plenums Removed from system and discarded Disposed at Landfill 

Pipe & Valves All iron will be stockpiled into bins and recycled Recycled 

Pipe Insulation Removed from pipe manually and discarded. Disposed at Landfill 

All other HVAC related equipment is source sorted into 

Equipment 1 

bins or stockpiled on-site for salvage 

Notes: 

1 

Equipment includes Boilers and Variable Air Volume (VAV) Boxes 

Recycled 

Approximately 65 percent of the HVAC system was diverted from the landfill which 

accounted for an estimated 50 of the 77 tons. 

Windows 

All glass windows marked for deconstruction throughout Hensley Field were 

removed, stored in roll-off containers and eventually disposed of at the landfill. The 

amount of glass from the windows, approximately .15 tons, was not enough to make 

the recovery and recycling cost-effective, nor did Dallas have a need to reuse the glass 

windows. 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 5-5

Section 5 

Electrical System 

The electrical system in Hensley Field consisted of several components which were 

recycled, salvaged or disposed. Much of the time, fixtures and materials such as light 

tubes required laborers to manually disassemble the objects into the different material 

categories such as ballasts and fittings for recovery by electrical salvage companies. 

Based on the data provided by Mart, only the plugs and switches, which were outdated 

were not able to recovered. Mart reported that all wiring was taken offsite and stored 

at the Mart storage facility to prevent theft of the material. While this was not a 

significant impediment, the ability to store the material onsite would have been more 

efficient. Table 5.3 describes the various components of the electrical system and the 

disposal method for each material. 

Approximately 94 percent of the electrical system was recycled, which accounted for 

an estimated 33 tons of the 35 tons collected. 

Table 5-3 

Electrical System Component Disposal Summary 

Component 



Management 

Conduit & Connectors Deconstructed, sorted and hauled Recycled 

Wiring Removed daily from site and stored at Mart facility Recycled 

Panels & Stitches 

Deconstructed, palletized and removed by electrical 

salvage contractors 

Recycled 

Transformers Source sorted and removed to temporary storage Recycled 

Ballasts Separated onsite from light tubes Recycled 

Light Tubes Separated onsite into wiring, ballasts, tubes and tin Recycled 

Plugs & Switches 

Removed from electrical system and discarded into 

bins 

Disposed at Landfill 

Fittings Separated onsite from light tubes Recycled 

Plumbing System 

The plumbing system at Hensley Field was deconstructed manually and much of the 

material was loaded for disposal. Since many of the fixtures, including all of the china 

fixtures were disposed at the landfill, the recovery rate for the plumbing system was 

32 percent or approximately 4.26 tons of the 13.26 tons deconstructed. However, 

Mart was able to recycle a significant portion of cast iron and copper, which was sold 

to a salvage yard. Table 5.4 describes the various components of the plumbing system 

and the disposal method for each material. 

5-6 R. W. Beck 9/14/05


Table 5-4 

Plumbing System Component Disposal Summary 

Component 



Management 

Fixtures 

China Fixtures 

Pipe Cast Iron 

Deconstructed from system and sorted; all half-bradley 

sinks sorted for re-use by City 

Includes all toilets, lavatories, and drinking fountains 

and discarded into disposal bins 

Separated from various fixtures and stockpiled to be 

recycled 

Recycled 

Disposed at Landfill 

Recycled 

Pipe Copper 

Separated from various fixtures and stockpiled to be 

recycled 

Recycled 

Pipe Insulation Removed from pipes and discarded Disposed at Landfill 

5.2.2.2 Equipment 

Heavy equipment used during the deconstruction process was reduced significantly 

since much of the building was disassembled manually. Mart used small front-end 

loaders were used during the deconstruction of CMU walls. In addition, scissor lifts 

were used during the deconstruction of HVAC ducts, electrical wiring and any 

miscellaneous materials unable to be reached from the ground. 

Additionally, Mart contracted with two container suppliers and haulers to provide 

collection bins for the complex. For the purposes of hauling non-recyclable material 

to the landfill, a private hauler provided 30-cubic yard roll-off containers located 

onsite. A private solid waste collection company was retained to provide various 

sized storage and recycling bins to stockpile, crush and haul materials to recycling 

facilities. 


Based on discussions with Mart staff, labor associated with the deconstruction process 

is very similar to the staffing of a demolition job. There are typically five to six 

laborers manually working in various areas around the 80,000 square foot complex 

and one to two supervisory staff managing the work area and progress. 

The time associated with labor can be designated into two specific areas as follows: 

• Deconstruction Activities: Pulling, lifting, cleaning, source separating and 

operating heavy equipment 

• Support Services: Supervision, planning, data collection and analysis 

It is important to note that because of the deconstruction process and the need to neatly 

separate materials as well as strategically disassemble various sections of the building, 

the general contractor reported that the jobsite is much safer. While no budgetary 

amount could be associated with the increased level of safety, it may be assumed that 

productivity increases as there were few or no accidents on the job. 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 5-7

Section 5 

Table 5.5 describes the approximate percentage of total man-hours associated with 

each material or system (i.e. HVAC, plumbing, etc.). For the purposes of the study, 

Mart staff has estimated on a percentage basis the time associated with each material 

class. 

Table 5-5 

Deconstruction Related Labor Hours by Material 

Material 

Deconstructing 

Activities and 

Support Services 


Land Clearing and Fencing 2% 

Shingles 2% 

Salvaged Equip. & Access. 10% 

Carpet & Pad 5% 

Ceiling Materials 8% 

HVAC 15% 

Electrical 10% 

Plumbing 10% 

Decking 3% 

Concrete 5% 

CMU Blocks 15% 

Wood and Metal Studs 5% 

Gypsum Board 5% 

Finishes 5% 

Total 100% 

The location of Hensley Field, more specifically its relation to reduction and disposal 

sites, did not have a significant impact on the operation of the project. Mart staff 

stated that since the project was relatively close to the Mart office and complex, less 

than 10 minutes away, some material was able to be hauled and separated for further 

processing for various salvage companies. This was most often the case with metals. 

In addition, since the Hensley building had several large open spaces, Mart separated 

and stored much of the material onsite for collection and disposal/recycling at a proper 

facility. Based on estimates provided by Mart, many of the salvage yards were within 

10 miles of the project. This significantly reduced the costs associated with 

transportation to a recycling facility. 

5-8 R. W. Beck 9/14/05



The deconstructing contractor, Mart, Inc., contacted a number of salvage yards and 

recyclers during the waste management planning process. Mart also worked with 

salvage yards to obtain verification ticket information for use during the data 

collection phase of this project. Mart staff explained that many salvage yards and 

recyclers may weigh loads and maintain internal records, but do not typically provide 

that information to the individual. Throughout the project, Mart also stressed the 

importance of obtaining all tonnage data to their drivers and laborers during loading 

and transportation to a reduction facility. Table 5.6 describes the types of materials 

which were revenue neutral, generated revenue or had a cost associated with disposal. 

Table 5-6 

Salvaged Materials 

Material Waste Diverted (Tons) Revenue/(Cost) 

Salvaged Equip. & Access. 0.21 

Acoustical Ceiling Tile 8.98 

Electrical Panels & Switches 5.10 

Electrical Transformers 0.47 

Plumbing Fixtures 0.63 

Plumbing Pipe Copper 3.64 

Mezzanine Concrete 11.00 

CMU Block 619.45 

Total 649.46 

Information to be provided upon 

completion of Hensley project. 

Table 5.7 describes the revenue and costs associated with the recycling of various 

materials. These materials were sent to a processing facility and most had a 

processing cost associated with them. 

In addition, Mart worked with the Dallas staff to find out how many of the materials 

could be refurbished or reused in other buildings. For example, the City of Dallas 

chose to reuse all Half Bradley sinks. 

Based on discussions with Mart staff, it was very important at the beginning of the 

project to establish the markets to not only make an accurate bid, but to show Dallas 

staff their commitment to achieving their waste minimization goal. This was also 

confirmed by Dallas staff that having a plan already in place that described how and 

where the material would be sent was very instrumental in the overall conduct of the 

deconstruction process. 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 5-9

Section 5 

Table 5-7 

Recycled Materials 

Material Waste Diverted (Tons) Revenue/(Cost) 

Land Clearing Debris .13 

Lead 4.50 

Acoustical Ceiling Grid 3.16 

HVAC Ductwork 25.53 

HVAC Pipe & Valves 15.45 

HVAC Equipment 11.27 

Electrical Conduit & Connectors 16.96 

Electrical Wiring 7.36 

Electrical Ballasts .50 

Electrical Light Tubes .34 

Electrical Fittings 1.97 

Structural Steel 8.78 

Decking 4.83 

Concrete 1,452.02 

Wood Studs & Plywood 11.19 

Metal Studs 3.54 

Hollow Metal Materials 5.24 

Doors 2.79 

Total 1,572.56 

Information to be provided upon 

completion of Hensley Project. 


Aside from the Dallas’ ordinance requiring all new public buildings construction 

projects to receive a LEED rating, few new commercial demolition properties in the 

North Central Texas region have been deconstructed to receive a LEED rating. While 

some firms have been active in LEED deconstruction projects, traditional demolition 

of commercial properties continues to surpass LEED deconstruction efforts. 

However, as the end markets for deconstruction continue to grow and with the support 

of local governments and implementation of initiatives such as those described in 

Section 8, commercial construction firms will become more open to the 

deconstruction process. 

Firms such as Mart should continue to work with general contractors and cities to 

promote LEED rated deconstruction projects to divert C&D waste from the waste 

stream. This may be accomplished by focusing on the indirect benefits of LEED 

deconstruction. 

5-10 R. W. Beck 9/14/05




impediments to a successful LEED Deconstruction project. Keys to success include 

the following: 

• Waste management plans are a key to successful waste minimization efforts, as 

these plans provide a complete description of how waste will be managed 

throughout all phases of the construction project. 

• Communication between the contractor and Dallas staff should continue 

throughout the project. This may include phone calls, site visits, and weekly 

meetings. 

• Contractors must work with salvage yards and recyclers to obtain load 

verification tickets upon depositing loads at their facilities. Whenever possible, 

loads should be independently verified on-site by deconstruction staff to ensure 

accuracy. 

• Dallas staff should monitor operations on a day-to-day or weekly basis to observe 

the deconstruction process and make certain that the waste management plan is 

being carried out. Dallas staff should also obtain bi-weekly or monthly reports on 

all disposed and recycled tonnage data. 

• During the planning process it is often best to keep a realistic diversion goal in 

mind. It is often unrealistic to recycle or reuse all of the material from a 

demolition project. Typically a conservative goal of an 80 percent diversion rate 

by weight will capture a significant amount of debris in a cost-effective manner. 


• Inclement weather may have a negative impact to the storage of materials that are 

stockpiled for pickup by a recycler. During the project, the roof was blown off of 

the building where ceiling tiles were stockpiled. Because the tiles were properly 

wrapped in plastic and palletized, they were not significantly damaged. However, 

in the future, project managers should be aware that the threat of damage by 

weather does exist. 

• Currently few deconstruction projects exist in the North Central Texas region. 

Therefore few firms in the region have strong qualifications and many may not 

understand the data collection or operational side of the LEED process. 

• Laborers who are familiar with the demolition process may need additional 

training and guidance during deconstruction. Any language barriers or 

performance issues must be addressed by the contractor to ensure that all 

recyclable material is separated and diverted from the waste stream. 


R. W. Beck analyzed the costs and benefits of deconstructing a facility as opposed to 

the traditional method of demolition. In order to conduct this cost benefit analysis, 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 5-11

Section 5 

R. W. Beck examined all the costs associated with the LEED deconstruction of 

Hensley Field conducted by HWH and Mart for the City of Dallas. 

5.4.1 Financial Analysis 

To understand all the costs associated with deconstruction, Mart shared all available 

labor, disposal, equipment, salvage and recycling related information. In addition, 

Mart worked with R. W. Beck to understand the financial benefits and indirect 

benefits that Mart identified upon completing the deconstruction. The data used to 

develop this case study has been provided by Mart and the City of Dallas. This data 

will also be used during the LEED certification process upon project completion. 

Table 5.9 provides the deconstruction costs for the Hensley Field project. In addition, 

the table provides the net revenue received through the sale of salvaged materials, 

which was approximately $16,000 or 7 percent of the total project cost. This revenue 

for the deconstruction firm helped to offset some of the additional labor and material 

processing costs associated with the deconstruction process. This revenue was 

initially estimated at approximately 1 to 2 percent of the total project cost, however 

due to the sale of CMU blocks to an individual, the deconstruction firm enjoyed an 

additional unplanned benefit. 

Table 5-8 

Deconstruction Cost Analysis 

Category 

Deconstruction 

Labor 220,000 

Equipment 3,050 

Landfill Disposal 5,591 

Material Processing (Recycling) 10,000 

Sale of Salvaged Materials (16,215) 

Total $222,425 

For the purposes of our case study, R. W. Beck worked with HWH and Mart to derive 

an average cost per square foot if the building were to be demolished. Table 5.9 

describes the costs of the deconstruction process in comparison to the demolition of 

Hensley Field. As illustrated in the table, the deconstruction process of Hensley Field 

was approximately the same cost as demolition would have been. The approximate 

cost of demolition of the complex ranged from $200,000 to $280,000. 

Table 5-9 

Cost Comparison of Solid Waste Management Methods 

Demolition 

Deconstruction 

Approximate Cost $ 200,000 - $ 280,000 $ 220,000 - $ 235,000 1 

1 Based on the variability of the sale of salvaged materials, this range provides a more accurate comparison of the two solid 

waste management methods. 

5-12 R. W. Beck 9/14/05


Based on discussions with deconstruction staff, if Hensley Field would have been 

demolished, the cost areas would have shifted to reflect more costs for landfill 

disposal and less for labor and material processing. 

5.4.2 Indirect Benefits of Deconstruction 

While the deconstruction of a commercial property that would ultimately be 

demolished, may be a revenue neutral method of addressing C&D waste minimization. 

There are many indirect benefits of deconstruction process that could potentially lead 

to a change in the demolition industry. 

5.4.2.1 Risk Mitigation 

Based on discussions with Mart and HWH staff, the safety associated with 

deconstruction is at a much higher level than demolition. In addition, staff commented 

that no budget amount could be associated with the increased level of safety. In the 

future, if Mart were to take on more deconstruction projects, they may realize a 

decrease in insurance premiums and employee workers compensation claims. 

An indirect benefit associated with Hensley Field was that the contractors were able to 

see productivity increase on a day-to-day basis as there were few or no accidents in the 

various phases of the deconstruction process. This allowed the project to stay on 

schedule and allowed some operations to move in ahead of schedule. 

5.4.2.2 Cleaner Work Environment 

Due to the systematic process involved in the deconstruction process, a clean and 

orderly work environment is necessary. Not only does this contribute to risk 

mitigation for laborers, it provides a clean workplace for all staff. 

5.4.2.3 Future Indoor Air Quality 

Appropriate steps were taken by Mart and Dallas during planning and deconstruction 

to ensure that the HVAC system was properly protected against airborne materials. 

Dallas and its employees may realize a benefit in the future with raised levels of 

indoor air quality. While no cost can be associated with this benefit, utilization of the 

deconstruction process helped to provide employees with a healthy work environment 

by protecting them from airborne materials such as dust. 

5.4.2.4 Waste Reduction 

Based on the data provided by HWH and Mart, the deconstruction of Hensley Field 

diverted approximately 2,222 tons of waste from landfills in the North Central Texas 

region. Approximately 97 percent of the waste, based on overall tonnage, from Phase I 

of this project was diverted. Based on EPA estimates approximately 44 percent of the 

C&D waste stream is derived from demolition activities. Therefore, deconstruction 

implemented on a broader scale would have the opportunity to have a substantial 

impact on the life of landfills in the North Central Texas region. 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 5-13

Section 5 


1. The deconstruction of commercial buildings in the North Central Texas region is 

feasible for implementation based on the economic and indirect benefits achieved 

through this process. 

2. R. W. Beck’s recommends based on its initial analysis of the C&D waste stream 

and deconstruction in the North Central Texas region, developing infrastructure 

and a market for C&D materials is imperative in the region for the continued 

expansion of C&D waste minimization efforts. To accomplish this, the region 

should pursue the development of a C&D MRF. Prior to establishing a C&D 

MRF in the region, a more thorough and detailed analysis should be conducted. 

The conduct of this analysis should focus on identifying the location, size and 

market for the C&D MRF. 

3. From an operational perspective, deconstruction may require additional training of 

low-skilled and semi-skilled labor to ensure that the maximum amount of C&D 

waste is diverted from the waste stream. 

4. The establishment of a waste management plan helps to ensure that contractors 

have a set of established goals and guidelines which they can follow throughout 

the course of the deconstruction process. In conjunction with LEED building 

mandates, the institution of a waste management planning policy prior to the 

construction or deconstruction process may improve future projects the City of 

Dallas undertakes. 

5. Deconstruction has many indirect benefits, including risk mitigation, waste 

reduction and jobsite cleanliness, which contribute to its feasibility for 

implementation on a greater scale in the North Central Texas region. 

5-14 R. W. Beck 9/14/05

Section 6 

LEED Renovation Case Study 


Renovation is generally defined as the modification or rehabilitation of the interior 

and/or exterior of an existing structure. Green building practices may be applied to 

renovation activities through the recovery of various building materials. This process 

can serve as an effective way of reducing the amount of recoverable materials from 

entering the waste stream. Typical renovation activities include, but are not limited to: 

• Interior replacement; 

• Partition/wall construction; 

• Machinery/appliance installation; and 

• Other finish-out activities. 

Renovation is one of the many activities under the LEED system. Since these 

structures are typically much larger than homes, the potential impact from commercial 

buildings on the waste stream is significant. Instituting a program, such as LEED, is 

one way to encourage waste minimization activities in commercial building. For a 

definition of the LEED rating system, please see Section 5. 


R. W. Beck focused its case study research on the renovation of a single commercial 

building and the materials and resources component of the LEED rating system. The 

Hensley Field Operations Center 25 (Hensley Field), that now houses the Equipment 

and Building Services Division for the City of Dallas (Dallas), was chosen as the 

subject of the case study analysis. 

The Hensley Field project is a two-phase partial demolition and renovation project 

under the management of the Environmental Services Division for Dallas. For the 

purposes of the analysis, Phase I represents the deconstruction phase of the project and 

Phase II represents the renovation phase. R. W. Beck has divided the two phase 

project into two case studies, Section 5 focuses on deconstruction and Section 6 on 

renovation. 

R. W. Beck chose to analyze each phase separately due to fundamental differences in 

the process as well as the potential impact on the waste stream. However, for the 

purposes of LEED accreditation, the City of Dallas will submit the Hensley Field 

Project as a single project, as opposed to two phases. 

9/14/05

Section 6 

As discussed in Section 5, Hensley Field is an 80,000 square foot complex that will 

house the fleet maintenance operations for all City of Dallas departments as well as 

retrofitting of all police automobiles. It is located in the west central area of Dallas on 

the closed Hensley Air Force Base. Included at the conclusion of this section are 

photographs of the facility taken during renovation. 

Harrison Walker Harper (HWH) is the acting construction management firm for the 

Hensley Field project and is responsible for all aspects of the process. Mart has been 

retained as a subcontractor to HWH to assist in the conduct of the renovation 

operations for Phase II of the Hensley Field project. 

6.2.1 Program Requirements 

The Hensley Field Project with Phases I and II submitted together as a joint project, 

will be one of the first few LEED accredited project for the City of Dallas. 1 As a 

result of implementing the deconstruction and renovation process, Dallas hopes to 

receive a LEED Silver rating for the deconstruction and renovation of the building. 

The LEED Silver rating is issued to projects that have diverted more than 80 percent 

of their potential waste from the waste stream. 


The renovation process is very different from deconstruction or new construction from 

a waste management perspective. While some in the industry consider the renovation 

process to include both the demolition and remodeling of a structure, R. W. Beck has 

chosen to focus on each phase separately based on the different operational 

considerations for each phase. The primary differences include: 

• Impact on the waste stream; 

• Type of waste generated; 

• Amount of subcontractor personnel on-site; and 

• Time associated with materials handling. 

6.2.2.1 Materials 

HWH and Mart diverted approximately 116 tons of waste from the waste stream 

during Phase II. This equates to approximately 78 percent of the total waste generated 

during Phase II. 

It is important to again note, that for LEED purposes the Phase II renovation project 

was not considered a stand-alone project. Since over 2,222 tons of waste was diverted 

in Phase I, it took approximately 27 tons to increase the total diversion percentage one 

percentage point during Phase II; therefore some waste materials that could have been 

diverted were taken instead to the landfill. From the contractor’s perspective, it was 

difficult to justify spending additional time and money on waste diversion activities 

1 

McCommas EcoPark, which was completed almost four years ago, recently achieved final 

certification. 

6-2 R. W. Beck 9/14/05


when the impact on the total diversion rate was minimal. Based on discussions with 

HWH and Mart, the amount of miscellaneous construction waste sent to the landfill 

could have been reduced, if this had been a stand-alone project. 

The materials discussed in this section are typically characterized as packaging, excess 

materials, miscellaneous construction waste. The materials and the tonnage diverted is 

illustrated in Table 6-1. 

Table 6-1 

Phase Two – Material Recovery Results 

Materials Processed (Tons) 

Percentage 

Category 

Total 

Diverted Disposed 

Recycled 

Sheetrock 1.71 1.71 100% 

Wood Framing & pallets 7.37 7.27 100% 

Short Steel 2.39 2.39 100% 

Iron Pipe 6.81 6.81 100% 

Cardboard 0.76 0.76 100% 

Tin 2.86 2.86 100% 

Misc. construction waste 32.11 32.11 0% 

Asphalt 94.25 94.25 100% 

Misc. copper 0.15 0.15 100% 

Total 116.20 32.11 148.31 

Packaging 

Packaging materials constituted approximately 8.04 tons of the waste diverted. This 

equates to approximately 5.41 percent of the waste generated in Phase II. Packaging 

materials handled during Phase II were generally old corrugated cardboard (OCC) and 

wooden framing and pallets. 

Old Corrugated Cardboard 

OCC was generated from the packaging used during shipment of equipment, 

machinery and parts. OCC was primarily recovered and stored in a dry area during 

periods where large amounts of deliveries were made to the project. HWH and Mart 

staff explained that during these times, manual labor personnel would separate and 

store as much OCC as possible. However, during times where deliveries were sparse, 

all OCC received would be disposed by contractor staff. 

The primary reason for disposing of OCC was because during low volume periods it 

was not cost effective for them to recycle it. Since OCC is a light yet bulky it takes 

significant amounts of material to have enough to haul to the recycler. Approximately 

0.76 tons of OCC was recycled, which equates to approximately 0.05 percent of the 

entire waste generated in Phase II. Based on discussions with HWH and Mart, 

pproximately 80 percent of all OCC was diverted from the waste stream. 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 6-3

Section 6 

Wooden Pallets 

Wooden pallet waste was generated when large bulky items were delivered to the 

Hensley Field. Much like OCC, the availability of wooden pallets for recycling varied 

greatly due to the schedule of deliveries to the site. During Phase II, the wooden 

pallets were stacked and stored in a dry area and shipped to a recycler. 

Approximately 1.45 tons of wooden pallets were recycled, which equates to 

approximately 1.0 percent of the entire waste generated in Phase II. Approximately 

100 percent of the wooden pallets were diverted from the landfill. 

Excess Materials 

The excess materials category describes those materials the waste generated during the 

renovation production. These activities include general construction of the interior, 

electrical work, duct work, and plumbing. These waste materials generated in this 

phase were wooden framing, metals, sheetrock, and asphalt. 

Wooden Framing 

Framing from the various walls and surfaces constructed during Phase II of the 

Hensley Field project accounted for approximately 5.82 tons or 3.92 percent of the 

total waste generated. Wooden framing constituted a small portion of the overall 

waste since there are many large, open spaces throughout building. 

Metals 

Metals recovered from the Hensley Project included tin, iron pipe, copper and short 

steel. These materials were primarily generated from plumbing and electrical work 

conducted during the renovation. Based on discussions with HWH and Mart, excess 

metals are typically the most valuable waste material, therefore most of it is diverted 

from the waste stream. 

Approximately 12.21 tons of metals were recycled, which equates to approximately 

8.22 percent of the entire waste generated in Phase II. HWH and Mart estimate that 

nearly 100 percent of the metals were recovered and recycled. 

Sheetrock 

The sheetrock waste generated at Hensley Field was a product of constructing the 

interior walls within the building. All sheetrock was clean with no finishes, and 

therefore ground and used as a soil amendment. The sheetrock was placed in a berm 

outside Hensley Field, that would have otherwise been constructed with fill dirt. 

Approximately 1.71 tons of sheetrock was recycled, which equates to approximately 

1.10 percent of the entire waste generated in Phase II. HWH and Mart estimate that 

nearly 100 percent of the sheetrock was recovered and ground on-site. 

Asphalt 

Asphalt around the exterior of the building was removed and hauled to the Big City 

Concrete Crushing facility for reduction and recycling. This accounted for 94.25 tons 

of material or approximately 63.54 percent of the total waste generated in Phase II. 

Approximately 100 percent of the asphalt was recycled. 

6-4 R. W. Beck 9/14/05


Miscellaneous Construction Waste 

Miscellaneous construction waste consists of various types of waste that could not be 

easily recycled. Components of this type of waste include municipal solid waste 

(MSW) generated by personnel, packaging and other excess materials. For example, 

recyclable materials such as acoustic ceiling tiles or HVAC insulation that could have 

been recycled were disposed because there was not enough material to make it costeffective 

for the contractor. 

Miscellaneous construction waste accounted for approximately 32.1 tons of materials, 

which is approximately 21.6 percent of the total waste generated in Phase II. All of 

the miscellaneous construction waste was landfilled. Based on discussions with HWH 

and Mart, the amount of miscellaneous construction waste landfilled could have been 

decreased, if this had been a stand-alone project. 

6.2.2.2 Staffing/Operational 

Based on discussions with HWH and Mart staff, labor associated with Phase II was 

very similar to the staffing of a traditional renovation project. Staff included 

management personnel, laborers, and subcontractor staff. The total HWH and Mart 

staff dedicated in part or whole to waste minimization activities was approximately six 

management and staff personnel. 

Table 6-2 describes the labor hours for all on-site staff. These hours reflect the 

estimated number of hours dedicated to C&D waste minimization activities. 

Table 6-2 

Estimated Labor Hours 

Personnel 

Estimated Project 

Labor Hours 

Responsibilities 

Site Superintendent 

Site management and LEED 

24 

documentation 

Site Assistant 

Supervise laborers and monitors 

168 

waste disposal activities 

Laborer 240 

Inspect bins and dumpsters, 

Laborer 240 

removal and loading of all C&D 

Laborer 240 

waste 

Laborer 240 

Subcontractors N/A Sort materials into material bins 

Total 1,152 

Project Manager 

The project manager oversaw various aspects of the project since its initiation 

including building design, construction and waste management planning, and acting as 

liaison for Dallas during the renovation. The project manager worked very closely 

with all related parties during the five month process including attending regular 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 6-5

Section 6 

weekly meetings, offering input regarding waste minimization and analyzing 

preliminary tonnage data. 

Site Management 

Management staff included the site superintendent and site assistant. The site 

superintendent was responsible for general oversight management and LEED 

documentation. The site superintendent recorded and tracked all waste minimization 

activities for LEED accreditation and developed the waste management plan. In 

addition, he made decisions regarding the point at which it was not cost-effective to 

engage in waste minimization activities. The site superintendent dedicated 

approximately five percent of his time to waste minimization activities. 

The site assistant worked directly with laborers and was responsible for their daily 

activities. In addition, the site assistant inspected dumpsters to ensure that a limited 

amount of recyclable material was disposed and inspected waste storage areas to 

minimize contamination in the recyclables. The site assistant reported directly to the 

site superintendent regarding waste minimization activities. Approximately 35 to 40 

percent of the site assistant’s time was dedicated to waste minimization activities. 

Laborers 

Laborers were responsible for waste collection, sorting and storage activities. There 

were approximately four laborers that dedicated approximately 50 percent of their 

time to waste minimization activities. This included pulling recyclable materials from 

the dumpsters, maintaining recyclable storage bins and areas, collecting and hauling 

materials to recycling site. 

Laborers manually collected, stored and loaded the majority of the C&D waste 

recycled or disposed. Since most of the material was lightweight, laborers lifted and 

carried material to storage bins or areas without any problems. Heavy equipment was 

only used during the collection of asphalt. 

Subcontractor Staff 

Subcontractor personnel were responsible for setting out packaging and excess 

materials for recycling. Subcontractors are specialized staff hired on a temporary 

basis through HWH and Mart. There were approximately 15 different subcontractors 

hired for the Hensley Field Project. While HWH and Mart may have worked with 

these subcontractors on previous engagements this was not always the case. 

Subcontractors were used intensely throughout the course of Phase II, unlike Phase I 

where subcontractors were used sparingly. The subcontractors were instructed by 

management personnel that during the course of their regular activities to separate 

packaging and excess materials for recycling. However, HWH and Mart staff 

explained that many of these subcontractors are not knowledgeable in the value or 

process of C&D waste minimization activities. They noted that it was difficult in 

Phase II to convince many of the subcontractors to participate in waste minimization 

strategies. 

6-6 R. W. Beck 9/14/05



The location of Hensley Field, more specifically its relation to reduction and disposal 

sites, did not have a significant impact on the operation of the project based on input 

provided by the contractors. Hauling to these sites was typically one to two hours per 

load roundtrip. The hauling time to the various reduction facilities was comparable to 

time it took to send the material to the landfill. 

In addition, since the Hensley building had several large open spaces, Mart separated 

and stored much of the material onsite for collection and disposal/recycling at a proper 

facility. Based on estimates provided by Mart, many of the salvage yards were within 

10 miles of the project. This significantly reduced the costs associated with 

transportation to a recycling facility. 


Mart and HWH used many of the same recyclers, concrete crushers, and salvage yards 

that were used in Phase I. To complete the LEED accreditation process, HWH and 

Mart worked with recyclers to obtain verification ticket information for use during the 

data collection phase of this project. Mart staff explained that many salvage yards and 

recyclers may weigh loads and maintain internal records, but do not typically provide 

that information to the customer. Throughout the project, Mart also stressed the 

importance of obtaining all tonnage data to their drivers and laborers during loading 

and transportation to a reduction facility. The cost per ticket per load was 

approximately $10 to $15. The ticket cost covered the equipment and administrative 

costs associated with weighing and printing the ticket. 

Table 6-3 illustrates the tonnage generated in Phase II sorted by material and waste 

management method. 

Table 6-3 

Material Recovered or Disposed during Renovation 

Material 

Tonnage 

Waste Management 

Method 

Sheetrock 1.71 On-Site Grinding 

Wood Framing & pallets 7..37 Recycler 

Short Steel 2.39 Salvage/Scrap 

Iron Pipe 6.81 Salvage/Scrap 

Cardboard 0.76 Recycler 

Tin 2.86 Salvage/Scrap 

Misc. construction waste 32.11 Landfill Disposal 

Asphalt 94.25 Concrete Crushing 

Misc. copper 0.15 Salvage/Scrap 

Total 148.31 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 6-7

Section 6 


As discussed in the Section 6.2.2.2, HWH and Mart noted that many subcontractors 

were not aware of C&D waste minimization practices or did not care about diverting 

C&D waste. In addition, the subcontractors’ agreement stated that they would be 

required to only take trash to the general contractor provided dumpsters or that they 

were not required to participate in C&D waste minimization strategies. 

Aside from the Dallas’ ordinance requiring all new public buildings construction 

projects to receive a LEED rating, few new commercial renovation properties in the 

North Central Texas region have been LEED accredited. While some firms have been 

active in LEED projects, traditional renovation of commercial properties continues to 

surpass LEED efforts. However, if the end markets for materials continue to grow and 

with the support of local governments and implementation of initiatives such as those 

described in Section 8, commercial construction firms may become more open to this 

process. 

Firms such as Mart should continue to work with general contractors and cities to 

promote LEED rated projects to divert C&D waste from the waste stream. 



impediments to a successful LEED renovation project. Keys to success include the 

following: 

• Materials such as sheetrock and wood wastes should be ground and used on-site 

to avoid tipping fees and transportation costs. Depending on the amount of wood 

and sheetrock wastes generated during commercial renovation, the amount of 

material may vary. 

• Dallas staff should monitor operations on a day-to-day or weekly basis to observe 

the renovation process and make certain that the waste management plan is being 

carried out. Dallas staff should also obtain bi-weekly or monthly reports on all 

disposed and recycled tonnage data. 

• It is often unrealistic to recycle or reuse all of the material from a renovation 

project. Typically a conservative goal of an 80 percent diversion rate by weight 

will capture a significant amount of debris in a cost-effective manner. 

• A general contractor’s legal agreement with subcontractors should specifically 

state that they are required to participate in C&D waste minimization strategies 

such as source separating and material storage. 


• An isolated renovation is an overall lower amount of waste generated in 

renovation projects in relation to deconstruction or new construction projects. 

Often it is difficult to gain a significant amount of material to make the process 

very cost effective. 

6-8 R. W. Beck 9/14/05


• There is a significant burden on the site superintendent to balance production 

versus waste minimization activities. If too much time is spent on waste 

minimization activities, it may affect the overall timing of the project and 

productivity of staff. 

• Markets for some materials such as carpet and tile have not been developed in the 

North Central Texas region, therefore making it difficult to divert material from 

the waste stream. 

• Since over 2,222 tons of waste was diverted in Phase I, it took approximately 27 

tons to increase the total diversion percentage one percentage point during Phase 

II, therefore some waste materials that could have been diverted were taken 

instead to the landfill. From the contractor’s perspective, it was difficult to justify 

spending additional time and money on waste diversion activities when the 

impact on the total diversion rate was minimal. Based on discussions with HWH 

and Mart, the amount of miscellaneous construction waste sent to the landfill 

could have been decreased if this had been a stand-alone project. 

6.3.1 Cost-Benefit Analysis 

R. W. Beck analyzed the costs and benefits of renovating a facility in comparison to 

traditional methods. In order to conduct this cost benefit analysis, R. W. Beck 

examined all the costs associated with Phase II of the Hensley Field Project. 

This analysis focuses solely on the time associated with HWH and Mart staff to 

conduct waste minimization activities for renovation compared to conducting it in a 

traditional method. R. W. Beck recognizes that there is some time associated with 

subcontractor staff; however, this has been omitted from the analysis since an accurate 

estimate could not be obtained. 

Table 6.4 illustrates the estimated costs associated with waste minimization activities 

under a LEED renovation project compared to the traditional method. R. W. Beck 

assumes that the project time is approximately three months working 40 hours per 

week. The disposal costs is based on the $47 per ton cost at the Irving Landfill. 

Material offsets have been estimated based on the sale of recyclable material including 

metals and other salvageable materials. Transportation costs have been omitted from 

this analysis since most material would be transported to a recycler/salvage yard or 

landfill. 

The total net cost of the traditional renovation compared to the LEED renovation 

method is approximately $2,500. From a cost per ton perspective, the LEED 

renovation method costs approximately $79 per ton opposed to approximately $65 for 

the traditional method. 

Based on discussions with HWH and Mart staff, they stated that they would pay up to 

$75 per ton of waste generated for disposal and/or reduction. The $79 per ton 

estimated by R. W. Beck for labor and disposal for this LEED Renovation project 

could fall within the range of a cost per ton that contractors would be willing to pay. 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 6-9

Section 6 

Table 6-4 

Cost Analysis 

Personnel 

Cost of 

Cost of 

LEED Renovation 

Traditional Renovation 

Site Superintendent $ 600 $ 120 

Site Assistant $ 2,520 $ 720 

Labor $ 9,600 $ 2,400 

Disposal 1 $ 1,500 $ 6,970 

Material Offsets ($ 2,500) ($ 1,000) 

Total $ 11,720 $ 9,210 

Note: 

The disposal costs calculated for the cost benefit analysis may be slightly higher than normal, since the 

tipping fee at the Irving Landfill is higher than other landfills in the region. 

The labor costs associated with the LEED renovation project are approximately four 

times the cost of a traditional remodeling project. However, the costs for disposal in 

the traditional remodeling method is approximately four and a half times the cost in a 

LEED renovation project. Based on input provided by HWH and Mart, the disposal 

costs could have been reduced further had this been a stand-alone renovation project. 

R. W. Beck would like to stress that Phase II of the Hensley Field Project was solely 

focused on the renovation of the building. All deconstruction of the interior of the 

building was accomplished as a part of Phase I. This case study may not exactly 

compare with other renovation or complete demolition projects, since they may 

encompass tasks outside the scope of this project. 


1. On a cost per ton basis, the labor and disposal costs associated with waste 

minimization activities is approximately $79. The $79 per ton includes labor and 

disposal associated with the removal and processing of waste. The cost per ton is 

competitive with the $65 per ton rate for the traditional method of renovation 

2. Labor costs for LEED certified projects may increase compared to traditional 

renovation projects, however these costs can be offset by avoiding tipping fees at 

the landfill and the sale of recoverable materials. 

3. Revenue generated from the sale of recyclable material is significantly lower in 

Phase II of the project since much of the material generated is considered 

packaging or excess material. The economic benefit in LEED renovations is the 

cost avoidance associated with tipping fees. 

4. Based on input provided by HWH and Mart, the overall project time associated 

with the completion of Phase II was not affected significantly by the waste 

minimization strategies required by the City of Dallas. 

5. Through the use of source separating techniques, renovation projects have the 

ability to divert a significant amount of the project’s total waste from the landfill. 

6-10 R. W. Beck 9/14/05


In Phase II of the Hensley Field Project, HWH and Mart was able to divert nearly 

75 percent of the total waste by weight. 

6. In projects seeking LEED accreditation, provisions in subcontractor’s legal 

agreements should include clauses designating that wastes generated on-site 

should be recycled or reused on-site. This would provide general contractors with 

more control of subcontractor’s disposal methods. 

7. General contractors should educate their subcontractors on C&D waste 

minimization strategies prior to beginning work on a LEED renovation project. 

8. R. W. Beck’s recommendation based on its initial analysis of the C&D waste 

stream and construction projects in the North Central Texas region, developing 

infrastructure and a market for C&D materials is imperative in the region for the 

continued expansion of C&D waste minimization efforts. To accomplish this, the 

region should pursue the development of a C&D MRF. Prior to establishing a 

C&D MRF in the region, a more thorough and detailed analysis should be 

conducted. The conduct of this analysis should focus on identifying the location, 

size and market for the C&D MRF. 

9. R. W. Beck would like to stress that Phase II of the Hensley Field Project was 

solely focused on the renovation of the building. All deconstruction of the interior 

of the building was accomplished as a part of Phase I. This case study may not 

completely compare with other renovation or complete demolition projects, since 

they may encompass tasks outside the scope of this project. R. W. Beck 

recommends that a contractor or a city use this case study as a planning tool and 

each project must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 6-11

Section 6 


6-12 R. W. Beck 9/14/05

Section 7 

Best Management Practices 

Many in the construction and recycling industries are unfamiliar or unaware of waste 

minimization strategies, therefore providing guidance to industry are one of the most 

important issues that should be addressed in the region. The best management 

practices for C&D waste minimization focus on providing the private sector with the 

tools, resources and information to successfully implement waste minimization 

strategies. 

7.1 Practical Application of Waste Minimization 

Practices 

Achieving “buy-in” from the construction and recycling industry is one of the most 

important tasks when trying to increase C&D waste minimization efforts. Since the 

construction industry is the primary source of waste generation, R. W. Beck has 

provided information on the steps that they can take to minimize C&D waste that is 

disposed in the landfill. 

7.1.1 New Construction 

New construction from residential and commercial properties makes up approximately 

eight percent of the C&D waste stream. Waste minimization strategies implemented 

by new construction firms can divert a significant amount of waste from landfills. 

Based on R. W. Beck’s case study research and review of available literature, 

incorporating waste minimization strategies at the beginning of a project can be cost 

effective or revenue neutral compared to traditional waste disposal methods. 

The following strategies can be incorporated into new construction for residential and 

commercial building: 

7.1.1.1 Residential 

• Subcontracting on-site grinding services to divert wood, stone/masonry, and 

gypsum from the waste stream. (Section 4) 

• Source separate materials such as wood, drywall, metals in specific bins placed 

around the jobsite to be collected by a recycler. (Section 4) 

• Collect excess materials in a commingled container and haul the waste to a C&D 

MRF (Section 3) 

• Source separate materials in separate bins for other homes within the 

development. (Section 4) 

9/14/05

Section 7 

• Use a mulch berm or soil tubes as an alternative to traditional silt fencing. 

(Section 4) 

• Greater efficiency in the use of building materials. 

7.1.1.2 Commercial 

• Establish a waste management plan in concurrence with the LEED rating system 

to achieve a certification on waste minimization efforts. (Section 5) 

• Apply for a temporary on-site concrete crushing permit to reduce concrete and 

haul to an appropriate facility. (Section 9) 

• Collect excess materials in a commingled container and haul the waste to a C&D 

MRF (Section 3) 

• Subcontracting on-site grinding services to divert wood, stone/masonry, and 

gypsum from the waste stream. (Section 4) 

7.1.2 Deconstruction 

The complete demolition of buildings and homes accounts for approximately 48 

percent of the C&D waste stream, based on data published by the US EPA. The 

ability to divert a portion of that waste through the practice of deconstruction, instead 

of demolition, could have a significant impact on the landfills in the North Central 

Texas region. The following information describes the process for a typical 

deconstruction project seeking LEED certification. 

Waste Management Planning 

A waste management plan should be written and include, but not be limited to the 

following sections: 

• Waste Minimization Goals 

• Communication Plan 

• Construction Plan 

• Verification Procedures 

• Indoor Air Quality Procedures 

Execution of Contract 

In order to monitor the deconstruction process and ensure that the waste management 

plan is followed, a city/county staff member should dedicate a portion of their time to 

this task during the deconstruction process. The person should act as a liaison 

between the City and deconstruction firm to make certain that all activities are safe 

and that the waste minimization activities are carried out. 

The firm should hold meetings prior to deconstruction to discuss any operational 

barriers that may exist. The liaison may have frequent contact with the firm and 

schedule regular site visits to observe the execution of the contract. 

7-2 R. W. Beck 9/14/05


Based on the discussion with deconstruction management firms, the deconstruction 

process may require additional labor hours during the actual dismantling process. This 

process may often increase the time of the project in comparison to the more 

traditional demolition methods. 

Collection of Data 

As outlined under the verification procedures of the waste management plan, the 

deconstruction firm must have the ability to accurately collect and report on the 

amount of waste generated from the deconstruction and diverted from the waste 

stream. This information should be regularly collected and reported on to the City to 

be used for submission under the LEED rating system. The data collected should have 

proper verification and support documentation to ensure that no falsification of data 

occurs. 

LEED Rating System 

The LEED rating system is based on data collected throughout the course of the 

deconstruction process and must be submitted to the US Green Building Council 

(USGBC). By establishing a waste management plan which ensures the careful 

collection all the waste data (including waste which has been diverted and disposed), a 

building should have the required information to receive the desired rating level 

following the project completion and data submission. 

7.1.3 Renovation 

Based on data published by the US EPA, traditional renovation projects account for 

approximately 44 percent of the C&D waste stream. Diverting a portion of renovation 

waste could have a significant impact on the landfills in the North Central Texas 

region. 

Since the requirements for waste minimization activities under the LEED rating 

system are universal steps identified in Section 7.1.2 they can also be applied to 

renovation projects including: 

• Waste management planning 

• Contract execution 

• Data collection 

• LEED certification process 

In addition to these steps listed above, contractors should incorporate the following 

strategies to promote waste minimizations activities with their subcontractors. 

A renovation project may require more than a dozen different subcontractors. These 

subcontractors may include electrical, plumbing, and other specialists who may not be 

aware of ongoing waste minimization. The site supervisor must work with the 

subcontractors to ensure that they also participate in waste minimization activities. 

These activities may include: 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 7-3

Section 7 

• Establish language in their contract detailing the proper steps for diverting C&D 

waste from the landfill. 

• Educate subcontractors during regular site meetings on the process for separating 

recoverable waste or reusing materials. 

• Assign one or two laborers to monitor dumpsters for waste materials that could be 

recovered. 

• Efficient Building Practices 

Many in the construction and recycling industry are unaware of the steps necessary to 

achieve C&D waste minimization. The strategies identified in this section when 

incorporated at the initiation of a project add little to no additional cost to a project. 

The discussion of C&D waste reduction strategies is geared toward primary waste 

generators in the North Central Texas region including: 

• Construction management firms 

• Home builders 

• Commercial builders 

• Recyclers 

The information included in this section is from multiple sources including: case study 

research, interviews with construction, waste management and engineering 

professionals, reviews of available literature and internet resources. 

7.1.4 Waste Management Plan 

Establishing a waste management plan to achieve diversion goals is one of the most 

important components of any C&D waste minimization effort. This strategy will 

contribute greatly to a successful implementation process for C&D waste reduction. 

This plan should include but not be limited to the following: 

7.1.4.1 Waste Management Goals 

Based on the size of the structure as well as the method of operation implemented for 

deconstruction, a waste minimization goal should be formally declared. The diversion 

goal could be in agreement with the city’s waste minimization goals or LEED rating 

specifications, however developing a diversion goal has a wide range of applications. 

When approaching this task, it is important to set conservative diversion goals for the 

project. Trying to recycle or reuse everything may not be beneficial to the success of 

the project, especially if it cost prohibitive. It is essential to make sure that one does 

not negatively impact the overall cost of the project due to unrealistic waste 

minimization goals. 

7.1.4.2 Communication Plan 

A formal communication plan establishes and explains any communication procedures 

that will be followed regarding C&D waste minimization. This plan may include a 

7-4 R. W. Beck 9/14/05


discussion of project timelines, data submission, or how to report any setbacks 

regarding the disposal of materials. 

7.1.4.3 Construction Plan 

A construction plan detailing the methodology for diverting materials from the waste 

stream should also be included as part of the waste planning process. This plan 

includes the method removing waste from the building as well as recycling or reuse 

for C&D waste. 

The construction plan also needs to include information detailing where the material 

will be recycled or reused. It is very important for the firm to secure and negotiate an 

agreement with end markets to ensure materials are properly recycled. There are a 

number of “sham” recyclers operating in Texas that accept waste under the pretext that 

the waste will be recycled. 1 

For example, when recovering concrete, the firm should find out how the recycler 

wants the material to be dismantled and stored, how much material they can accept 

and how the material needs to be transported. 2 The firm may also wish to have 

preliminary discussions with local government staff with regards to the reuse of any 

materials that could be reclaimed (i.e. finishings, electrical, plumbing). 

In addition, construction management firms need to efficiently use building materials, 

thus minimizing the actual amount of waste generated by the project. From a 

cost/benefit perspective, if a firm can reduce the amount of excess building materials 

purchased, it will most likely reduce the cost of disposal. 

7.1.4.4 Verification Procedures – LEED 

In order to submit a project for a LEED rating all waste disposed and diverted from 

landfills must be accounted for and verified. A construction management firm is 

typically responsible for all activities associated with tracking waste disposal and 

minimization activities. 

Information on who will maintain the data and how the data is recorded and provided 

to the local government must be clearly stated in the plan. Outlining the data 

collection methods should be clearly stated at the onset of the project to avoid any 

falsification of information or confusion after project completion. 

7.1.4.5 Indoor Air Quality Procedures - LEED 

The LEED rating system has an indoor air quality component that is to be included as 

part of the waste management plan. The firm must outline the procedures that will 

ensure during the construction phase of the project the HVAC system will be kept free 

from airborne materials. 

1 More information on “Sham” Recyclers is included in Section 9. 

2 If a C&D MRF is developed in the North Central Texas region, firms may seek to establish contracts 

with the operator of the C&D MRF for the disposal of waste. This process for diverting this waste to 

the C&D MRF may be included in the construction plan. 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 7-5

Section 7 

While this component is only necessary for construction projects under the LEED 

rating system, this is one method a firm may use to set itself apart from other firms 

during the bidding process. 

7.1.5 On-site Grinding and Crushing 

7.1.5.1 Residential 

On-site grinding for residential housing developments can effective reduce up to 85 

percent of C&D waste produced. The grinding of materials such as corrugated 

cardboard, sheetrock, masonry/brick, and wood as well as the distribution of those 

materials for uses on-site can almost eliminate the need for waste disposal at the 

landfill. 

As described in On-Site Grinding Case Study in Section 4, production home-builders 

can cost-effectively dispose of C&D waste using an on-site grinding service provider. 

Contracting for the grinding of C&D waste can often be equal to or less than the cost 

of a disposal service. 

In cases where a home-builder uses an on-site grinding service, both parties should be 

aware that communication is key to ensuring that the service provider and homebuilder 

have a successful working relationship during the project and that grinding 

services may be considered as a viable option in the future. 

Once a project has begun, regular scheduled grinding times should be established in 

accordance with neighborhood restrictions as well as with the construction operation 

of the home. The determination of the location of the source separated materials and 

reduced materials is an important “first step” of the process and should be maintained 

throughout the course of a job. In the event that there is a need to change the location 

of operation, proper communication should take place between parties. 

As part of the strategic planning initiative in the North Central Texas Region, the 

construction industry as a whole must be provided with informational resources 

detailing how C&D waste can be reduced for new construction. This information may 

include information on the intended uses of reduced material, scheduling process, and 

tangible and intangible benefits of using on-site grinding. 

7.1.5.2 Commercial 

Based on an EPA study, approximately 30 percent of commercial new construction 

waste is concrete, therefore diverting this material from the waste stream can 

contribute greatly to C&D waste diversion goals. As discussed in Section 7, on-site 

concrete crushing operations currently have various operational and geographic 

restrictions under the TCEQ and permits that must be obtained before operating. 

In addition, wood, masonry/brick and corrugated cardboard may be ground on-site and 

used as a soil amendment for the new construction. The same process described in 

above section and case study should be similarly implemented. 

7-6 R. W. Beck 9/14/05


7.1.6 Material Collection 

Recyclable construction materials can be source separated or commingled in recycling 

bins onsite. The recycling or reuse method, diversion goals of the project and type of 

material recovered are a few factors that have an impact on the materials collection 

method. 

7.1.6.1 Source Separation 

Source separation activities involve crews placing select recyclables such as wood, 

cardboard and metals in separate containers as they are generated through 

deconstruction, new construction or renovation. Once the containers are ready, the 

recycling hauler typically transports the materials directly to a recycler or a reduction 

site. 

Source separation is most appropriate the following scenarios: 

• Material(s) will be marked for reuse, (i.e. doors, sinks, etc.). 

• The recycler requires materials, such as concrete or wood, to be ground cleanly 

with little to no contamination. 

• A LEED rating or green building program requires volume data to be kept on 

each type of material. 

The construction firm needs to identify and address any perceived C&D waste 

minimization issues during the planning phase of the project. For example, ample 

space onsite for separation and storage is one of the most significant operational 

constraints that may apply to projects. Whenever possible, the construction firm must 

separate and store materials onsite. By keeping materials onsite, it often reduces the 

chance that materials will be damaged during transportation. 

A good rule of thumb is to limit the number of times materials are handled. For 

example, in a deconstruction project, material should be touched once during removal 

from the work area or during deconstruction. The material should be touched a second 

time if pieces of the object need to separated again by material (i.e. light fixtures into 

glass, metal, etc.) and placed into bins and a third time by the recycling hauler where it 

is taken offsite. 

Communicating to deconstructing staff is critical so that material is salvaged properly. 

If staff is not properly trained, material can often end up in disposal containers, broken 

during deconstruction or improperly stored. Often overcoming language barriers is 

key to ensuring that source separation occurs correctly. 

7.1.6.2 Commingled Collection 

Commingled collection means that the home-builder/contractor can mix a variety of 

recyclable materials together. For example during a renovation project, a single 

container could store wood, corrugated cardboard and stone/masonry together. Once 

the container is full, a hauler transports the material to a processing facility. 

Commingled collection is most appropriate in the following scenarios: 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 7-7

Section 7 

• Materials can be transported to a C&D material recovery facility for further 

processing. 

• A LEED rating or green building program requires a builder to only account for 

materials diverted in summary format. 

There are several operational advantages for using commingled collection over source 

separation. Commingled collection may be less time consuming for employees 

because all material can be placed into one container versus source specific containers. 

In addition, the collection containers may take up less space than recycling bins used 

during source separation. However, one must also note that the market value of the 

recyclable material may be lower than that of source separated materials. 

Currently, a C&D MRF does not exist in the North Central Texas region, limiting the 

usefulness of this collection method. However, if a C&D MRF were to open, 

commingled collection of C&D materials can serve as a quicker and an operationally 

easier alternative for home-builders to divert C&D waste. 

7.1.7 Material Hauling and Recovery 

7.1.7.1 Recycling Haulers 

A developer or contractor may choose to contact and contract the services of a 

recycling hauler to take C&D materials to a processing facility or salvage yard. These 

recycling haulers usually accept only one or two types of materials (i.e. electrical 

waste, metals, or concrete); therefore, a contractor must work with several different 

recycling haulers for the pickup of the various types of materials recovered. 

This practice is the most common method of disposal in the North Central Texas 

region, since a commingled materials recovery facility is not currently available in the 

region. 

7.1.7.2 Material Recovery Facility 

A C&D MRF is a facility that accepts mixed C&D debris and separates it into its 

marketable components. The remaining material, which has little or no value, is then 

given away for reuse or landfilled. At the most basic level, a C&D MRF is simply a 

place where C&D debris is dumped, manually sorted, and the materials sold. 

However, as described in Section 3, a typical C&D MRF has some level of 

mechanization that allows for the more efficient sorting of material. 

The C&D MRF case study provides more detail on the requirements and operations of 

a C&D MRF. For the purposes of the analysis, R. W. Beck assumed the MRF 

operator was a public sector entity, meaning that there were no tax implications and 

that the MRF was operated on a break-even basis. Similar principles apply for a 

private-sector MRF operator; however financial practices may differ and would need 

to be taken into consideration. 

In Texas, one of the major challenges of a C&D MRF is that the tipping fees are 

relatively low, meaning that the cost per ton to operate the MRF has to be similarly 

7-8 R. W. Beck 9/14/05


low for the MRF to remain competitive. Recommendations to help a MRF remain 

financially competitive include: 

• Co-locate the MRF with another permitted MSW facility, particularly a landfill or 

transfer station. 

• Find alternative ways to use residual material so that the MRF operator does not 

have to pay to landfill the residual. 

• Locate the MRF as close as possible to sources of C&D debris to reduce 

transportation costs, and therefore total disposal costs, for the producer and/or 

hauler of the C&D debris. 

• Market the services of the MRF to the widest range of C&D debris producers and 

haulers. 

• Advertise the environmental benefits of the MRF, thereby creating public interest 

in diverting C&D debris from the landfill. 

• Create incentives to keep in-bound contaminants low. High contamination rates 

needlessly consume the MRF resources. 

• Create non-monetary incentives for haulers to use the MRF. For instance, haulers 

should be able to get in and of the MRF quicker than at the landfill, which may 

allow a hauler to complete a job in less time. 

• Maximize the throughput of the facility, which creates economies of scale to 

leverage the capital invested in the C&D MRF. 

• Properly market the end material to get the best prices. This may include forming 

collective agreements and selling direct to end-users, as opposed to using a 

materials broker. 

These considerations should be taken into account during the planning process of a 

C&D MRF. Addressing these will help a C&D MRF operator, whether from the 

public or private sector, maintain a successful operation. 

7.1.8 Alternative Erosion Control Methods 

Soil tubes or mulch berms can be an effective alternative to traditional silt fencing. 

During the project, soil tubes and mulch berms are used for erosion control; however, 

upon completion of the project they are placed onsite as a soil amendment. Depending 

on the scale, two alternatives may be able to significantly reduce the amount of fill dirt 

needed at the end of a project. 

7.1.8.1 Soil Tubes 

One of the most unique measures to avoid silt fencing is through the use of soil tubes. 

Soil tubes are cylindrical mesh that can be filled with a variety of materials to create a 

“wall” around the perimeter of a property to keep soil and other materials from 

washing into the stormwater system. These tubes can vary from 10 to 20 inches in 

diameter and are filled with a compost type material or with chipped wood. When the 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 7-9

Section 7 

project is nearing completion these soil tubes are cut open and the contents are spread 

onsite as a soil amendment. 

Soil tube service providers in the North Central Texas region can deliver a soil tube to 

a construction site and fill it with compost for a fee based on the diameter and size of 

the tube. At this time, no on-site grinding service provider in the North Central Texas 

region offers chipped wood soil tubes for delivery; however, this may be available in 

the future. 

Based on industry research, soil tubes filled with composted material are very 

effective in filtering a significant amount of pollutants and soil from entering the 

stormwater system. Most soil tubes are not typically limited by the terrain of the 

geographic characteristics in the North Central Texas region. In addition, soil tubes 

require very little maintenance when installed and used properly and can often endure 

heavy rains. 

7.1.8.2 Mulch Berm 

Chipped wood from an on-site grinder in many cases is the most cost-effective method 

for silt fencing alternatives. Building a mulch berm consists of taking chipped wood 

and forming a protective berm around the perimeter of a construction site. A typical 

berm is no more than 15 to 20 inches high and is not usually limited by the terrain of 

the area. Typically, maintenance is only necessary after heavy rains or when the berm 

is driven over. At that time, the berm would need to be reshaped or rebuilt. Upon 

project completion, the mulch berm should be spread out on the property and used as a 

soil amendment. 

Developers wishing to use a mulch berm should request one be built by the service 

provider during the planning stages of the project. The developer does not have any 

direct labor costs with the installation and maintenance of the berm. 

7.1.9 Efficient Use of Building Materials 

In many new construction projects, construction firms and home-builders inefficiently 

utilize building materials. On a typical project, materials such as drywall, plywood, 

wood beams or studs and bricks are often measured or cut incorrectly thus leaving the 

material unusable. 

For example, wood that is to be used for studs in a home are delivered in a uniform 

length and it is the responsibility of the home builder to cut those beams in appropriate 

lengths for use in the house. All excess wood is then labeled as unusable and is 

discarded. From a cost benefit perspective, it will benefit the home builder greatly if 

they can reduce the amount of material marked for disposal. 

One way that a construction firm can reduce the amount of wasted material is by 

separating items by material such as wood, drywall and brick for possible later use. 

Plywood sheets can be fashioned into temporary storage containers and located around 

the facility. By separating and storing the material onsite, workers may use the excess 

material throughout the construction of the project. Based on discussions with homebuilders 

in the North Central Texas region, many situations arise where a small piece 

7-10 R. W. Beck 9/14/05


of wood or brick is necessary. Rather than using an uncut beam, the stored material 

may be used instead. 

Making both supervisors and workers aware of this procedure could not only mean a 

significant amount of waste could be diverted from the landfill, but could also reduce 

material costs for construction firms over time. 

7.2 Technical Assistance Resources 

Many facts and other informational resources regarding C&D waste reduction 

activities, strategies and programs are available online or through the TCEQ or other 

professional associations. In addition, professional and academic reports, case studies, 

available end markets for materials, and regular newsletters through some of the sites 

listed in this section can also provide useful information. 

7.2.1 TCEQ Sponsored Programs 

The TCEQ provides two online tools, Recycle Texas Online and RENEW, to help 

facilitate recycling within Texas. These are tools aimed at providing the construction 

industry with useful information and promote C&D waste minimization. 

7.2.1.1 Recycle Texas Online 

Recycle Texas Online is an online database that contains information on companies 

involved in selling or buying specific recyclable materials in Texas. A list of 

companies are provided free of charge on the site. The site is searchable by material 

and geographic region. A potential seller of a particular kind of C&D material (i.e. 

asphalt shingles) can search for recyclers of this material within the Dallas-Fort Worth 

area. 

http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/exec/sbea/rtol/ 

7.2.1.2 RENEW 

The Resource Exchange Network for Eliminating Waste (RENEW) provides listings 

of recyclable materials available for sale or wanted for purchase across Texas free of 

charge. The site is searchable by material but not by geographic area. RENEW 

currently has a number of postings for potential suppliers of C&D waste across Texas 

but no postings for potential buyers of C&D waste. 

http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/exec/oppr/renew/renew.html 

7.2.1.3 Technical Assistance Hotline 

In addition to the C&D recycling assistance provided by Recycle Texas Online and 

Renew, TCEQ provides a free Small Business and Local Government Assistance 

Hotline to answer technical questions on air, water, waste or pollution prevention 

issues. The hotline’s staff answers questions confidentially. The Small Business and 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 7-11

Section 7 

Local Government Assistance Hotline can be reached at 1-800-447-2827 between 

9AM-12PM and 1PM-4PM Central time Monday through Friday. 

7.2.2 Internet Resources 

There is an abundance of information on C&D waste minimization and green building 

available on the internet, including lists of potential purchasers of recyclables, sample 

local C&D ordinances, and information on upcoming green building conferences. 

Additional information on specific C&D recycling or green building issues can be 

found by running searches on these topics via search engines. 

7.2.2.1 C&D Recycler Online 

C&D Recycler Online (http://www.cdrecycler.com/) provides a wealth of information 

on C&D recycling. The website offers online access to Construction & Demolition 

Recycler magazine that focuses on the concerns of entrepreneurs and processors in the 

C&D recycling industry. C&D Recycler Online also provides online business cards of 

businesses involved in C&D recovery which can be referenced by business category 

(i.e. C&D hauling services). The website includes an online message board which 

facilitates discussions amongst groups interested in C&D recycling. 

7.2.2.2 US Environmental Protection Agency Website 

The US Environmental Protection Agency’s (US EPA) website on C&D recycling 

(http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/debris/about.htm) provides data on C&D 

waste, information on C&D waste minimization programs sorted by EPA region, and 

a listing of websites dedicated to the recycling of specific C&D commodities. 

The US EPA also has a green building website (http://www.epa.gov/greenbuilding/). 

It provides an overview of EPA green building projects by region, a list of 

recommended minimum recycled content guidelines for construction products, and an 

online tool developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology for 

selecting green building products. 

7.2.2.3 California Integrated Waste Management Board 

State agencies provide much of the general information available online for C&D 

recycling. One such agency is the California Integrated Waste Management Board 

(CIWMB), whose C&D website is found at http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/ConDemo/. 

This site provides useful information including: 

• Detailed overview of C&D waste minimization; 

• Sample C&D specifications to be used by architects and engineers; and 

• Examples of C&D ordinances various communities have passed. 

7-12 R. W. Beck 9/14/05


7.2.3 Associations and Organizations 

The following associations and organizations provide valuable information on 

nationwide initiatives relating to green building and C&D recycling. 

7.2.3.1 National Association of Home Builders 

The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) offers conferences on green 

building to educate builders on cost-effective business decisions that help the 

environment. The association’s website (http://www.nahb.org/) offers educational 

content relating to C&D recycling. 

7.2.3.2 The Kresge Foundation 

The Kresge Foundation (http://www.kresge.org/initiatives/index.htm) has developed a 

green building initiative that provides educational materials intended to help 

nonprofits understand the green approach to building. The foundation sponsors green 

building workshops and encourages non-profit executives to consider a green building 

when they build. 

7.2.3.3 US Green Building Council 

The USGBC is a coalition of leaders in the building industry who work to promote the 

construction of environmentally friendly buildings. The USGBC develops the LEED 

building system, the world’s leading system in designing, building, and certifying 

green buildings. Additional information on LEED is provided in Section 5. The 

USGBC holds the Greenbuild Conference and Exposition annually bringing together 

industry leaders in green building for educational programs and workshops. More 

information on USGBC can be found at its website, http://www.usgbc.org/. 

7.2.3.4 WasteWise 

The US EPA’s WasteWise (http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/reduce/wstewise/) 

is a free, voluntary program aimed at reducing municipal solid waste that any 

organization within the United States can join. Member organizations have access to 

a WasteWise representative who can provide technical assistance on waste reduction 

issues. Member organizations that successfully reduce their municipal waste 

generation are eligible for public recognition through awards programs, regional 

forums, case studies, and journal articles. 

7.2.3.5 Construction Materials Recycling Association 

The Construction Materials Recycling Association (CMRA) is an association devoted 

to the needs of those in the C&D waste processing and recycling industry. They 

provide information on issues and technology facing the industry. The CMRA lists 

available literature on relevant topics and promotes the use of recycled construction 

materials. The CMRA holds annual conferences and trade shows on C&D waste 

minimization. More information on the CMRA can be found at 

http://www.cdrecycling.org. 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 7-13

Section 7 

7.2.3.6 Toolbase Services 

Toolbase Services (Toolbase) is a website devoted to providing technical resources to 

those in the home-building industry. The website provides information on the latest 

C&D waste minimization trends, case study information on communities throughout 

the nation, and information on technology related to the C&D waste minimization 

including green building and LEED rating projects. More information on Toolbase 

can be found at http://www.toolbase.org. 

7.2.3.7 National Association of Home Builders Research Center 

The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) Research Center is one of the 

premier resources for the C&D waste minimization strategies. The information is 

aimed at both the public and private sector, and can provide technical information on 

C&D waste minimization activities (http://www.nahbrc.com). It provides articles and 

studies on a variety of topics such as green building, market research, and affordable 

housing. The NAHB Research Center also operates a bookstore where one may 

purchase studies or resource guides on C&D waste minimization. 

7-14 R. W. Beck 9/14/05

Section 8 

Public Sector Initiatives 

This section focuses on options for local governments to create an environment for 

successfully diverting C&D waste from landfills in their community. In many 

communities across the United States, the combination of establishing a C&D waste 

diversion program in conjunction with developing ordinances or voluntary incentives 

aimed at the private sector has been very effective in increasing the diversion rate for 

that community. This section describes alternatives for local governments to develop 

C&D waste diversion programs and to increase participation throughout incentives 

and ordinances. 

8.1 C&D Waste Diversion Programs 

Local governments interested in waste minimization strategies should create a C&D 

waste diversion program. A C&D waste diversion program may be a Green Building, 

LEED, reuse facility, or waste management planning program. These programs 

provide the infrastructure to foster participation from the construction and recycling 

industries. Meeting waste diversion goals may be more difficult to achieve if the local 

government does not take the first step in developing infrastructure aimed at C&D 

waste minimization. 

When developing a C&D waste diversion program, a local government must choose 

an option that is best suited for them. What may work best in an urban are does not 

necessarily translate to a rural one. R. W. Beck has provided a description of four 

programs that local government should use to develop the infrastructure to promote 

C&D waste minimization. Each program 

8.1.1 Green Building Program 

Green Building is an environmentally responsible approach to land development and 

housing construction in an effort to conserve natural resources. Section 2 of this 

report provides a detailed Green Building case study. Green Building can provide an 

opportunity for builders to construct houses in a manner that can reduce the quantity 

of C&D material that is generated for disposal. 

8.1.1.1 Practical Application 

There are several key steps associated with the development and management of a 

green building program. The first step involves how to establish a program. A Guide 

9/14/05

Section 8 

to Developing Green Building Programs 1 details each of the key steps in developing a 

green builder program, which include the following: 

• Step One – Determining interest 

• Step Two – Establishing a committee 

• Step Three – Setting objectives 

• Step Four – Determining partners 

• Step Five – Determining program coverage 

• Step Six – Setting up the budget 

• Step Seven – Considering existing programs 

• Step Eight – Establishing the certification process 

• Step Nine – Choosing program resources 

• Step Ten – Establishing program structure 

• Step Eleven – Creating the program checklist 

R. W. Beck would encourage the use of this guide when developing a green building 

program. This guide can be used to determine what specific criteria will be included 

as a part of a green building program. This is a critical step since it establishes the 

criteria that will drive the efforts of a green building program. Waste minimization 

strategies should be included in the criteria. However, communities should give 

careful consideration to the content of the criteria, and whether any waste 

minimization criteria will be mandatory instead of voluntary. 

The NAHB Research Center has recently developed another resource to guide the 

development of the certification process. The NAHB Research Center has been 

working with a home building industry stakeholder group to create a set of green 

home building guidelines for mainstream home builders. These guidelines, which 

were published as a final draft in June 2004, are available on the NAHB’s website 

(www.nahbrc.org). The guidelines update information included in A Guide to 

Developing Green Builder Programs. 

8.1.1.2 Examples 

The City of Frisco, TX mandates that all new residential building meet, at a minimum 

the Environmental Protection Agency’s Energy Star requirements. Under the city’s 

rules, new homes must be energy efficient, conserve water, maintain air quality 

standards, and be constructed to facilitate recycling. 

http://www.ci.frisco.tx.us/developmentsvcs/greenbuilding/greenbuilding_home.htm 

1 National Association of Home Builder’s Research Center. A Guide to Developing Green Builder 

Programs. Upper Marlborro, Maryland. February, 2000. This report is available for $25 from the 

NAHB Research Center. Website: www.nahbrc.org. 

8-2 R. W. Beck 9/14/05


Alameda County, California uses a “Green Points” rating system to mandate green 

building in residential construction. New and remodeled homes may earn points based 

on C&D waste minimization activities. These activities include: 

• Donate unused materials 

• Reuse materials or recycle materials for landscape areas 

• Reuse various foundation materials (e.g. foam board, content aggregate, 

aluminum forms) 

• Install recycled content materials (e.g. fiberglass insulation, ceramic tiles) 

Alameda County also provides a “Green Points” calculator for residents and 

contractors to download. 

http://www.stopwaste.org/home/index.asp?page=470 

The City of Austin’s Austin Energy Green Building Program rates homes for energy 

efficiency, water efficiency, resource efficiency and health and safety. A building’s 

rating may range from one to five stars, with five stars being the most environmentally 

friendly. The city provides stickers to green-rated homes and certificates 

authenticating these ratings to home buyers. 

http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/greenbuilder/ 

8.1.2 LEED Rating Program 

LEED rating ordinances have the potential to improve the environmental friendliness 

of commercial buildings. These ordinances require that new construction, demolition, 

or renovation of commercial buildings be rated under the rating system. A number of 

cities have taken a step in that direction by mandating that all public buildings will be 

built in accordance with LEED standards. 

8.1.2.1 Mandatory for Public Buildings 

Program Description 

Ten US cities, including the City of Dallas, require that all new construction on public 

buildings follow LEED building standards. Typically these programs vary based on 

the requirements set forth in the ordinance. These variations usually are related to the 

following: 

• Minimum size requirements for building participation; 

• Type of construction for the building (i.e. only new construction or only 

deconstruction); or 

• Location of the buildings (i.e. public buildings in the downtown region). 

Practical Application 

Construction in accordance with LEED building standards yields energy efficient and 

environmentally friendly city buildings. In addition, constructing municipal buildings 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 8-3

Section 8 

in accordance with LEED standards sets community standards for green buildings that 

may be followed by private builders. 

A major disadvantage to constructing municipal buildings in accordance with LEED 

standards relates to the increased cost. For example, constructing buildings to reach 

LEED Silver standards increases construction costs by approximately five percent. 

While some of this cost increase will be offset over time by lower utility bills, 

taxpayers ultimately pay the net cost increase via higher taxes or reduction in city 

services. A second disadvantage is a program focused only on public buildings may 

have a limited impact on the overall environment that the program will have. 

Examples 

The City of San Francisco requires any of its departments engaging in construction 

projects, renovations, and additions greater than 5,000 square feet adhere to a LEED 

Silver building standard at a minimum. The city also requires projects of less than 

5,000 square feet to provide for the maximum LEED points practical. The website 

listed below provides a link to the City of San Francisco’s Environmental Code. 

http://www.amlegal.com/sfenviron_nxt/gateway.dll?f=templates&fn=default.htm&vid 

=alp:sf_environ 

The City of Dallas passed a resolution in 2003 stating that all future revenue bond 

funded city buildings greater than 10,000 square feet will be built in accordance with 

LEED Silver standards. Dallas has yet to write these new standards into its building 

codes. 

http://www.usgbc.org/News/usgbcinthenews_details.asp?ID=290 

8.1.2.2 Citywide LEED Building Ordinance 

Practical Application 

A citywide LEED building ordinance would mandate that all new construction within 

a city follow a LEED certification standard, such as LEED Silver. Construction of all 

buildings in accordance with LEED standards yields the benefits of energy efficient 

and environmentally friendliness buildings on a wide scale. 

The major disadvantage to mandating such legislation is the costs that it imposes on 

all commercial contractors. This increase in costs, which would ultimately be passed 

onto building owners, may dissuade some investors from financing projects within the 

city, thereby slowing the city’s growth. An additional disadvantage to a citywide 

LEED building ordinance is the significant administrative cost that would be incurred 

in enforcing such a code on a citywide level. 

8.1.3 Waste Management Planning & Reporting 

8.1.3.1 General Description 

Local governments may adopt a policy encouraging waste management planning and 

reporting prior to the construction or deconstruction of commercial and residential 

8-4 R. W. Beck 9/14/05


building. A waste management planning program provides a framework for waste 

diversion goals and strategies that contractors can operate under during the project 

build. Prior to developing incentives such as a fast track permitting program, 

infrastructure such as a waste management planning and report program is necessary. 

The waste management planning component has been included in both Section 7 and 8 

because of its importance on achieving C&D waste diversion. Based on several 

documents and interviews with industry and local government staff, reaching an 

understanding between the construction industry and public sector is a primary task 

for a program. Often meeting the needs of both parties is a fundamental challenge of 

the program. R. W. Beck believes that this can be achieved through meetings with 

construction industry associations and local government staff prior to the 

implementation of such a program. 


A waste management plan may be applied to all phases of the construction industry, 

such as new construction, deconstruction and renovation homes and commercial 

building projects. The planning component may be incorporated as a component to a 

green builder program or LEED rating program by incorporating waste management 

planning and reporting as a part of their point system. 

Waste management plans may also have reporting requirements that contractors, 

home-builders or property owners provide to a local government upon completion of 

the project. Waste management reports may require information such as: disposal and 

recycling tonnage data, recycler or salvage yard contact information or copies of all 

load and disposal tickets. It is essential that guidelines and expectations be established 

and communicated clearly through a form or data table template. 

By instituting waste management planning and reporting procedures, the local 

government is providing an environment for contractors and home-builders to 

incorporate waste diversion in their project plan. Based on a literature review and 

discussions with industry professionals, one of the ways that waste diversion 

techniques can become cost-effective is when they are incorporated at the beginning 

of a project. 

A sample waste management plan and reporting template is included in Appendix E. 

8.1.3.3 Example 

As described in the Deconstruction and Renovation case studies in Section 5 and 

Section 6, the City of Dallas accepted several waste management plans from 

construction firms who proposed on the Hensley Field Center project. This is a 

voluntary process for the City of Dallas, however City staff believed it contributed 

greatly to the accountability of the firm and the overall success of the project. More 

information on the waste management plan can be found in the case study sections of 

the report. 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 8-5

Section 8 

8.1.4 Reuse Facility Program 

A construction and deconstruction material reuse facility is a location where 

businesses and individuals may bring building material for reuse in the community. 2 

The goal of this facility is to reduce the construction industry’s burden on the solid 

waste stream by diverting new and used building materials from landfills to be used in 

other construction. These facilities often accept materials such as various types of 

construction wood (i.e. plywood, framing wood, etc.), drywall, paint, carpet, metals, 

light fixtures, doors, windows and plumbing. 


A reuse facility could be established at the city, county or subregional level and be 

located near an existing landfill or transfer station. These facilities may be open on a 

limited basis, typically from Thursday through Sunday during the daytime. A reuse 

facility should be manned by at least one or two FTEs, to assist in the loading and 

unloading of vehicles and monitor the amount and types of materials that are dropped 

off. As a cost-saving strategy, transfer station or landfill staff may be used in place of 

hiring a new FTE for the operation of a reuse facility. 

In addition, it is common for residents or contractors to bring unacceptable materials, 

such as HHW or MSW, therefore a full-time monitor as well as signage detailing the 

types of acceptable materials is often necessary. 

The greatest limitation in establishing a reuse facility is funding for the program. 

While funding may limit a local government’s interest in a reuse facility, R. W. Beck 

would recommend the local government work with non-profit organizations such as 

Habitat for Humanity or co-locating a facility with an existing solid waste disposal 

facility (i.e. landfill or transfer station). 

8.1.4.2 Examples 

The City of Huntsville established a reuse facility in 2002. The facility is co-located 

with the City’s transfer station and accepts various building materials from the public 

as well as businesses. The reuse facility is open on the weekends manned by one FTE 

and is operated under the City’s Solid Waste Department. The City has seen a 

significant amount of participation from the public and will continue to operate the 

reuse facility program. 

The Dallas Area Habitat for Humanity operates a Habitat Home Improvement Outlet 

Store that facilitates the reuse of building materials and gently used appliances by 

accepting donated building materials and selling them to residents and businesses 

(http://www.habitat.org/script/link.asp?url=www%2Edallas%2Dhabitat%2Eorg). The 

Outlet Store provides a market for these building materials that would otherwise by 

2 Deconstruction is the hand demolition of buildings in the reverse order of their construction in order to 

carefully remove materials for reuse and recycling. This technique reduces the disposal of materials into 

the landfills, and provides materials for renovation and other small-scale construction projects. 

8-6 R. W. Beck 9/14/05


disposed of in the landfill. The Outlet Store will accept materials at the store and also 

provides an on-site pick-up and deconstruction service. 

The Fort Worth Area Habitat for Humanity has two Habitat ReStores that operate fivedays 

per week and accept donated building materials. The ReStores are located in 

both the north and south and offer a variety of building materials at a reduced price to 

the consumer. An automated information line providing directions, specials, and 

services is available at 817-926-3585. 

8.2 Increasing Participation through Incentives 

Communities around the United States have begun to encourage C&D recycling 

through sponsoring grants and other incentive based programs. The following are 

examples of innovative ways that provide incentives for C&D waste minimization by 

state and local governments. 3 

R. W. Beck recommends that the programs described in this section are implemented 

as a part of a comprehensive C&D waste diversion program. These incentives should 

be developed as a complement to existing infrastructure as a way to increase on-going 

or new participation. 

In addition, R. W. Beck recognizes that budgetary or facility constraints may inhibit 

some of these programs, and would encourage local governments to evaluate the type 

of incentive that would best serve their community on a case-by-case basis. 

8.2.1 Rebates for Contractors 

One option being used to encourage C&D recycling entails providing rebates to 

contractors for the delivery of C&D material to recycling facilities. Under such a 

program, levels of recyclables delivered to recycling facilities are documented and 

communicated to a governmental authority which issues the rebates. The rebate 

program is typically a voluntary program as opposed to other programs like deposit 

requirements or fines for non-compliance. 

Currently this program would require the establishment and operation of a C&D MRF. 

At this time, no such facility exists in the NCTCOG region. However, R. W. Beck has 

included this program under the assumption that such a facility may be established in 

the future. 


One financial constraint associated with implementing a rebate program could be the 

ongoing administrative costs incurred in using such a program both at the recycling 

facility (where the levels of recyclables delivered by each contractor must to be 

3 Many of these programs have taken place in California since California state law requires each of its 

cities and counties to divert 50 percent of all solid waste from landfill or transfer stations through source 

reduction, recycling and composting activities. California State Law required this target be met by 

January 1, 2000 although extensions may be granted to communities for no more than five years and no 

extension may be granted for any period after January 1, 2006. 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 8-7

Section 8 

certified) and at the governmental agency administering the program. A program of 

this nature may not be supported in many communities in the North Central Texas 

region due to the cost. This cost may be mitigated through grants or acquisition of 

funding sources on an interim basis. 

From an operational perspective, there may be the potential for collusion between the 

contractor and recycling facility managers to inflate the levels of recyclables delivered 

to the facility. This potential risk can be mitigated to a large extent by stationing a 

governmental representative onsite to monitor the delivery of recyclables. 

The greatest advantage of a rebate plan is also the most obvious: monetary incentives 

for C&D recycling may lead to action on the part of firms. If the rebate is large 

enough, contractors will have strong incentive to increase their recycling of C&D 

material. Rebates are also typically very easy to communicate to the construction 

industry. Most rebate programs are fairly straightforward and would be easy to 

incorporate into a public awareness campaign. 


In the late 1990’s, Alameda County, California lacked a mixed C&D recycling 

facility. To encourage the building of such a facility within the county and to promote 

C&D recycling, the Alameda County Waste Management Authority began offering a 

$10 per ton rebate to county contractors for the delivery of mixed C&D to qualifying 

recycling facilities either within or outside of Alameda County in 2001. The current 

tipping fee for C&D waste at a landfill in Alameda County is $46 per ton. 

This rebate was offered as an interim measure but has stayed in place after a C&D 

recycling facility was built within the county. The Waste Management Authority 

expects to have these rebates in place at least until 2006 in order to continue to 

encourage contractors to recycle their C&D wastes. 

Ann Ludwig 

Alameda County Waste Management Authority 

(510) 614-1699 

8.2.2 Government Grants to Private Firms 

8.2.2.1 Program Description 

Public entities can appropriate funds for grants to private businesses or non-profit 

organizations for C&D recycling programs. This may include the development of an 

actual building or housing-start, developing of recycling infrastructure or 

administration of pilot C&D recycling project. 

The costs for this program may be associated with identifying and monitoring grant 

funding and programs. In this case the governmental agency must publicize the grant 

program, select the recipient, and then follow up with the recipient to make sure that 

the stated performance measures have been met. 

8-8 R. W. Beck 9/14/05



A grants program may encourage recycling companies to increase C&D recycling 

capacity, thereby increasing the number of facilities capable of processing such waste 

and reducing the costs contractors incur in transporting the waste to a recycling 

facility. A successful grants program may also encourage further private sector 

investment in C&D recycling by illustrating the potential value of this type of 

recycling. 

R. W. Beck recognizes that the most significant factor inhibiting this type of program 

would be the financial investment required by the public sector. This program may 

best be suited for a regional or state entity. If a program were to be established at the 

state level, it may require appropriation of funds at the state level. 

The goal of a grant program is to assist in the comprehensive C&D waste 

minimization effort to aid in infrastructure development and foster increases in 

throughput. For example, funds for capital investments in the recycling industry (i.e. 

increasing recycling capacity) without providing funds for a way to increase contractor 

participating (i.e. increasing throughput by contractors) may not fully impact C&D 

waste diversion. To the extent possible, grant funds should be made available to both 

the recycling and construction industry. 


New York’s Empire State Development Agency awards grants to state businesses to 

help them increase their recycling capacity. Grants of up to $500,000 may be awarded 

for capital investments in businesses as long as the business contributes 50 percent 

matching funds. In 2000, the agency awarded a $500,000 grant to Taylor Recycling, 

which helped the company build a $3,000,000 C&D MRF in Montgomery, NY. This 

grant enabled the company to double its debris sorting capacity and increase its C&D 

recycling by 27,000 tons per year. 

Linda Hosking 

Empire State Development Agency, New York 

(518) 292-5349 

In the late 1990’s, Lake County, IL performed a waste characterization study which 

identified C&D material as a significant source of refuse. In order to illustrate the 

potential value of C&D recycling and thereby encourage the use of C&D waste 

minimization, the county funded four pilot projects for the recovery of C&D materials. 

Four towns in Lake County were awarded approximately $25,000 each to fund C&D 

recycling pilot projects employing a private waste hauler. Through these pilot 

projects, the vendor achieved a 43 percent diversion rate (as measured on a cubic 

yardage basis) by diverting cardboard, clean wood, and metal scraps. 

Pete Adrian 

Solid Waste Agency of Lake County, Illinois 

(847) 336-9340 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 8-9

Section 8 

8.2.3 Contractor Educational Programs 


Contractor education programs aim to illustrate the value of C&D recycling to 

contractors, thereby encouraging a change in their beliefs in C&D recycling and 

motivating them to participate in such programs. 


Developing a contractor education program in accordance with a NCTCOG regional 

education program may be cost-effective for many local governments. Contractor 

education can often be achieved at a lower cost in comparison to other C&D waste 

minimization programs. 

Another advantage of an educational program is its potential to change contractors’ 

attitude on C&D waste minimization. Contractors who have been convinced of the 

value of C&D waste minimization and practice it on the job may continue to do so 

long after an education program has concluded. 

A significant disadvantage to a contractor education program is the difficulty in 

convincing contractors to become involved in C&D waste minimization when the 

economic benefits to their business may be uncertain. While many may think C&D 

waste minimization is a good idea, contractors are concerned with the “bottom line” 

and can be expected to act accordingly. Even after they have been educated in the 

environmental value of C&D recycling, many contractors will also need to be 

convinced of the economic benefit. 


In 1996, DuPage County, IL established a 50 percent reduction goal for the disposal of 

C&D debris by 2000. At the time, there was no county-specific information available 

about C&D generation and management. The County believed that to reach the goal, 

more participation by builders and other contractors would be necessary. 

To achieve this, the county performed a C&D waste survey that asked contractors and 

demolition companies using waste reduction and recycling strategies to quantify the 

economic effects of the program. The county published the results of this study in a 

booklet which was distributed to companies in the surrounding area to inspire other 

contractors to engage in similar practices. 

Joy Hems 

DuPage County, Illinois 

(630) 407-6700 

8-10 R. W. Beck 9/14/05


8.2.4 Fast Track Permitting 


A local government can give contractors or home-builders who participate in any of 

the waste minimization programs preferential treatment during the permitting process. 

This allows a project to potentially move ahead of all other projects awaiting a permit. 

In some cases, the program provides an opportunity for the permitting staff to conduct 

one-on-one reviews of the site plans with the developer to fix any issues that might 

delay permitting. 


The primary purpose of this program is to reduce the time that a construction firm 

must wait during the permitting process required by the local government. 

The amount of time that developers wait for a permit may be up to six months 

depending on the workload of the permitting staff. Fast track permitting can reduce 

the wait time to less than a few weeks or a month. By reducing the amount of waittime 

associated with the permitting, the developer may begin the project sooner, thus 

potentially reducing costs. 


The City of Dallas has adopted a program that allows construction management firms 

to receive building permits in a shorter amount of time provided that the building 

plans are developed in an energy efficient manner or has a waste reduction component 

incorporated in it. 

In addition, the City allows the developer to meet with the permit staff member to 

identify and fix any potential problems with the plan. Through the one-on-one 

permitting process, the developer or contractor gains a greater understanding of the 

system in addition to being able in some cases to make changes to the design 

immediately. This process may lead to the immediate approval of the permit in cases 

where the problems are minor can be corrected during the one-on-one meetings. 

Based on discussions with City staff, this process has been very well received by 

builders in the Dallas area. 

Michael A. Kawecki 

City of Dallas 

214-670-6932 

8.2.5 First Choice Programs 


First choice programs aim to create a market for C&D materials by mandating that 

government agencies buy these products as their first choice in purchasing supplies. 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 8-11

Section 8 

The recycled materials, like new materials, must meet all existing building codes, 

standards or specifications. 


The major advantage of a first choice program is its ability to substantially increase 

the market for a particular recycled product. Based on the research conducted in the 

North Central Texas area, the infrastructure for end markets in the region is still 

developing. If one or more local governments were to adopt this initiative it would 

not only show leadership in the area of C&D waste minimization, but would 

encourage businesses to provide these materials. 

The primary disadvantage to a first choice program is its potential to increase the costs 

of business for the entity purchasing the recycled goods. For example, if the price of 

alternative erosion control methods are higher than the price of traditional silt fencing 

and is purchased in large volumes, there will be a cost increase incurred by the 

consumer. In addition, local governments must be careful that the recycled products 

meet building code standards for quality of material. 


The Texas Department of Transportation (TXDOT) implemented the use of recycled 

materials internally and in road construction projects in 1998. TXDOT began to use 

recycled materials in road construction since quality materials are scarce in some areas 

of Texas. In addition, TXDOT has found that recycled materials can exceed the 

performance of traditional materials. TXDOT’s mission is to increase the use of 

recycled materials in road construction where economic and/or engineering benefits 

are identified. TXDOT is working in partnership with contractors, the Federal 

Highway Administration, county and municipal road builders, universities, the Texas 

Natural Resource Conservation Commission, material suppliers, generators, and 

processors toward this goal. 

The United States Resource Conservation and Recovery Act requires all federal, state, 

and local agencies that use federal funds to buy products that contain recovered 

materials if they spend more than $10,000 annually on designated items. Agencies 

may opt out of this requirement if the cost of the material is unreasonable, a lack of 

competition in the supply of the material exists, the item is not available in a 

reasonable period of time, or the item does not meet the agency’s performance 

specifications. 

8.3 Increasing Participation through Ordinance 

Many cities have instituted ordinances or other laws directing builders to achieve 

waste minimization and green building targets. The following section is intended as 

an overview of various methodologies that have been employed to reach these goals. 

8-12 R. W. Beck 9/14/05


8.3.1 Deposit Requirements 


Deposit requirements force contractors to pay a deposit before beginning a C&D 

project. This money is to be returned to the contractor after the local government 

confirms that the project met the required waste diversion goal. 

Currently this program would require the establishment and operation of a C&D MRF. 

However, R. W. Beck has included this program under the assumption that such a 

facility could be established in the future. 


The impact of a penalty for non-compliance yields the same advantage as does the 

rebate program. That is, if the penalty is large enough, profit maximizing firms will 

take action in order to meet the target diversion goal. This penalty can yield 

significant additional levels of C&D waste minimization for a community that 

implements such an ordinance. A second major advantage to this method of 

incentivizing C&D relates to the ease of communication of the program. The 

enforcement of a penalty for not meeting a diversion goal is easy for a contractor to 

understand and this helps to facilitate action on the contactor’s part. 

One of the disadvantages of this program is the administrative cost monitoring 

whether a project has reached target goal. The contractor also faces increased costs in 

monitoring progress in meeting this goal and, in the case of non-compliance, increased 

costs associated with lost deposits. Should these costs become a significant 

percentage of total costs, contractors may discontinue operating in a given jurisdiction. 

Such a situation would lead to increased overall construction and demolition costs and 

could yield decreased levels of construction growth for a given community. 

A final disadvantage to deposit requirements relates to the incentive structure these 

penalties create. The potential to lose deposits gives an incentive for contractors to 

divert C&D materials to a point. However, they provide no incentive for the 

contractors to divert material beyond this point. Thus, while a community may be able 

to reach a target goal by means of these penalties, there is a reduced chance this goal 

will be exceeded. 


The City of San Mateo, California found that about 30 percent of its landfilled waste 

was C&D material with a large percentage that could be recycled. Based on these 

findings, the city passed an ordinance in 2001 requiring construction and demolition 

projects to achieve waste diversion rates of up to 60 percent. The ordinance requires 

companies obtaining a building permit in the city to submit a security deposit and 

documentation of the company’s intent to divert C&D waste via recycling. In order 

for the company to receive its deposit back, it must provide documentation proving 

that it diverted the required percentage of C&D material. 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 8-13

Section 8 

http://www.ci.sanmateo.ca.us/dept/pubwks/ordinance.html 

8.3.2 Franchise Fees for C&D Waste Disposal at Landfills 


Some communities are incentivizing C&D waste minimization by requiring C&D 

collection service providers that intend to dispose of C&D waste at landfills to pay a 

licensing fee; C&D recyclers are exempt from the fee. 


Implementing franchise fees for C&D collection service providers establishes a clear 

incentive to recycle. Such fees impose greater costs on collection service providers 

intending to dispose of C&D at landfills. C&D recyclers are not required to obtain a 

franchise. In essence, C&D waste minimization may become less costly compared to 

disposal at landfills due to the additional fees imposed on collection service providers. 

The main disadvantage to franchising is that by instituting this program, the city incurs 

additional administrative costs associated with approving and overseeing franchisees. 

This cost may, however, be offset by the franchise fee. An additional disadvantage to 

franchising is the potential for reduced levels of competition for all types of refuse 

collection within a city due to collection companies opting to not serve the city at all 

because of the franchise fee. 

In addition, as described in the NCTCOG’s 2003 C&D Recycling, Reuse and Reduce 

Study, several limitations exist due to current franchising agreements in communities 

in the North Central Texas region. R. W. Beck would not recommend establishing 

franchising fees for C&D waste disposal until proper infrastructure is in place for 

collection service providers to divert waste. This may feasibly occur with the 

development of a C&D MRF. 


The City of Santa Rosa, California maintains a franchise fee for providers of C&D 

collection services of nine percent of the franchisee’s gross revenues. Self-haulers and 

recyclers are exempt from this requirement. 

http://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/City_Hall/City_Council/Documents/2002/cco3586.htm 

8.3.3 Fines and Penalties for Non-Compliance 


Increasing C&D waste minimization could also occur by implementing new 

requirements on business that incorporate fines or penalties. Under this option, 

contractors who do not meet required diversion goals are fined. 

Currently the feasibility of this program in the region is limited due to the lack of an 

established and operational C&D MRF in the region. However, R. W. Beck has 

8-14 R. W. Beck 9/14/05


included this program under the assumption that such a facility could be established in 

the future. 


The practical application for the use of fines is similar to deposit programs. It is 

essential that fines for non-participation are large enough to economically affect the 

contractor or home-builder is economically affected. In addition, the local 

governments must enforce these fines. 

One of the disadvantages of using fines relates to the administrative costs the city 

incurs in monitoring whether projects have reached the required diversion rate. The 

contractor also faces increased costs in monitoring its progress in meeting a diversion 

goal and, in the case of non-compliance, increased costs associated with fines. A final 

disadvantage to fines is that they, like deposit requirements, provide no incentive for 

the contractors to divert material beyond the required level point. 


The City of La Habra, California requires all new construction, remodeling and 

demolition projects over a certain size (these sizes vary based on the type of 

construction) to divert 50 percent of C&D debris. Contractors must submit two 

reports to the City. The first report is a waste management plans to the city describing 

the was diversion goal and the method of achieving it and a final report confirming 

that the diversion rate has been met after work has been completed. Contractors who 

fail to meet the diversion requirement are guilty of a misdemeanor. They may be 

fined or imprisoned for up to six months. 

http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/ConDemo/SampleDocs/LaHabra.pdf 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 8-15

Section 8 


8-16 R. W. Beck 9/14/05

Section 9 

Legal Summary 

The purpose of this section is to build on the legal analysis developed in the 2003 

NCTCOG C&D Study, whereby R. W. Beck has expended the discussion of the laws 

concerning C&D waste minimization efforts. To achieve this, R. W. Beck has chosen 

to focus on specific rules and laws concerning the C&D waste minimization efforts 

described in the case studies. To further aid in the dialogue of future C&D waste 

minimization legislation, R. W. Beck has provided descriptions of some aggressive 

legislative measures established by other states in the U.S. 

9.1 Temporary Crushing Rules 

In an effort to clear any ambiguity as to the applicability of the State’s temporary 

crushing rules, R. W. Beck has provided a discussion of the rules as it applies to onsite 

grinding and rock crushing operations. 

9.1.1 On-site Grinding Operations 

Based on discussions with TCEQ and an analysis of the temporary crushing rules, onsite 

grinding operations, as described in Case Study 3, are not subject to any of the 

guidelines established by these rules. Therefore, no location restrictions or time 

limitations have been placed on on-site grinding operations at this time. 

R. W. Beck would like to emphasize that while there are no State laws in place for onsite 

grinders, local or neighborhood restrictions may affect operation of an on-site 

grinder. Operators should be considerate of their surroundings and check with the 

local code enforcement division prior to operation, certain neighborhoods may have 

noise or dust regulations that need to be followed. 

In addition, R. W. Beck recommends that all contractors and on-site grinder operators 

use good judgment (e.g. noise and dust control) when conducting grinding activities as 

to not disturb or upset the surrounding community. 

9.1.2 Rock Crushing Operations 

All operators of temporary rock or concrete crushers must obtain a permit from the 

Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ). The two least time consuming 

methods of doing so include obtaining a permit through permit by rule (PBR) and 

obtaining a permit through the standard permit for temporary rock crushers and 

temporary concrete crushers (SPT). For the purposes of our analysis, R. W. Beck has 

chosen to focus on the SPT since many rock crushers will operate for no more than 

1,080 hours per year and will not have a throughput exceeding 250 tons per hour. 

9/14/05

Section 9 

To qualify for the SPT, the operations must be at least 440 yards from any building in 

use as a residence, school, or place of worship. Operators must qualify for the SPT as 

operators of either a Tier I or Tier II crusher. This classification is determined based 

on number of hours of operation, number of tons processed and other factors. 1 

An amendment to the SPT allowing for certain exemptions to this distance rule has 

been proposed and is now under review at the TCEQ. In order to receive a distance 

exemption, an operation must either have satisfied all of the distance requirements at 

the time the crushing facility was built or must meet all of the following criteria: 

• Crushing is the result of an on-site demolition and the materials being crushed are 

for use at the site 

• Crushing takes place for a period of no more than 180 calendar days; and 

• The site is not located in Harris or adjacent counties. 

A maximum fine of $10,000 per day per violation and an immediate shutdown of any 

operations may be imposed on any operator crushing without a permit. 

9.2 “Sham” Recycling 

In the last four years, Texas enacted legislation in response to “sham” recycling 

operations across the State. A “sham” recycler accepts various “recyclable” materials 

for a fee under the premise these materials would be recovered or reused. However, 

these materials often contain high levels of putrescible or non-recyclable waste and 

may accumulate onsite to the point of public nuisance or threat to public safety and 

health. 

Texas Administrative Code Title 30 Chapter 328 established the regulations for 

recycling facilities to promote the recovery and reuse of material and to control the 

existence of “sham” recyclers. Under these rules, it requires that any entity serving as 

the collection and processing point for recyclables register with TCEQ. It also states 

that any operator of recycling facilities that stores combustible materials or poses a 

significant risk to public health must have financial assurance for closure. 

However, the rules also state that if the operation is affiliated with a governmental 

entity, a permitted or registered solid waste facility or a company permitted to build a 

registered or permitted solid waste facility, it need not register with TCEQ nor provide 

financial assurance. Since operators or affiliates of registered or permitted disposal 

facilities are regulated, and therefore less likely to violate restrictions on material 

storage, they are exempt from additional permitting requirements. 

According to the Texas Administrative Code Title 30 Chapter 328.4, any facility that 

accepts more than incidental amounts 2 of non-recyclable waste must obtain a permit or 

1 A Tier I crusher has throughput not exceeding 125 tons per hour, shall not operate for more than 360 

hours and must be located no less than 200 feet from the nearest property line. A Tier II crusher must 

have a throughput not exceeding 250 tons, may not operate for more than 1,080 hours per year, and 

must be located no less than 300 feet from the nearest property line. 

2 “Incidental amounts” is defined by Texas Administrative Code Title 30 Chapter 328.1 as “no more 

than 10 percent by volume or scale weight of each incoming load, and averages no more than 5 percent 

9-2 R. W. Beck 9/14/05

Legal Summary 

registration as a Type V solid waste facility. 3 Since this restriction essentially requires 

a recovery rate of greater than 95 percent, R. W. Beck believes this requirement would 

be difficult to achieve in practice, particularly for a C&D material recovery facility 

(MRF), which is discussed in more detail in Section 3. As such, any C&D MRF 

constructed in Texas would require either a new permit or registration or be co-located 

with an existing permitted or registered facility. 

Once a facility obtains a permit or registration to operate as a Type V facility, there are 

no restrictions on the amount of material it must recover. This applies to a C&D 

MRF, transfer station, or any other Type V facility. It is in the best interest of a 

facility that operates as a MRF to maximize the amount of material recovered in order 

to maximize revenue from recyclable material and reduce costs associated with 

disposing of residual at a landfill. However, since a permitted or registered MRF is 

not required to maintain a specified recovery rate, any entity (e.g. local government) 

looking to contract with such a facility should ensure the facility is operating as a 

legitimate C&D MRF. Since permitted facilities are currently required to report 

annually to the TCEQ, and registered facilities will be required to in the future, the 

entity could use this data to determine how much material a facility diverts from 

landfills. An entity could also request the MRF, or other facility, to provide its 

internal reports of material recovery rates and could contractually require the facility 

to maintain certain recovery rates. 

9.3 Green Building Legislation 

The State of Texas has only a small amount of legislation relating to green building. 

Most rules or guidelines relating to green building within Texas have been instituted 

on the local level and are discussed in Section 8. 

9.3.1 Health and Safety Code Chapter 388 

In 2001, the State of Texas created Chapter 388 of the Texas Health and Safety Code 

to ensure compliance with the Federal Clean Air Act. In this rule, Texas adopted 

energy efficiency codes for the construction of residential, commercial, and industrial 

buildings. This mandated that municipalities enforce the new energy efficiency codes, 

adopt energy-efficient building policies and implement cost-effective energy 

efficiency measures. However, no enforcement mechanisms included with the 

legislation. 

As another way for communities to achieve buy-in from decision-makers and the 

building community, information on this section of the Health and Safety Code should 

be made available. 

of the total weight or volume of all materials received in the last six-month period, as substantiated by 

the facility’s records.” 

3 According to by Texas Administrative Code Title 30 Chapter 330.41, Type V facilities “shall 

encompass processing plants that transfer, incinerate, shred, grind, bale, compost, salvage, separate, 

dewater, reclaim, and/or provide other processing of solid waste.” 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 9-3

Section 9 

9.4 Clean-Air Legislation 

The Federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requires states with areas that fail to meet the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards for criteria pollutants to reduce and maintain 

air pollution emissions in order to comply with the federal standards. There are 

several regions of Texas that do not meet the standards, including the Dallas/Fort 

Worth area. Significant efforts are currently underway to achieve reductions in 

emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx). The highest source of NOx (approximately 51 

percent) in the Dallas/Fort Worth area is from motor vehicles. 

Many of the C&D waste reduction initiatives described in this study can have a 

positive impact on reducing NOx in the region based on their focus to reduce the 

transportation of materials. For example, on-site grinding focuses on reducing 

transportation and disposal costs by processing and reusing materials at the same 

location. For example, when the City of Dallas developed the American Airlines 

Center, the opportunity existed to recycle 47,000 cubic yards of used concrete directly 

at the site. This significantly reduced the need for hundreds of truck trips that would 

have needed to (1) haul used material to a processing facility or landfill and (2) bring 

in material from quarries that are located west of the Dallas/Fort Worth area. 

It is also important to note that in the future, recycling facilities, such as a C&D MRF, 

may present opportunities to reduce air emissions. For example, recycling facilities 

can delay the need for new landfills, which will likely need to be located further 

distances than they currently are due to siting issues. Also, since recycling facilities 

can be located closer, they can provide an opportunity to reduce transportation 

distances. 

9.5 Opportunities for Additional Legislation 

During the research conducted for the Study, R. W. Beck identified several aggressive 

laws associated with C&D recycling. Provided in this section are a few examples of 

laws from other states that have been enacted in order to increase C&D waste 

diversion. 

9.5.1 Banning C&D from Landfill 

Some states have banned C&D waste or other materials from landfills. States have 

found that in order for a C&D landfilling ban to be effective, it must be done on a 

statewide basis. Otherwise, significant levels of C&D material will flow from areas 

where the waste is banned to areas where it is not banned. 

9.5.2 Performance Measures for Achieving Recycling Goals 

Several states in the U.S. have instituted performance measures that require local 

governments to report on their recycling rate annually or semi-annually. These 

performance measures may involve reporting diversion rates by material or on a 

whole. Typically, the state’s commission on environmental quality establishes the 

9-4 R. W. Beck 9/14/05

Legal Summary 

methods and materials for the reporting and often assists communities with advice on 

bringing up recycling rates or data reporting. 

9.5.3 Enforcement Mechanisms 

In an effort to ensure local governments are actively pursuing the state’s recycling 

goals or diversion rates, some states have created legislation that acts as an 

enforcement mechanism. These enforcement mechanisms typically are associated 

with restricting the amount of funding a community receives if the goal is not met. 

This type of legislation typically allows the local government a certain period to 

increase its recycling rate or by improving existing or developing new programs such 

as a C&D recycling program. 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 9-5

Section 9 


9-6 R. W. Beck 9/14/05

Section 10 

Funding Mechanisms 

The following serves as a brief overview of programs currently available for funding 

C&D waste minimization projects. R. W. Beck focused on funding opportunities 

geared toward local governments, businesses and individuals interested in C&D waste 

minimization. 

Further detail, as well as contact information on each of the programs sited in this 

section, can be found in Table 10.1 and 10.2. 

10.1 C&D Waste Minimization Funding 

Opportunities 

Pilot programs for C&D waste minimization may require alternative funding sources 

during the project initiation period. Typically these funding sources are short-term 

grants or loans intended to assist the program on a finite basis. The information 

provided below should be used as a guide for local governments or the private sector 

during the planning stages of a C&D waste reduction program or project. 


10.1.1.1 U.S. Department of Agriculture 

Solid waste grant No. 10.762 is offered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Rural 

Utility Service. It may be used to provide technical assistance and/or training to help 

associations divert materials from landfills. This grant could be used by COGs to 

provide consulting to either public or private sector entities in the design of C&D 

processing facilities (including C&D MRFs), C&D recycling education programs, 

C&D recycling pilot programs, or other uses that promote C&D recycling. 

10.1.1.2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Solid waste grant No. 66.808 is offered by the U.S. EPA’s Office of Solid Waste. One 

purpose for the grant is to promote the use of integrated solid waste management 

systems to solve municipal solid waste management problems at the local levels and to 

assist in advancing waste minimization programs. 

The EPA also offers grants to clean up areas designated as “brownfields” across the 

country. Brownfields are abandoned or underused commercial or industrial facilities 

where redevelopment is hindered by real or perceived environmental problems. In 

2003, the EPA provided $73,100,000 in funding for this program. Such grants could 

9/14/05

Section 10 

be used to fund C&D debris clean-up and recycling in some brownfield designated 

areas. 

10.1.1.3 U.S. Department of Commerce 

The Economic Development Association, which is a part of the U.S. Department of 

Commerce, offers grants to state and local governments geared towards the 

revitalization of depressed areas of cities and towns. Such grants could help to fund 

local private investment in the recycling industry tied to C&D waste or reuse/salvage 

(e.g. the funding of a C&D MRF). 

10.1.1.4 North Central Texas Council of Governments 

The NCTCOG’s Environment & Development Services Department manages a solid 

waste grant program where local governments may apply for various solid waste 

related grants. R. W. Beck recommends that a local government wishing to expand or 

establish a C&D waste minimization program/project apply for this grant under with 

the understanding that the project must be in support of pre-existing subject categories. 

For example, if a local government applies for a grant to fund a new green building 

program in its community, R. W. Beck recommends that the green building program 

incorporate elements of the regional strategic plan for C&D waste minimization, as 

well as focus on the waste management aspects of green building. NCTCOG expects 

to have the FY2006 call for projects for State solid waste implementation funds once 

the 79th legislature authorizes the program. 

10.1.1.5 Amy Shelton McNutt Charitable Trust 

This San Antonio based charity provides grants focusing on a number of fields of 

interest within Texas, including “improving the environment.” Based on discussions 

with Foundation representatives, the foundation would consider awarding grants 

relating to increasing recycling efforts as a way of “improving the environment.” 

10.1.1.6 The Meadows Foundation 

This Dallas based charity, which awarded nearly $26,000,000 in grants in 2004, 

focuses on a wide array of fields of interest within Texas, including improving the 

environment. The charity has awarded five grants for recycling related programs since 

1996. Based on discussions with Foundation representatives, grants for C&D waste 

minimization are within the Foundation’s scope of interest. 

10.1.1.7 The Home Depot Foundation 

The Home Depot Foundation (Foundation) has four grant initiatives, one of which is 

associated with aiding the environment. Based on discussions with Foundation 

representatives, grants for C&D waste minimization projects are within the 

environmental topic area. 

10-2 R. W. Beck 9/14/05


10.1.2 State Governments 

10.1.2.1 Environmental Protection Agency 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance 

Assurance offers a grant to foster environmental enforcement and compliance 

assurance activities and to improve compliance with environmental laws. This grant 

could be applied for by the State of Texas to enforce any laws pertaining to the 

recycling of C&D materials. 

10.2 Green Building Funding Opportunities 


10.2.1.1 North Texas Clean Air Coalition 

The “TXU Clean Air Grants” is a grant program sponsored by the North Texas Clean 

Air Coalition (NTCAC). These grants were designed to focus on ways to reduce 

ozone pollution in the North Central Texas region. Grants have been awarded for a 

wide variety of projects including several environmental events, projects targeted to 

school-age children and exhibits to help educate the public about air quality concerns 

and solutions. 

The City of Frisco was awarded a grant to hold a green home fair for Frisco residents 

in 2003. The green home fair showcased energy efficient homes that incorporated 

various waste minimization strategies including the use of on-site grinding and 

alternative erosion control methods. This was one of nine grants that were awarded in 

the last year to cities and non-profit organizations in the North Central Texas region. 

10.2.1.2 The Home Depot Foundation 

The Home Depot Foundation provides grants for environmental initiatives. Since the 

Home Depot Foundation is interested building efficient and healthy homes, green 

building programs that promote this type of building are in line with the programs 

values. Grants for green building are within the Foundation’s stated scope of interest. 

10.2.1.3 StEPP Foundation 

The StEPP Foundation aims to increase the number of energy efficiency, clean energy 

and pollution prevention projects implemented across the country through the funding 

of projects performed by governmental, non-profit, and academic entities. Based on 

the latest available data thee foundation awarded over $500,000 in grants in 2003. 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 10-3

Section 10 

10.2.2 State Governments 

10.2.2.1 U.S. Department of Energy 

The DOEs State Energy Program provides grants to states from DOE’s Office of 

Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. The grants may be used to fund the 

deployment of new renewable energy and energy efficient technologies. 


The DOEs Office of Codes and Standards seeks to advance energy conservation by 

promoting the development and implementation of energy efficient codes and 

standards. Based on the latest available data from 2003, the Office provided $200,000 

to support the implementation of new state energy codes within Texas. 

10.2.3 Developers 

10.2.3.1 Green Communities Program 

The Enterprise Foundation and the Natural Resources Defense Council created the 

Green Communities Program in 2004. The initiative provides $550,000,000 over five 

years in low interest financing, grants, and technical assistance for the development of 

8,500 housing properties across the nation that conserve energy and natural resources. 

10.2.4 Individuals 

10.2.4.1 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) allows borrowers to 

finance the cost of adding energy-efficiency features to new or existing housing as part 

of their mortgage through its Energy Efficient Mortgages Program. 


The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)’s Weatherization Assistance Program provides 

funding for low-income individuals to insulate their homes to conserve energy and 

reduce energy costs. This grant may be used to install insulation, seal ducts, make 

furnace efficiency modifications, and replace inefficient air-conditioners. 

10.2.4.3 U.S. Department of Agriculture 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture made available to agricultural producers and rural 

small businesses over $22,000,000 in 2004 to fund renewable energy systems and 

energy improvements. All rural areas other than cities with populations greater than 

50,000 and their adjacent urbanized areas are eligible for these grants. 

10-4 R. W. Beck 9/14/05


10.2.4.4 State of Texas General Land Office 

State of Texas General Land Office’s Texas Veterans Land Board offers low interest 

loans to veterans involved in green building. Veterans who build new houses that 

meet certain standards for green building are provided these reduced rate home loans. 

This special incentive for green building is only available to veterans and is the only 

program of its kind offered by the State of Texas. 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 10-5

Section 10 

Table 10-1 

C&D Recycling Grant Information 

Name of Program Typical Value Website/ Contact Information Deadlines 

Available to Local Governments 

USDA Grant #10.762 $85,000 http://12.46.245.173/cfda/cfda.html 1 N/A 

U.S. EPA Grant #66.808 $76,000 http://12.46.245.173/cfda/cfda.html Varies by regional 

office 

U.S. EPA Brownfields Grant $200,000 http://www.epa.gov/brownfields/archive/gannounce_arch.htm N/A 

Economic Development Assoc N/A http://12.39.209.165/xp/EDAPublic/InvestmentsGrants/FFON.xml N/A 

NCTCOG $25,000 – $100,000 http://www.nctcog.org varies 

Amy Shelton McNutt Charity $ 50,000 - 

$100,000 

153 Treeline Park, Ste 300, 

San Antonio, TX 78209 

March and August 

of each year 

(210) 829-1800 

The Meadows Foundation $25,000 - $250,000 http://www.mfi.org/ N/A 

The Home Depot Foundation $5,000 - $25,000 http://www.homedepotfoundation.org/hfus/enus/apply.html Four deadlines 

throughout the year 

Available to State Governments 

U.S. EPA Grant N/A http://www.epa.gov/compliance/ N/A 

1 Link to Catalog of Federal Grant Search Engine; this search engine enables user to access all federal grants. These grants may also be located by using an internet search engine such as Google. 

10-6 R. W. Beck 9/14/05


Table 10-2 

C&D Recycling Grant Information 

Name of Program Typical Value Website/ Contact Information Deadlines 

Available to Local Governments 

The Home Depot Foundation $5,000 - $25,000 http://www.homedepotfoundation.org/hfus/enus/apply.html Four deadlines 

throughout the year 

StEPP Foundation $100,000 http://www.steppfoundation.org/main.htm N/A 

Available to State Governments 

U.S. DOE State Energy Program $100,000 http://www.eere.energy.gov/state_energy_program/ N/A 

U.S. DOE Energy Codes $50,000 - $250,000 http://www.energycodes.gov/whatwedo/ N/A 

Available to Developers 

Green Communities Program $15,000 - $50,000 http://www.enterprisefoundation.org/resources/green/QA/index.asp N/A 

Available to Individuals 

HUD Energy Efficiency $8,000 maximum http://www.hud.gov/offices/hsg/sfh/eem/energy-r.cfm N/A 

U.S. DOE WAP $5,000 http://www.waptac.org/sp.asp?id=1437 N/A 

DOA Renewable Energy Sys $135,000 http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rd/farmbill/9006resources.html July of each year 

General Land Office .2% lower interest rate http://www.glo.state.tx.us/vlb/vhap/gb.html N/A 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 10-7

Section 10 


10-8 R. W. Beck 9/14/05

Section 11 

Strategic Approach 

Throughout the previous sections of this report, R. W. Beck has provided specific 

information regarding C&D waste minimization strategies that can be implemented in 

the North Central Texas region. C&D waste minimization represents a relatively new 

focus for the North Central Texas region. Therefore, effectively implementing these 

strategies requires a strategic approach to implementing both the programs and the 

public awareness campaign. R. W. Beck developed a strategic approach that includes 

the following tactics, which are presented in order of when they should be 

implemented: 

• Obtain “buy-in” from local governments, recycling and construction industries 

and consumers. 

• Establish roles and responsibilities for the multiple participants. 

• Further investigate the feasibility of a C&D MRF in the North Central Texas 

region. 

• Provide necessary information to the recycling and construction industries that 

will encourage implementation of the strategies. 

• Distribute comprehensive public awareness materials to consumers who can 

directly affect the success of the program. 

• Implement applicable waste minimization programs. 

One of the keys to a successful C&D waste minimization program is to increase 

participation from key entities or individuals (stakeholders) including: 

• Regional Government; 

• Local Governments; 

• Construction and Recycling Industries; and 

• Consumers. 

Due to the multiple participants involved, it is essential to identify and clarify the roles 

and responsibilities of the stakeholders involved in implementing the C&D waste 

minimization strategies. The following section outlines the identified roles and 

responsibilities for each stakeholder. It is important for the stakeholders to understand 

that successful completion of a ‘responsibility’ may depend on assistance from another 

entity or may be an activity without a specific completion date. Therefore, R. W. 

Beck has provided a five-year action plan, provided in Table 11-2, that specifies the 

estimated time frame for the role or responsibility and the possible need for 

participation from another stakeholder. 

9/14/05

Section 11 

A public awareness campaign must be incorporated into the strategic plan that 

maximizes the opportunity to provide up-to-date information promoting the benefits of 

the program specific to each type of participant. Distributing the information to the 

multiple stakeholders is key to obtaining the results that have been seen in the case 

studies or research conducted in the previous sections. 

11.1 Regional Government - NCTCOG 

11.1.1 Become the regional coordinator of C&D waste 

minimization strategies. 

NCTCOG as the regional association of local governments should take a lead role in 

implementing the strategic approach for waste minimization programs and the public 

awareness campaign. Initiating the public awareness campaign at the regional level 

provides for the opportunity to leverage resources and to send a coordinated message. 

As regional coordinator, NCTCOG would be directly involved in the coordination of 

the multiple aspects of implementing the C&D waste minimization strategies. 

Coordination activities will include but not be limited to the following: 

• Establish waste minimization subcommittee. 

• Develop public awareness campaign. 

• Sponsor or host technical workshops. 

• Facilitate outreach and technical assistance activities. 

• Provide grant funding. 

These coordination activities are discussed in more detail in the following subsections. 

The active participation of NCTCOG in the waste minimization strategies should 

encourage local governments to become involved and take a greater role in 

implementing the programs that could be established at the local government level. 

11.1.2 Establish subcommittee for coordination of waste 

minimization programs and public awareness 

campaign. 

NCTCOG has been successful in implementation of other programs through the 

establishment of subcommittees. Establishment of a waste minimization 

subcommittee is a critical component to reaching out and involving the local 

governments and recycling and construction industries. Subcommittees can provide 

the opportunity to accomplish the following objectives: 

• Provide technical support and coordination for the implementation of waste 


• Establish a network of contacts for the exchange of information. 

11-2 R. W. Beck 9/14/05


• Identify future research that can be conducted through NCTCOG. 

• Conduct a thorough analysis of the C&D recycling market for the possible 

implementation of a C&D MRF. 

• Ensure consistency in the public awareness message that is being distributed to 

the stakeholders. 

NCTCOG would provide the facility space and a staff person to facilitate the 

subcommittee. NCTCOG staff can also schedule speakers to conduct “brown bag” 

luncheons for the subcommittee. Dedicating a portion of a NCTCOG staff’s time to 

waste minimization efforts helps to ensure that interested local governments and 

industry participants will have a contact for up-to-date information. 

The subcommittee that is currently in place for this study could continue to serves as 

the subcommittee for the implementation of waste minimization strategies. This 

subcommittee would need to meet regularly (e.g. quarterly) to maintain the focus on 

these strategies. 

11.1.3 Further Investigate the Feasibility of a C&D MRF in the 

North Central Texas region. 

Section 3, “C&D Material Recovery Facility (MRF) Case Study,” examined the 

concept of operating a C&D MRF in the North Central Texas region. On a 

preliminary basis, this research indicated that a C&D MRF could be feasible in this 

region. However, there is still a need to conduct more detailed analyses. This analysis 

should focus on evaluating the feasibility of a C&D MRF in a specific area of North 

Central Texas that generates a significant quantity of C&D debris. One potential area 

for this analysis would be the North Texas Municipal Water District and its member 

communities — based on their projected high growth rates, operation of a subregional 

landfill and interest in developing C&D waste minimization strategies. This feasibility 

analysis would ideally evaluate the following: 

• Current and projected amount and composition C&D debris generated 

• Market analysis concerning potential sales prices for processed commodities 

• Site visits to three other C&D MRFs in the U. S. to further evaluate facility needs 

(e.g. equipment, labor, buildings, etc.) 

• Potential locations for the C&D MRF (e.g. current landfill or transfer station; 

closed landfill) 

• Planning level cost analysis (based on research included in Section 3 of this report 

plus results from the waste composition analysis, market analysis, site visits to 

other MRFs and potential facility location) 

• Description of the conceptual facility 

• Planning level impact of C&D debris diversion on landfill operations, finances, 

and remaining landfill capacity 

• Development of budget and schedule to plan, design, and build a C&D MRF 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 11-3

Section 11 

This type of analysis should be developed to provide other private and public sector 

entities in North Central Texas that have an interest in a C&D MRF with an 

understanding of the process they would need to initiate to also develop a facility. 

11.1.4 Provide outreach and technical assistance activities 

for local governments. 

In order to maintain interest in waste minimization strategies, NCTCOG should 

establish outreach activities focused on providing opportunities for local governments 

to continue to explore waste minimization programs. NCTCOG can sponsor 

workshops and seminars on topics that interest local governments. Examples of these 

workshop topics include: 

• How to establish a green building or LEED program. 

• Development of public sector initiatives (e.g. contractor education program, fast 

track permitting, ordinance establishing a green building or LEED rating 

program). 

• Establishment of a regional C&D MRF. 

• Review of funding mechanism for implement of waste minimization programs. 

NCTCOG can use these workshops to gauge the interest of the local governments. To 

the extent that local governments are interested in establishing a local program, the 

NCTCOG should be a technical assistance resource. R. W. Beck would emphasize 

that the expectation is not for NCTCOG staff to be experts in all areas of waste 

minimization programs. However, it should be the role of NCTCOG to direct the 

stakeholders to the appropriate resource provider. 

11.1.5 Develop a regional public awareness campaign. 

Due to NCTCOG’s involvement in other regional solid waste management programs, 

NCTCOG can use current resources and staff to design public awareness materials 

that can be provided to the local governments for distribution. Examples from 

national associations and other state agencies that focus on C&D waste minimization 

can help provide NCTCOG with examples for use in developing these marketing 

materials. Table 11-1 provides a list of websites that serve as examples of public 

awareness campaigns. In Appendix F, R. W. Beck has provided examples of logos 

and slogans used in other C&D waste minimization campaigns. 

11-4 R. W. Beck 9/14/05


Table 11-1 

Public Awareness Campaign Examples 

Organization 

City of Austin, TX 

Metropolitan Partnership for 

Energy and Greater San Antonio 

Builders Association 

City of Seattle, Washington 

Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection 

Oregon Department of 

Environmental Quality 

Website 

www.ci.austin.tx.us/greenbuilder 

www.buildsagreen.org 

www.cityofseattle.net/dpd/sustainability 

www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/recycling/pages/canddmain.htm 

www.deq.state.or.us/wmc/solwaste/rsw.htm 

Similar to other public awareness campaigns currently being conducted (e.g. illegal 

dumping), NCTCOG should develop a regional public awareness campaign that 

includes the following: 

• A focused message through the use of slogans and emblems. 

• Development of information and tools that can be used by the local governments 

and Builders’ Associations including pamphlets, brochures, camera-ready 

artwork, and signs. 

• Distribution of regional information directly to the consumers through the use of 

the NCTCOG website, media kits, and press releases. 

In addition, the North Central Texas region can develop an awards program or design 

competition similar to the City of Seattle’s design competition that includes 

workshops and is geared toward increasing participation from the residential 

construction industry. 

NCTCOG also has the ability to readily distribute information to its subcommittee 

members either who are key individuals in the solid waste industry or who have direct 

connections to solid waste industry members. This distribution method can be used 

initially to gauge interest in the implementation of these strategies in the North Central 

Texas region. Once the initial information is distributed to key individuals in the local 

governments and the recycling and construction industries, R. W. Beck recommends 

that the long-term distribution of information be established by the subcommittee, as 

discussed in the previous subsection. 

11.1.6 Provide grant assistance to local governments for 

development of waste minimization programs. 

As discussed in Section 10 Funding Mechanisms, NCTCOG provides a Solid Waste 

Grant program to local governments who may apply for solid waste related grants. 

One of the impediments to implementing a successful C&D waste minimization 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 11-5

Section 11 

program can be finding the funding to develop a program that has start-up costs but 

has a limited revenue source. In addition, some local government waste minimization 

programs may not have a revenue stream because the local government’s role in the 

program is purely administrative. For example, a local government may decide to 

adopt an ordinance requiring certain buildings that are to be demolished or constructed 

receive a LEED rating. City staff will need to spend time developing materials and 

enforcing the ordinance. The City may not realize any financial compensation for the 

administration of this program. However, a successful program will benefit the city 

by decreasing the amount of C&D waste hauled to the landfill and increasing the reuse 

of materials. The NCTCOG grants program as well as the other grant programs 

mentioned in Section 10 should be utilized in circumstances in which the costs may 

prohibit the public sector from becoming involved even if there are substantial 

community benefits. 

11.1.7 Develop a website that promotes C&D waste 

minimization efforts in the North Central Texas region. 

Once the public awareness campaign has begun and stakeholders are aware of the 

C&D recycling goals of the region, then NCTCOG should develop and host a website 

that shares resources between all stakeholders. It is necessary for the success of waste 

minimization programs to develop a website that can be easily accessed by all 

stakeholders. The information contained on the website can include, but may not be 

limited to: 

• Specific information about current C&D waste minimization programs. 

• Listing of companies providing C&D waste minimization services. 

• Links to other information resources. 

11.1.8 Develop and implement regional green building 

program. 

As mentioned in Section 2 Green Building Case Study, the NCTCOG can also become 

involved in the actual implementation of a green building program. Based on the 

green building program research conducted, a regional or sub-regional green building 

program could be successful in the North Central Texas region. NCTCOG could take 

the lead in establishing a regional green building program which would provide 

economies of scale to more efficiently fund public awareness and technical assistance 

needs. In order to encourage the construction industry to become involved in green 

building, it is important to establish regional consistency of procedures or rules for 

green building programs. 

11-6 R. W. Beck 9/14/05


11.2 Local Governments 

11.2.1 Participate in NCTCOG waste minimization 

subcommittee, if established. 

Local governments who have an interest in implementing waste minimization 

programs in their community should designate a representative to attend or participate 

in the NCTCOG waste minimization subcommittee, if established. Participating in the 

subcommittee will provide networking opportunities with other industry professionals 

in the North Central Texas region who are also working to implement these new 

strategies into their solid waste management operation. Encouraging representation 

from the various stakeholders throughout the region helps to ensure consistency 

throughout the region. 

11.2.2 Develop methods for increasing participation from the 

recycling and construction industries. 

As previously discussed, NCTCOG should be the regional coordinator for the 

implementation of the waste minimization strategies. However, local governments 

will play a key role in working with NCTCOG to increase participation from the 

recycling and construction industries. Section 8 Public Sector Initiatives provides 

detailed information on numerous initiatives that local governments can evaluate for 

implementation in their community. It is important that local government officials to 

take the time to consider which public sector initiatives are feasible for their 

community. These public sector initiatives may include: 

• Adopting an ordinance to establish a green building and or LEED rating program. 

• Providing a contractor education program that focuses on illustrating the value of 

C&D recycling to contractors. 

• Providing fast track permitting to those builders who are participating in a waste 

minimization program. 

• Encouraging the use of waste management plans that emphasize C&D waste 

minimization for projects that require city building permits. 

• Developing or supporting the development of a C&D reuse facility (i.e. Habitat 

for Humanity resale). 

• Development of a C&D MRF. 

11.2.3 Work with NCTCOG in developing and distributing 

public awareness materials focused on the recycling 

and construction industries. 

After the local government has determined the waste minimization programs that they 

will begin implementing, the local government should work with NCTCOG to 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 11-7

Section 11 

distribute relevant public awareness materials. The regional public awareness 

materials developed by the NCTCOG may be adequate depending on the program. 

However, it may be necessary for the local government to develop additional public 

awareness materials containing specific information on local waste minimization 

programs. 

The construction industry already works directly with the city in obtaining building 

permits. Public awareness materials can be distributed during this time. In addition, 

the local government can use the following resources to distribute information to 

industry professionals: 

• Partnering with Builders’ Associations; 

• Internet site; 

• Promotional videos; and 

• Telephone calls to answer questions from builders and recycling companies. 

11.2.4 Work with NCTCOG in developing and distributing 

public awareness materials focused on the consumers. 

Once the recycling and construction industries have become involved in the waste 

minimization programs, the NCTCOG and local governments can begin to inform 

consumers about the new programs. The local governments can assist NCTCOG in 

the distribution of information to their citizens through the following resources: 

• Pamphlets in utility bills; 

• Internet site with a list of certified green builders; 

• Articles for local newspapers; 

• Public service announcements and advertisements via television and radio; 

• Public speaking at community events; and 

• Telephone calls to answer questions from consumers. 

Another method that has been used in other regions to promote green building 

programs is to host or participate in a parade of (green building) homes. 

11.3 Recycling and Construction Industries 

11.3.1 Participate in NCTCOG waste minimization 


Similar to local governments, recycling and construction industry professionals who 

have an interest in implementing or providing waste minimization programs and 

services should designate a representative to attend or participate in the NCTCOG 

waste minimization subcommittee, if established. Participating in the subcommittee 

will provide networking opportunities with other industry professionals in the North 

11-8 R. W. Beck 9/14/05


Central Texas region who are also working to implement these new strategies into 

their solid waste management operation. Encouraging representation from the various 

stakeholders throughout the region helps to ensure consistency throughout the region. 

11.3.2 Utilize Builders’ Associations as primary resource for 


Builders’ Associations (BA’s) should become an integral part in the implementation of 

waste minimization programs that require the involvement of the recycling and 

construction industries. BA’s can utilize the following methods to assist in 

encouraging members to support waste minimization programs: 

• Host training and technical seminars for members that focus on specific topics. 

• Provide one-on-one technical assistance to members. 

• Include waste minimization articles in industry publications. 

• Work with local government to proactively attract green building conferences to 

the region. 

• Identify large production home builders to use as a resource to encourage other 

large production home builders to utilize waste minimization strategies such as 

on-site grinding. 

• Develop builder certificates, yard signs and camera ready art work for use in 

displaying on green or LEED certified buildings. 

BA’s can coordinate these events with the assistance of NCTCOG and/or local 

governments. 

11.3.3 Construction industry needs to recognize the value of 

and begin the implementation of waste minimization 

strategies. 

In order to implement waste minimization strategies, builders will need to “buy into” 

the concept that these strategies will benefit them. Conducting the activities described 

in the previous subsections will assist in helping promote the benefits of waste 

minimization to builders. It is the responsibility of the construction industry to take 

the time to participate in the technical sessions provided and to read the distributed 

public awareness materials. It is imperative that the construction industry understand 

that their participation in waste minimization efforts will drive the success of the 

programs. 

11.3.4 Recycling industry must be proactive in marketing 

services. 

A majority of the C&D recycling companies in the North Central Texas region are 

smaller companies. Therefore, it would be beneficial for companies in the recycling 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 11-9

Section 11 

industry to collaborate in marketing their C&D waste minimization services. Working 

with NCTCOG to establish a website that allows for the exchange of information can 

benefit both the recycling companies as well as the waste minimization programs. 

11.3.5 Incorporate the benefits of waste minimization 

strategies in marketing campaigns. 

The final tactic in the strategic approach is for the recycling and construction 

industries to incorporate waste minimization information into their current marketing 

campaigns. By incorporating this information, the construction and recycling 

industries will be able to assist NCTCOG and local governments in providing public 

awareness information directly to the consumers. 

11-10 R. W. Beck 9/14/05


Table 11-2 

Five-year Action Plan – Strategic Approach 

Recommendation 

Leader and 

Involved 

Stakeholder 

FY 

2005 - 06 

FY 

2006 - 07 

FY 

2007 - 08 

FY 

2008 - 09 

FY 

2009 - 10 

North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) 

11.1.1 

11.1.2 

11.1.3 

Become the regional coordinator of C&D waste 


Establish subcommittee for coordination of waste 

minimization programs and public awareness campaign. 

Further investigate the C&D waste stream in the North 

Central Texas region 

NCTCOG 

NCTCOG 

• Local 

Governments 

• Recycling and 

Construction 

Industries 

NCTCOG 

11.1.4 

Provide outreach and technical assistance activities for 

local governments. 

11.1.5 Develop a regional public awareness campaign. 

11.1.6 

Provide grant assistance to local governments for 

development of waste minimization programs. 

NCTCOG 

• Local 

Governments 

NCTCOG 

• Local 

Governments 



Industry 

NCTCOG 

• Local 

Governments 

x 

x 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 11-11

Section 11 

11.1.7 

11.1.8 

Develop a website to promotes C&D waste 

minimization efforts in the North Central Texas region. 

Develop and implement regional green building 

program. 

NCTCOG 

• Local 

Governments 



Industries 

NCTCOG 

• Local 

Governments 



Industries 

Local Governments 

11.2.1 

11.2.2 

11.2.3 

11.2.4 

Participate in NCTCOG waste minimization 


Develop methods for increasing participation from the 

recycling and construction industries. 

Work with NCTCOG in developing and distributing 

public awareness materials focused on the recycling and 

construction industries. 

Work with NCTCOG in developing and distributing 

public awareness materials focused on the consumers. 

NCTCOG 

• Local 

Governments 



Industries 

NCTCOG 

• Local 

Governments 

NCTCOG 

• Local 

Governments 

NCTCOG 

• Local 

Governments 

11-12 R. W. Beck 9/12/05

DRAFT 


Recycling and Construction Industries 

11.3.1 

11.3.2 

11.3.3 

11.3.4 

11.3.5 

Participate in NCTCOG waste minimization 


Utilize Builders’ Associations as primary resource for 


Construction industry needs to recognize the value and 

begin the process of implementing waste minimization 

strategies. 

Recycling industry must be proactive in marketing 

services. 

Incorporate the benefits of waste minimization 

strategies in marketing campaigns. 

NCTCOG 

• Local 

Governments 



Industries 

Recycling and 


Industries 


Industry 

Recycling 

Industry 

Recycling and 


Industries 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck 11-13

Section 11 


11-14 R. W. Beck 9/14/05

Appendix A 

Local Government Assistance Documents 

Green Building Program Single Family Residential Rating – City of Austin 

Green Building Ordinance – City of Frisco 

LEED/Green Building Resolution – City of Dallas 

Model Construction and Demolition Diversion Ordinance – California Integrated 

Waste Management Board 

9/13/05

Appendix B 

C&D Materials Summary 

Appendix B provides an overview of the types of C&D materials that may be recycled, reused or reduced and a materials matrix that a 

briefly describes some of the materials. Further detail on the costs and benefits of recycling specific materials are detailed in Sections 

2 through 6 of the Study. In the table below, the target column refers to the type of construction where the material is found in enough 

volume or quantity for waste minimization strategies to potentially cost-effective. The following abbreviations have been used for this 

analysis: 

Construction Audience 

NC = New Construction Comm = Commercial 

R = Renovation Res = Residential 

D = Demolition/Deconstruction All = All Types of Construction. 

All = All methods 

Appendix A-1 

C&D Materials Matrix 

Material 

Brick/Mortar 

Carpet 

Most Common Uses / Special Requirements 

In small quantities, brick and mortar can be reduced by a grinder and used 

on-site as a soil amendment or backfill. Larger quantities of brick can be 

taken to a concrete crushing facility. 

Varies by type and maker of carpet, such as vinyl-backed carpet, BASF or 

DuPont carpet may offer a “take-back” for the lifetime of the material. 

Dallas area Habitat for Humanity will also take in new carpet remnants, 

that may be resold to others. 

Target 

Construction Audience 

Incentive to User 

All All Brick and mortar is very 

dense and expensive to 

dispose if disposed by the 

ton, may be more costefficient 

to crush. 

All All Pick-up or self-haul options 

are typically available based 

on amount of material and 

type of material as well as 

availability in the NCT region. 

Websites / Reports 

www.ciwmb.ca.gov 

www.habitatforhumanity.com 

Sarasota County: 2000 

Carpet Recycling Report 1 

King County, WA – Special 

Recycling Opportunities 

Report 2 

R. W. Beck 9/14/05

Appendix B 

Ceiling Tiles 

Armstrong requires that tiles to be picked up for recycling must be clean 

and dry and stacked in 4’ x 4’ shipping pallets. Armstrong will pick up this 

material at no cost provided there is enough recyclable to fill up one of its 

trucks (about 30,000 sq ft worth of ceiling tiles). In cases in which there 

are not enough recyclables to fill up a truck, the supplier of the tiles would 

bear the cost of delivering them to an Armstrong facility. 

Copper wire along with other metals is often more easily recycled since 

this material is in demand. The recycling/reuse of this material is most 

likely already being done by the contractors. Copper is often stolen from 

construction sites. 

Concrete is recycled primarily for use as aggregate for road construction 

projects, for use as erosion control, and reuse in concrete production. 

Must meet standards for location of concrete crushing and material 

composition standards. 

R, D Comm No costs associated with 

transportation or disposal of 

materials if over 30,000 sq ft. 

www.armstrong.com 



Report 2 

Copper Wire 

D Comm The general contractor could 

gain revenue by selling the 

rights to the copper in a 

building 


Concrete 

All Comm Concrete is very dense and 

expensive to dispose if 

disposed by the ton, may be 

more cost-efficient to crush. 

TxDOT Report: “The Year of 

Recycled Roadway 

Material” 3 

TCEQ Standard Air Permit 

Reports 4 

Drywall 

New drywall that is free of contaminates can be reduced by grinding and 

used on-site as a soil amendment. In cases where significant amounts of 

drywall exists (i.e. more than a residential new construction site), drywall 

can be used for agricultural purposes, in concrete, or to make new drywall. 

Based on conversations with TCEQ, the use of non-contaminated drywall 

in small amounts, like the amount you would find at a residential new 

construction site, is acceptable to be used as a soil amendment. 

NC, R All Cost avoidance strategy for 

backfill. May wish to explore 

other end markets for drywall 

such as agriculture if large 

amount of drywall is 

available. 

Florida DEP: Report on the 

Development of Drywall 

Processing 5 

UGA – On-site Beneficial 

Use of Scrap Wallboard in 

Georgia Residential 

Construction 6 

Lamps/Glass 

Tubes 

Fluorescent lamps have aluminum caps, glass, brass and mercury that 

can be recycled. Recycled glass used in the manufacture of fiber glass 

insulation now constitutes the second highest volume of post-consumer 

glass. 

R,D All Depending on the quantity of 

lamps and tubes, may be 

required to handle as HHW. 

NRCAN.org – Fluorescent 

Tube Recycling (article) 7 

Old Corrugated 

Cardboard 

C&D cardboard is typically collected commingled with debris on-site and 

separated at MRF’s, transfer stations or landfills. The cardboard is then 

either baled directly on at the transfer station or landfill or sold to a third 

party facility for processing and sale. Cardboard may be reused in 

cardboard or paperboard (ie cereal boxes) products. A small percentage 

of recycled cardboard is used for composting and roofing felt for new 

construction. 

NC,R All Typically bulky and lightweight 

may fill a disposal 

container, recycling OCC 

would be a way for a 

contractor to reduce the 

number of pick-ups (i.e. 

reduce costs) 

Various C&D MRF Studies 

and C&D recycling articles 

B-2 R. W. Beck 9/14/05

C&D Materials Summary 

Other Metals 

Roofing 

Structural 

Wood 

Untreated 

Wood 

Metals, such as steel, copper, tin, aluminum, and lead, are marketed to 

mills and smelting operations. Metals make up only 2% of the C&D waste 

stream tonnage, the recycling markets for these products are well 

established nationwide and within North Texas. Market prices of recyclable 

metals in general fluctuate significantly due to changes in demand. The 

recycling/reuse of this material is most likely already being done by the 

contractors. 

Roofing materials (i.e. asphalt) is commonly recovered into new hot-mix 

asphalt, a material used for surfacing roadways. Few other options for the 

reuse of asphalt are currently available. The use of asphalt as fill is 

prohibited, despite the fact that research has indicated that recovered 

asphalt used as fill does not leach potentially toxic materials into the 

environment any more than would be expected in using crushed cement 

as fill. Built-up roofing should be tested for asbestos content. 

Framing, plywood sub-floor, studs, and decking can be reduced by 

grinding and applied as a backfill or used as a mulch berm. One of the 

most abundant materials at residential construction sites. Structural wood 

can also be taken to a reuse facility or picked up by a reuse facility staff. 

Land clearing debris can be reduced by grinding and applied as a soil 

amendment or used as a mulch berm. One of the most abundant 

materials at residential construction sites. 

D Comm The general contractor could 

gain revenue by selling the 

rights to the metals in a 

building 

R, D All Typically, there is a large 

quantity of roofing wastes 

during construction activities. 

May be cost-effective to avoid 

disposal fees through 

recycling. 

All Res Cost avoidance strategy for 

backfill or silt fencing. 

All All Cost avoidance strategy for 

backfill or silt fencing. 




Report 2 

Triangle J COG: Regional 

Wood Waste Stream 

Analysis 8 

Triangle J COG: Regional 

Wood Waste Stream 

Analysis 8 

Notes: 

1 Sarasota County - http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/quick_topics/publications/shw/recycling/InnovativeGrants/IGyear1/finalreports/sarasota.pdf 

2 King County - http://www.pprc.org/pubs/greencon/demo.cfm 

8 Triangle J COG - http://www.tjcog.dst.nc.us/ 

3 TxDOT - http://www.dot.state.tx.us/GSD/recycle/default.htm 

4 TCEQ - http://www.tnrcc.state.tx.us/permitting/airperm/nsr_permits/files/amendtrc.pdf 

5 FDEP – http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/quick_topics/publications/shw/recycling/InnovativeGrants/IGyear2/reports/drywall2.pdf 

6 University of Georgia - http://pubs.caes.uga.edu/caespubs/pubs/PDF/C857.pdf 

7 NRCAN.org - http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/mms/canmet-mtb/mmsl-lmsm/rnet/consarte.htm 

9/14/05 R. W. Beck B-3

A Total Waste from Phase I 2,302.59 tons 

Appendix C 

Hensley Site Phase I Material Diversion Analysis 

B Determine Recoverable Materials 

Material / Item Amount Diverted from Landfill Amount Sent to Landfill 

(by refuse, salvage or recycle) 

1 Land Clearing Debris - lbs 

2 Fencing 250.00 lbs 

3 Asphaltic concrete - lbs 

4 Rigid foam Insulation lbs 1,350.00 

5 Asphalt Shingles lbs - 

6 Paint lbs - 

7 Window glass lbs 300.00 

8 Salvaged Equip. & Access. 414.00 lbs 

9 Lead 9,000.00 lbs 

10 HDPE (High density Polyethylene) 

- lbs 

11 Cardboard, Paper & Packaging - lbs 

12 Carpet & Pad - lbs 575.00 

13 Acoustical ceiling tile 17,950.00 lbs 

14 Acoustical Ceiling grid 6,310.00 lbs 

15 Acoustical Ceiling Insulaiton lbs 3,500.00 

16 HVAC Ductwork 47,060.00 lbs 

17 HVAC Insulation lbs 18,760.00 

18 HVAC Flexible Duct lbs 4,700.00 

19 HVAC Diffusers & Grilles - lbs 

20 HVAC Fiberglass Plennums lbs 2,250.00 

21 HVAC Pipe & Valves 30,900.00 lbs 

22 HVAC Pipe Insulation lbs 28,380.00 

23 HVAC Equipment 22,530.00 lbs 

24 Electrical Conduit & Connectors 

33,915.00 lbs 

25 Electrical Wiring 14,724.00 lbs 

26 Electrical Panels & Switches 10,200.00 lbs 930.00 

27 Electrical Transformers 930.00 lbs 

28 Electrical Ballasts 1,006.00 lbs 

29 Electrical Light Tubes 675.00 lbs 

30 Electrical Plugs & Siwtches - lbs 3,180.00 

31 Electrical Fittings 3,940.00 lbs 

32 Plumbing Fixtures 1,250.00 lbs 

33 Plumbing China Fixtures lbs 2,000.00 

34 Plumbing Pipe Cast Iron - lbs 

35 Plumbing Pipe Copper 7,276.00 lbs 

36 Plumbing Pipe Insulation lbs 16,000.00 

37 Structural Steel 17,560.00 lbs 

38 Decking 9,650.00 lbs 

39 Mezzanine Concrete 22,000.00 lbs

40 Concrete 2,904,040.00 lbs 

41 CMU Block 1,238,900.00 lbs 

42 Laminated Plywood lbs 10,820.00 

43 Gypsum Board lbs 66,445.00 

44 Wood Studs & Plywood 22,380.00 lbs 

45 Metal Studs 7,080.00 lbs 

46 Hollow Metal Materials 10,475.00 lbs 

47 OH Doors 5,570.00 lbs 

48 4,445,985.00 - 159,190.00 

Total amount of Diverted 

Materials 

2222.99 tons 

Total Amount of Nonrecoverable 

Materials 

79.60 tons 

Estimated Additional Hours to 

Source-Separate 

Labor Rate for Material Handler 

768 mnhrs 

10.80 $/mnhr 

Total material Handling Costs $ 

8,294.40 

Percentage diverted To Date 97%

A Total Waste 2,450.90 tons 

Appendix D 

Hensley Site Phase II Material Diversion Analysis 

B 

Determine Recoverable Materials 

PHASE II 

1 Sheetrock 3,420.00 lbs 

2 Metal Studs & Track lbs 

3 Wood Framing & pallets 14,540.00 lbs 

4 Cardboard lbs 

5 Polyethylene lbs 

6 Short Steel 4,780.00 lbs 

7 Concrete - lbs 

9 Masonry lbs 

10 Roofing lbs - 

11 Iron Pipe 13,620.00 lbs 

12 Cardboard 1,520.00 lbs 

13 Tin 5,720.00 lbs - 

14 Misc. construction waste lbs 64,220.00 

15 Asphalt 188,500.00 lbs 

16 Misc. copper 308.00 lbs 

Total amount of Diverted 

Materials 116.20 tons 

Total Amount of Nonrecoverable 

Materials 

32.11 tons

Green Building Program Logos 

City of Austin, TX Green Building 

Program 

HBA of Central New Mexico 

BA of Metropolitan Denver 

City of Scottsdale, AZ Green Building 

Program 

City of Frisco, TX Green Building 

Program

C&D Waste Minimization Program Logos 

Artistic Waste, Central Recycling 

and Corell Recycling Construction 

and Demolition Program 

RESÍDUO DE CONSTRUÇÃO E 

DEMOLIÇÃO 

City of Greenwood, South Carolina 

Building Department C&D Disposal

C&D Waste Minimization Reference Materials 

South Carolina's C&D 

Debris Guidebook 

The Austin Chronicle's Green 

Building issue of April 27, 

1994 

NAHB Deconstruction 

Brochure

Construction and Demolition Waste Minimization - Nctcog

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?