Residential Construction Waste Management Demonstration and ...

RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION WASTE MANAGEMENT
DEMONSTRATION AND EVALUATION
Assistance Agreement Number: CX 822813-1-0
TASK 1 REPORT
Prepared for
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Solid Waste
401 M Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20460
by
NAHB Research Center
400 Prince George's Boulevard
Upper Marlboro, MD 20772-8731
May 2, 1995

Notice
The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturer’s
names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report.
The contents of this report are the views of the contractor and do not necessarily reflect the views
or the policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

Acknowledgments
This report was prepared by the NAHB Research Center with funding provided by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. The principal authors were Peter Yost and Eric Lund, with
review by Mark Nowak and Carol Soble and administrative/clerical support from Janice Duncan.
Special thanks to the EPA Office of Solid Waste for its support throughout this project.
The following individuals and organizations made special contributions to this project. The
success of the project is in large part due to their efforts and cooperation.
Portland, Oregon: Jim Goddard of Metro Regional Services, the HBA of Metropolitan Portland,
Debbi Allen of River City Resource Group, Greg Acker of Eco+Tech Construction and Design,
and Mark MacGregor of Clean it up, Mark!.
Grand Rapids, Michigan: Judy Barnes and Linda Byers of the Greater Grand Rapids HBA, Donna
Engstrom, Doug Wood, and Al Ream of Kent County Department of Public Works, and Bill
Meconis of SkyHawk Builders.
Prince George’s County, Maryland: Barbara Yuhas of Prince George’s County Office of
Recycling, Theresa Brinker of TABCO Builders, Joel Wallenstrom of Winchester Homes, Bill
White of USG, and Larry Cartano and Jesse Starcher of the Pleasant Companies.

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
EXECUTIVESUMMARY
iii
v
OVERVIEW 1
BACKGROUND PAPER 3
CONSTRUCTION WASTE MANAGEMENT WORKSHOPS 7
Site Selection 7
Prince George’s County. Maryland
10
Kent County. Michigan 11
Portland. Oregon 11
Workshop Results 12
Waste Reduction Sessions 12
Recycling and Reuse Sessions 13
CHARACTERIZATION OF CONSTRUCTION WASTE 17
I
STRATEGIES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF RECYCLED CONTENT
BUILDING MATERIALS AND PACKAGING WASTE REDUCTION 21
Development of Recycled-Content Building Materials
21
Packaging Waste Reduction 23
Initial Project Results of Manufacturer Contacts 25
DISSEMINATION ACTIVITIES 27
CONCLUSIONS 29
PROPOSED TASK 2 ACTIVITIES 31
APPENDIX A-WORKSHOP SUMMARY A-1
i

APPENDIX B-WASTE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY B-1
APPENDIX C-WASTE ASSESSMENTS C-1
APPENDIX D-PACKAGING WASTE REDUCTION LETTER D-1
APPENDIX E-RECYCLED CONTENT QUESTIONNAIRE AND REPORT E-1
APPENDIX F-"CONSTRUCTION WASTE: FROM
DISPOSAL TO MANAGEMENT" F-1
APPENDIX G-LETTER TO NATIONAL NAHB REPS ANNOUNCING
TASK 1 ACTIVITIES G-1

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Tables
Table 1 Site Selection Summary 9
Table 2 Construction Waste: Total Costs 19
Table F-1 "Typical" Construction Waste Estimated for a 2,000 Square Foot Home F-2
Figures
Figure 1 Waste Characterization by Weight--Bowie. Maryland 17
Figure 2 Waste Characterization by Volume--Bowie. Maryland 17
Figure 3 Translation of Construction Waste Costs 19

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This document summarizes the first-year activities of an EPA/NAHB Research Center effort to
explore alternative construction waste management strategies for new residential construction.
The primary objective of these activities was to identify barriers and opportunities related to
voluntary, cost-effective residential construction waste management. To achieve this objective
the NAHB Research Center developed a background paper summarizing the regulatory and policy
environment governing construction waste at the federal and local levels; conducted detailed
characterizations of the waste materials generated during typical residential construction in three
regions of the United States; held workshops for exploring and formulating waste reduction,
reuse, and recycling methods in the same three regions; and developed strategies for
manufacturers to consider in the development of recycled-contenthesource-efficient building
materials.
Conclusion from the background paper include the following:
Most of the legislation, rules, and regulations specifically addressing construction and
demolition (C&D) waste are promulgated at the state level. The result is wide variation
in not only the definition of construction waste but also in the design and siting
requirements for landfills accepting construction waste and the penalties for the illegal
disposal of construction waste. Differences in terms, treatment, landfill design
requirements, and penalties are important because of their impact on the disposal costs
ultimately faced by builders.
Diminishing landfill capacity and stricter design and operation requirements for C&D
landfills have resulted in sharply increased waste disposal costs for many builders. The
national average tipping fee for construction waste disposal has increased from a reported
$4.90 per ton in 1976 to $32.00 per ton in 1992. Tipping fees in certain areas of the
United States exceed $100 per ton. Recent dramatic hikes in both construction material
and disposal costs have increased the likelihood that builders will be interested in
improving construction waste management.
The Research Center conducted baseline construction waste assessments in Bowie, Maryland;
Grand Rapids, Michigan; and Portland, Oregon. Appendix C contains detailed results from each
assessment. Despite significant differences in construction and builders’ production volume, the
results from all three sites were similar enough to extract some general conclusions as follows:
The construction of these homes yielded over four tons of debris; many of the materials
have the potential for recovery or recycling.
Wood, drywall, and corrugated cardboard--whether measured by mass or volume--
comprised 70 to 80 percent of the total waste generated.

Drywall waste was generated at rates similar to the industry rule of thumb of one pound
of waste per square foot of living space.
Engineered wood products (containing adhesives) can account for as much as 50 percent
of total wood waste, an important consideration in exploring recycling opportunities for
wood.
Builders can improve their operations through a better understanding of their total waste
management costs. The most significant portion of total disposal costs frequently is not
tipping fees but rather the costs associated with the handling, containment, and transport
of waste materials. Although the focus on waste management costs is often the tipping
or per-ton disposal fee, handling, containment, and transport costs frequently are as
significant.
In addition to the waste assessments, the Research Center conducted workshops at each of the
selected sites. The workshops consisted of a session on waste reduction measures conducted for
the building industry and a session on reuse and recycling measures conducted for representatives
of local and state governments, the building and building materials industries, and private sector
waste haulers. Some key points from the workshop sessions include the following:
Builders were skeptical that the changes in construction and planning/design methods
presented at the sessions would result in significant waste reduction. A notable
exception was the use of supply-and-install subcontracts that create a direct financial
relationship between subcontractors and the efficiency with which they use materials.
Many builders felt that significant waste reduction could be achieved only through a
comprehensive reeducation process involving architects, engineers, builders, and
inspectors.
The sessions on recycling and reuse provided an important forum for exchange among
parties (builders, waste management firms, solid waste officials, and product
manufacturers) that seldom have this opportunity. All of these players may be required
in the development of local markets and channels of distribution. This forum can be a
key element for other communities seeking to develop alternatives to the disposal of
construction waste.
Recycled wood, given its significant processing costs and the absence of market
structures, cannot compete with sources of virgin wood fiber in the production of
building materials. The Research Center plans to work with the American Plywood
Association (APA) to determine the nature and need for research on the suitability of
engineered wood products for topical application either on the job site or in
mulching/landscaping operations.
Recycling drywall into new wallboard is feasible only in areas of the country close to
wallboard manufacturing plants that already have or can easily add the technology
required to handle waste wallboard processing. Through funding from the Gypsum
Association, the USDA Agricultural Research Service is currently determining the

acceptability of waste gypsum wallboard for certain agricultural and topsoil uses.
Depending on the results of this investigation, use of waste gypsum wallboard as a soil
amendment may gain formal acceptance as an alternative to disposal.
Increasing market value is changing cardboard from a waste product to a good. With
a current market value in excess of $100/ton (baled), and strong interest among waste
hauling firms, cardboard is a likely candidate for cost-effective recovery.
Commingled recovery processes in which manual and/or mechanical separation and
recovery of the materials occurs off the construction site, appears attractive to builders.
Commingled recovery processes do not change jobsite waste management practices,
although they do involve substantial investment in plant and equipment by the processor.
If jobsite service by the waste hauler can be coordinated with the construction cycle,
waste materials can be passively separated over time for recovery. Passive time
separation of materials takes advantage of the fact that certain construction materials--
wood, drywall, cardboard (to some extent), and siding materials--are generated during
specific and discrete stages of construction.
Through the workshops and other contacts, the Research Center explored with manufacturers
strategies for the development of recycled-content building materials and packaging waste
reduction, Key responses include the following:
A focus on recycled content alone does not address other important aspects of resource
efficiency such as embodied energy, resource renewability, and life cycle assessment.
The related issues of product durability, performance, and quality often surface with
regard to recycled-content building products. Manufacturers are concerned about
unwarranted perceptions of compromised quality, unfair competition from substandard
recycled-content products, and linking performance to recycled-content certification.
Many manufacturers remain uncertain about the importance of resource efficiency or
recycled content to their customers, the nation's builders, and home buyers. They do not
perceive a clear market advantage for recycled-content products.
e
Engaging a packaging engineer to optimize packaging efficiency, employing perimeter
packaging (i.e. protecting only the outside edges of products such as windows and
doors), using only recyclable packaging, and establishing a "take-back" policy all could
lead to jobsite waste reduction.
Dissemination activities during Task 1 included articles published in Builder magazine and
Nation's Building News and several presentations at building conferences.
The Research Center will use key elements from these efforts to design, implement, and evaluate
two pilot programs during the 1995 construction season as the second phase of this three year
EPA-sponsored project. Pilot program results will be used in the development of both a builder's
field guide and a videotape on construction waste management during the project's third year.

OVERVIEW
This report covers the first year of a planned three-year project to evaluate and demonstrate costeffective,
voluntary alternatives to the disposal of residential construction waste. The first-year
tasks were designed to provide builders, manufacturers, waste management firms, and solid waste
officials with the tools required to investigate alternatives to disposal. The results of this
investigation will be used in the second year to develop pilot programs to demonstrate selected
alternatives to disposal. In the third year, guidelines will be developed for builders to consider
as they begin programs to improve their approach to construction waste management.
The work during the first year of this project consisted of the following five tasks:
Task 1.1 Development of a background paper on construction waste--its generation, regulation,
handling and disposal, and alternatives to disposal. The background paper served as
a primer covering the basics of current construction waste management in the United
States and opportunities for alternatives to disposal.
Task 1.2 Planning and convening of construction waste management workshops in three
locations. The workshops were designed to bring together a group of key decision
makers and players in construction waste reduction and recovery. In a guided
discussion and with the information from the background paper at their disposal, the
participating builders, developers, waste haulers and processors, product
manufacturers, and local/state government solid waste officials explored alternatives
to disposal and the development of such alternatives in their own community.
Task 1.3 Conduct of waste assessments in the same three locations to add to the limited
database on the quantities and types of materials generated during residential
construction and to identify opportunities for waste reduction. House design, material
ordering, subcontract arrangements, material use, and installation were all evaluated
to identify opportunities to reduce and recover construction waste materials.
Task 1.4 Discussions with selected product manufacturers to encourage modifications to their
products and/or the packaging of their products for greater resource efficiency.
Reduced packaging and/or use of recycled materials in production were explored with
the manufacturers. Their reactions and comments helped identify manufacturers
interested in participating in the second-year demonstration projects.
Task 1.5 Development of a task report and preliminary guidelines for builders interested in
construction waste management. This task also included various dissemination
activities.
Results of the tasks listed above are presented in the following sections.

BACKGROUND PAPER
The Research Center developed a background paper on construction waste management. The
paper was used as background information to be reviewed by all participants in Task 1.2
workshops.. The paper provided information on how residential construction waste is generated,
handled, and disposed of across the country. It summarized the best information available on the
quantity and composition of waste generated during home construction and discussed
opportunities for the recovery of construction waste materials.
Key points taken from the background paper include:
Most construction waste is disposed of in construction and demolition (C&D) landfills.'
In the past, significant quantities have been disposed of in municipal solid waste (MSW)
landfills depending on the proximity of both types of landfills to construction sites and
on the fee differential between C&D and MSW landfills.* Previously, open burning and
job-site burial of C&D waste were common and acceptable methods of disposal.
However, when clean air and water regulations largely eliminated these means of
disposal, C&D waste was hauled to either C&D or MSW landfills. More consistent and
stringent MSW landfill siting and design requirements are now making the disposal of
C&D waste in MSW landfills less likely. In fact, some communities ban C&D waste
from MSW landfills to conserve capacity.
Estimates of total C&D waste for the United States vary considerably but center around
40 million tons per year, which constitutes approximately 20 percent of the 225 million
tons of waste generated annually in the United states. 3 Construction waste generation
is, of course, directly tied to building activity, which, in turn, is most closely linked to
overall economic activity in each community or region.
The costs of handling construction waste consist primarily of the tipping fee charged at
the waste facility, the per mile transportation cost, and the cost of containers. The
national average tipping fee for construction waste disposal has increased from a reported
$4.90 per ton in 1976 to $32.00 per ton in 1992, for an inflation-adjusted increase of
1 It is not possible to determine exactly what portion of the construction waste stream ends up in C&D
landfills as opposed to MSW landfills primarily because most C&D landfills are privately owned and operated
with records unavailable for public review. In addition, some C&D landfills charge on a volume basis (by the
cubic yard) and some by mass (per ton), further complicating quantification.
2 Tipping fees at MSW landfills are generally higher than those at C&D landfills, reflecting stricter siting
and design requirements at MSW landfills.
3 This is a rough approximation of construction and waste totals and is used for illustrative purposes only.
Reliable national estimates of C&D waste are not available. Source: Peter A. Yost, "A Feasibility Study and
Cost Analysis of Recycling Construction Site Gypsum Wallboard Waste,'' thesis submitted to University of New
Hampshire, September 1993.

over 300 per cent. 4 Tipping fees in certain areas of the United States exceed $100 per
ton.
Federal waste regulations affect construction waste disposal by restricting disposal
options and setting forth landfill design and operation requirements. Environmental
Protection Agency rules implement the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) 5 by addressing the treatment and disposal of solid and hazardous waste6. Under
RCRA, construction and demolition waste is classified as a Subtitle D waste. The
Subtitle D Program covers non-hazardous solid waste and establishes requirements for
the handling of MSW, including MSW landfill design and operation, but does not set
any standards for either the handling of C&D waste or the design and operation of C&D
landfills Therefore, at the federal level, there are neither any apparent specific
restrictions or any inducements affecting construction waste management practices.
State legislation, rules, and regulations have the greatest impact on C&D waste disposal
practices. This has led to wide variation in not only the definition of construction waste
but also in the design and siting requirements for landfills accepting construction waste
and in penalties for the illegal disposal of construction waste. In some states, for
example, jobsite burial of site-generated construction waste is acceptable, while in others
it is not. Further, some states define and distinguish between MSW and C&D waste
even though others do not. Consequently, the EPA rules that apply to MSW have an
indirect effect on the disposal of construction waste. Differences in terms, treatment,
landfill design requirements, and penalties are important because of their impact on both
disposal costs and builder practices.
Even though federal, state, and local governments are devoting considerable effort to
developing markets for recyclable MSW, little comparable time and money is focused
on recovering, recycling, and improving markets for C&D waste materials. Many states
have adopted solid waste recycling goals; others have set a cap on the portion of the
4 Dixon, Byron L. A Predictive Model for the Determination of the Economic Feasibility of Construction
and Demolition Waste Recycling in the Air Force. Unpublished master's thesis. Air Force Institute of
Technology, September 1993, AFIT/GEE/ENV/93s-05.
5 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901-6992k (1982, Suppl. III 1985). The
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or "Superfund") deals
specifically with hazardous waste materials and may be relevant to a small number of specific materials
generated by some residential and other light-frame construction. This element of waste management is not
addressed in this study.
6 40 C.F.R. 260-272 (7/1/92).
'A recent court ruling (Sierra Club v. Carol M. Browner, Administrator - United States Environmental
Protection Agency - Civ. No. 93-2167: Richey, J. CRR) is requiring that the EPA write rules to address smallquantity
hazardous waste generation, pursuant to the Resource Recovery and Conservation Act (RCRA), section
4010(c), 42 U.S.C. 6949a(c). In response, EPA will propose rules by May 15, 1995 that require minimum
C&D landfill design, siting, and operation requirements and identify hazardous materials that are unacceptable
for disposal in C&D landfills.

stated goal that can be absorbed by C&D waste reduction and recycling. Nonetheless,
states have provided builders and remodelers with little guidance on alternatives to
traditional landfilling.
e
The construction of an average single-family home typically yields more than four tons
of debris, although information on the types and quantities of waste materials is limited.
Relatively little work has been conducted to assess light-frame construction waste, and
comparison among the available studies is complicated by variation in measurement units
(volume or mass) and methodology. While waste volumes are important because the
capacity of landfills is based on available space, weight is likewise important in that it
determines the costs of handling and transporting construction waste. The lack of
standard units of measure makes extrapolation for regional or national estimates difficult.
In addition, the development of new waste recovery industries and channels of
distribution will depend on accurate assessments of construction waste.
e
In the recent past, the low cost of many common construction materials relative to labor
costs for their installation have combined with relatively low disposal costs to reduce the
incentive for waste reduction. However, sharp increases in both construction material
costs and disposal costs have increased the likelihood that builders will be interested in
employing construction waste reduction techniques.
Product manufacturers are developing processing technologies that make the use of waste
wood fiber, gypsum board, and some plastics more cost-competitive with virgin raw
materials. For many of these manufacturers, the potential substitution of a recycled
material for a virgin raw material depends on the quality (low contamination) and ease
of separating the material. Well-developed markets for certain metals (copper, brass, and
lead) have resulted in significant recovery of these metals from construction job sites.
Opportunities for the recovery of metals such as iron and aluminum, however, remain.
e
The cost-effectiveness of recovering construction waste materials depends on the quantity
of material generated, disposal costs, the extent of reuse and recycling opportunities, and
local, state, and federal solid waste policies and regulations. The relationships among
these factors and how they affect builders, waste haulers, manufacturers, and solid waste
officials form the basis for developing alternatives to the disposal of construction waste.
These relationships are, naturally, unique to each community or region.

CONSTRUCTION WASTE MANAGEMENT WORKSHOPS
The Research Center coordinated three workshops designed to discuss waste reduction measures
and on-site reuse and recycling measures with representatives of local and state governments, the
private sector waste management industry, and building and building materials industries. The
workshops were structured around guided discussions of the opportunities for waste reduction
and the recovery of individual construction waste materials; methods of containing, collecting,
transporting, and processing the materials; and development by manufacturers and use by builders
of recycled-content building materials.
Site Selection
The three sites chosen for participation in workshops (Task 1.2) and waste assessments (Task 1.3)
were selected according to the following criteria:
Location. Representation from the East, Midwest, and West regions of the U.S. offered
the opportunity to include regional differences in construction, waste management, and
regulatory practices.
Construction activity. A currently steady and high level of residential construction
activity meant a greater likelihood of broad involvement from builders, construction
waste haulers, and building product manufacturers.
Strong existing economic incentives. The most common and prominent economic driver
of construction waste management practices is the disposal tipping fee (per ton or per
cubic yard) charged for construction waste. Other factors affecting total disposal costs
are hauling costs (affected by proximity of landfills accepting C&D waste) and penalties
for improper disposal or illegal dumping.
Strong regulatory incentives. State recycling goals, particularly in states that allow or
require C&D waste as part of a recycling goal, affect alternatives to disposal.
Regulations that require the recycling of certain materials (cardboard, for example) or
that ban materials from landfill disposal (gypsum board, for example) also affect
alternatives to disposal.
Existing market structures. Recycling or reuse opportunities already in place as part of
industrial, commercial, or consumer recovery efforts (ferrous metals, aluminum,
cardboard, wood) affect the likelihood that markets will be willing or able to accept
recoverable construction waste materials.
Active and interested local homebuilders association. Identifying and involving
interested builders in a voluntary project is often best achieved through the local home
builders association (HBA). An interested and motivated HBA staff and membership
provided the Research Center with a unique link to the local building community.

Level of cooperation among government, trade and other relevant organizations.
Because the recovery of construction waste materials involves so many players--builders,
waste haulers, waste processors, product manufacturers, and solid waste officials--it was
important that these groups demonstrate a history of both cooperation and activism in
local conservation issues.
Based on these criteria, three locations were selected: Prince George’s County, Maryland; Kent
County, Michigan; and Portland, Oregon. Table 1 summarizes the site selection criteria.

Table 1. Site Selection Summary

Prince George’s County Maryland
Prince George’s County, Maryland, is located northeast of the metropolitan Washington, D.C.
area. Construction activity in the county has been steady and strong for many years. Singlefamily
residential construction is dominated by medium-sized to large builders/developers
building 100 to 500 or more homes a year, often in large developments.
Construction waste disposal costs in Prince George’s County average approximately $500 for a
typical 2,000, square-foot house. This figure includes container, hauling, and disposal fees but
does not include labor associated with maintaining the jobsite and loading the waste. The
average tipping fee at local C&D landfills is estimated at $6 per cubic yard or $48 per ton
Construction waste disposal costs in this range are not considered high but were felt to be
adequate to generate an economic interest in alternatives to disposal.
The state of Maryland does not permit jobsite burial of construction waste. Accordingly, almost
all construction waste in Prince George’s County is disposed of in “rubble fills” which are
privately owned and operated landfills that accept land-clearing debris, demolition waste,
construction waste, and household appliances and white goods. When new regulations take effect
in 1995, siting and design requirements for rubble fills are likely to be tightened significantly.
These more stringent siting and design requirements (for liners and leachate monitoring) are
expected to have a significant impact on construction waste disposal costs. The new regulations
will also permit C&D waste recovery to count toward the statewide recycling goal of 50 percent
by the year 2000, and thus will encourage the exploration of alternatives to the disposal of
construction waste.
At present, no markets have been established for the recovery of construction waste materials in
Prince George’s County. Strong commercial and homeowner municipal recycling programs may
be useful in recovering metals, cardboard, and possibly clean wood waste for mulching
operations. Even though one of the largest and oldest nonprofit building material reuse and
recovery warehouse operations in the nation is located nearby in Baltimore, no such facility
operates in Prince George’s County.
The Suburban Maryland Building Industry Association (SMBIA) expressed strong interest in the
construction waste management project, along with several large building firms. The proximity
of the NAHB Research Center, Prince George’s County’s solid waste offices and facilities, the
SMBIA offices, and many areas of new residential development were influential in the selection
of Prince George’s County. Prince George’s County local government demonstrated strong and
positive associations with both waste management firms and local builders.
9 Estimates are complicated by charge rates that vary depending on container size and volume of business.
The average of $6 per cubic yard is based on the most common container used on residential construction sitesan
open-top, 30-yard, roll-off box.

Kent County Michigan
Kent County, Michigan, is located in southwest Michigan approximately 45 miles east of Lake
Michigan and 120 miles west of Detroit. The county encompasses the city of Grand Rapids.
Single-family new home construction has been steady and strong and is dominated by small,
custom builders. Only one or two builders construct more than 100 new homes a year.
Construction waste tipping fees are approximately $32 per ton, with the cost of containment,
hauling, and disposal for a typical home averaging approximately $250. Builder interest in
construction waste management was high despite the relatively moderate disposal costs.
Michigan offers a grant and loan program that makes funds available to assist in the development
of recycling systems, including C&D waste.
Jobsite burial of construction waste is illegal in Kent County. New solid waste regulations,
which were scheduled to take effect in October, 1994, require C&D landfills to be lined and
mandate better documentation of ground water monitoring. These changes could have an impact
on builders’ future disposal costs.
Firms in the Grand Rapids area recover wood, metal, concrete, drywall, asphalt, vinyl siding,
cardboard, and surplus building materials. Some of the waste management companies that haul
and or process recovered construction waste materials are strong growth companies that have
been in business for more than five years.
The Greater Grand Rapids Home Builders Association (GrGRHBA) has been a national leader
in construction waste management efforts. The HBA staffs a construction jobsite recycling
committee, maintains a directory of companies that recycle construction waste materials and plans
to build a home featuring recycled-content building materials during the 1995 construction
season.
The Kent County Department of Public Works (DPW) recycling staff has worked closely with
the HBA on the jobsite recycling committee and has established an organization called the
Business and Industry Team for the Environment (BITE) to assist business and industry in
effectively managing waste streams. Staff members at the Kent County DPW have strong and
open channels of communication with both builders and related businesses in the greater Grand
Rapids area.
Portland, Oregon
The Portland, Oregon, metropolitan area has approximately 1.5 million residents. Single-family
new construction is dominated by small, custom builders, with few builders completing more than
100 new homes a year.
Builder interest in construction waste management is strong due, in part, to the conservation ethic
of the community and relatively high construction waste tipping fees. Since 1987, tipping fees
have risen from $17 per ton to $75 per ton as part of a five-year program designed to help reach
state recycling goals. The revenue generated from the increased fee has covered the costs

associated with landfill closures and has supported extensive efforts to develop C&D waste
recovery. Portland's model program clearly illustrates how both a market push (increased tipping
fee) and a market pull (recycling markets) effectively work together to address C&D waste.
Several recycling markets, including those partially financed by both the public and private
sectors, have emerged as in the Portland area. Firms in the area recover wood, drywall,
cardboard, insulation, carpet, metal, land-clearing debris, and other materials. Commingled
processing (material recovered by mechanical or manual separation) is in use by one waste
hauling and processing firm in Portland, with a second firm about to open a similar operation.
In addition, several cleanup contractors service construction sites between four and six times
during the construction cycle.
The Portland Home Builders Association and the Metro Regional Services are actively involved
in construction waste management efforts." Metro Regional Services has created and widely
distributes a comprehensive construction materials recycling directory.
Workshop Results
The workshops consisted of two sessions at each location--one session limited to members of the
building industry to discuss waste reduction measures and a second session to discuss on-site
reuse and recycling measures with representatives of local and state governments, the building
and building materials industries, and private sector waste haulers.
Waste Reduction Sessions
Although some of the waste reduction ideas proposed by the Research Center generated
discussions unique to a specific region, most of the responses were similar regardless of region
(see Appendix A for representative elements specific to each location). Some key points from
the waste reduction sessions included the following:
Even though participants discussed numerous waste reduction methods, they did not
foresee any of the methods resulting in significant waste reduction. Design-oriented
opportunities that involve overall dimensions, house configuration, and the layout of
doors, windows, and stairs, raised concerns among some builders regarding the
marketability of "value-engineered" houses; houses which competitors might label as
inferior. The consensus was that effective waste reduction could be achieved only
through a comprehensive reeducation process involving architects, engineers, builders,
and inspectors.
Even though the builders were skeptical that waste could be reduced through hands-on,
technically based construction techniques, many added that structuring subcontracts to
10 Metro Regional Services is the regional government entity that manages solid waste for the greater
Portland area.

include a supply-install concept (i.e., creating a direct link between the material
purchaser and the installer) could result in the generation of less waste.
In general, builders were reluctant to consider waste reduction opportunities that involved
significant changes in construction methods or even minor modifications to a home's
appearance. Waste management was perceived as more of an "after-the-fact"
phenomenon in home construction and as less of an integral part of the home
construction process.
Recycling and Reuse Sessions
In Grand Rapids, the discussion on reuse and recycling was driven by the fact that participants
maintain a high level of interest in alternatives to disposal despite today's relatively low and
stable disposal costs. In Portland, local government's substantial commitment to construction
waste management has led efforts to educate and inform the fragmented building industry about
available recovery opportunities. In Maryland, where virtually no alternatives to disposal are
available, participants expressed general concern that failures to adopt alternatives would lead to
inevitable increases in the cost of dealing with construction waste.
The workshop sessions included both a material-specific discussion and a general discussion on
recovery methods. Some key points included the following:
Wood. With significant processing costs and the absence of market structures, recycled
wood cannot compete with sources of virgin wood fiber in the production of building
materials. Nonetheless, some counties currently accept source-separated wood waste at
a reduced tipping fee. A facility in Prince George's County, Maryland, for example,
accepts pallets, brush, and "untreated" wood for eventual sale to mulching operations.
Given the controversy, however, as to the acceptability of engineered wood products for
mulch because of adhesive content, the possibility of topsoil-applied new-construction
wood waste is uncertain. Not surprisingly, much of the discussion during the Prince
George's County workshop focused on research needs and opportunities regarding the
suitability of wood products containing adhesives for various agricultural uses in terms
of environmental, health and safety standpoint considerations.
Drywall. Recycling of drywall into new wallboard is feasible only in areas of the
country close to wallboard manufacturing plants that have or can easily add the
technology required to handle waste wallboard processing. One manufacturer, for
example, has 140 building product distribution centers nationwide that could become
involved in the recovery of waste gypsum wallboard if cost-effective methods of
handling the materials were developed. In addition, some research on agricultural and/or
topsoil application of ground gypsum has been performed, but no studies to date have
addressed any potential hazards associated with trace organic compounds such as dioxin
or heavy metals that may be embodied in waste gypsum wallboard. The Gypsum
Association, in conjunction with the USDA Agricultural Research Service, is just
embarking on a research effort to address this issue. Depending on the results of the
investigation, certain agricultural and topsoil uses of waste gypsum wallboard may gain
formal acceptance as an alternative to disposal.

Corrugated cardboard. The market value is changing cardboard from a waste product
to a valued good. With a current market value of approximately $100/ton (baled), and
strong interest among waste hauling firms, cardboard is a likely candidate for costeffective
recovery.
PVC building materials. Although plastic wastes have relatively high value and enjoy
well-established market structures, the amount of plastic typically generated during the
construction of a single home (see Appendix C) would not by itself justify the associated
processing and transporting costs for the material’s recovery. If, however, plastic can
be accumulated in sufficiently large amounts, arrangements could be made to recover the
material through either intermittent pickup or the placement of collection containers at
building supply centers.
Specific methods of recovery presented and discussed at the workshop included the following:
Commingled processing. Commingled recovery processes involve separating and
recovering materials at a facility off the construction site. Waste is generally collected
in the same containers used for construction waste with materials then separated off-site
by mechanical or manual means or a combination of both. Assuming the existence of
markets for cardboard, drywall, and all uncontaminated wood waste, then 70 to 80
percent recovery rates are conceivably obtainable. The advantage to this approach is that
the builder does not need to change current practices; construction waste is handled in
the same manner as for disposal. The disadvantage is that separation costs reduce the
net value of the recovered materials while contamination resulting from commingling
(dirt, dust, spilled paint, etc.) can render some materials unrecoverable or not worth
separating. In addition, significant capital investment by the processor is required to
initiate and operate a commingled recovery facility.
Source Separation. Source separation requires the placement of individual containers
on the construction jobsite with materials identified for recovery deposited in designated
containers. This approach involves the greatest change in waste management practices
for both builders and their subcontractors. Experience has shown that the general
contractor must aggressively educate all jobsite workers about the requirements for
separating the materials and writing such requirements into all subcontracts. Source
separation requires the commitment not only of upper management but also site
supervisors. Experience has also shown that education and retraining efforts must be
continuous for up to a year before the system begins to be self-managing. The
advantage is that easily separated materials are kept separated and contamination from
commingling is eliminated.
Passive time separation. Passive time separation of materials takes advantage of the fact
that certain construction materials--wood, drywall, cardboard (to some extent), and siding
materials--are generated during specific and discrete stages of construction. Waste
materials can be collected and piled in a designated location at the job site. Waste
haulers can then service the site at specific times during the construction process. The
builder simply stores the materials--the waste hauler is responsible for the separation of

materials. However, waste separation is made easier with this process since the staged
visits result in reduced initial commingling and contamination of materials.
An increasing number of builders in both Portland, Oregon, and areas surrounding
Chicago are using jobsite services that employ passive time separation. Builders often
prefer this method because it can be significantly less expensive than other waste
management approaches. Further, charges for the service can be determined up front on
a square foot basis and one employee (laborer to clean up job sites) can be eliminated
from the general contractor payroll. One disadvantage of this approach is that it might
not interest large, well-established waste hauling firms and thus will require new entrants
to the waste management business. In addition, building and OSHA inspectors may
object to a containerless approach to on-site waste management.
Reuse of construction waste materials. Nonprofit building materials recycling
operations recover used building products and rejected building materials for discounted
sale to low-income homeowners. For example, The Loading Dock in Baltimore,
Maryland is the oldest retail business of its kind in the nation and has served as a model
for the establishment of numerous similar operations around the country. Material
received by the Loading Dock, whether picked up on-site or delivered to the warehouse,
represents a tax-deductible donation. The Research Center identified similar operations
in Portland and Grand Rapids.
On-site reuse of wood, drywall, and possibly cardboard may be possible after the
materials have been processed in a mobile grinder. At least one equipment manufacturer
markets a low-speed, low-noise, mobile grinder well suited for reuse applications. The
acceptability of on-site application among state and local sold waste officials can vary.
Many builders are interested in alternatives to disposal as long as the alternatives do not result
in increased costs, i.e., disposal options are usually pursued for their economic rather than
environmental benefits. In many cases, recycling is driven not by the value of the materials (a
market pull) but rather by the avoided cost of disposal (a market push). In fact, perhaps the most
significant impediment to the development of recovery opportunities is the low value of many
construction site recoverables.

CHARACTERIZATION OF CONSTRUCTION WASTE
To identify the components of the waste stream and quantify their contribution to the overall
waste stream, the Research Center coordinated a baseline construction waste assessment in each
of the three selected sites, and presented the results during each respective workshop.11,12 Each
assessment consisted of the collection, separation, and weighing of all construction waste. The
waste assessment methodology is presented in Appendix B. One home from each site was
chosen to represent the region based on the structure’s design, size, and construction materials
and practices.
Figure 1. Waste characterization by weight - Figure 2. waste characterization by volume -
Bowie, Maryland.
Bowie, Maryland
Figures 1 and 2 present the results of the assessed home in the town of Bowie in Prince George’s
County, Maryland. Detailed results from all four assessments are included in Appendix C.
Despite significant differences in construction methods and builders’ production volume, results
from all four sites were similar and allow the following general conclusions:
Wood, drywall, and corrugated cardboard comprised 70 to 80 percent of the total waste
generated regardless of the units of measure.
Variations in waste composition due to differences in regional building practices (a brick
facade in Maryland, wood siding in Portland, and vinyl siding in Grand Rapids) were
11 An additional waste audit was completed on a production home in Anne Arundel County, Maryland.
12 The waste assessment in Portland was conducted for Metro Regional Services by Eco+Tech Construction
Co. in 1992. The NAHB Research Center acknowledges Metro Regional Services in Portland for access to their
waste assessment data and participation in the first year of this project.

notable but relatively minor as a percentage of the total waste volume. Similarly, the
fact that the Maryland builder was a large production builder and the Grand Rapids and
Portland builders small custom builders had relatively little impact on the results.
e
e
e
Drywall waste generated during construction was similar to the industry rule of thumb
of one pound of waste per square foot of living space.
Engineered wood products (containing adhesives) can represent as much as 50 percent
of total wood waste, an important consideration in exploring recycling opportunities for
wood.
Generation rates of corrugated cardboard waste can vary depending on the selection of
certain materials and the proximity of suppliers. For example, local millworks (doors,
windows, and cabinets) reduce the need and hence the volume of packaging; the choice
of exterior finish material (wood or brick versus vinyl or aluminum) also affects the
volume of cardboard generated. 13
Builders can improve their operations through a better understanding of waste
management costs, since the total cost is not always obvious. The most significant
portion of total disposal costs is not the tipping fee but rather the costs associated with
the handling, containment, and transport of waste materials. Table 2 illustrates that the
total cost of construction waste disposal at the Maryland site was essentially the same
as at the Portland site ($136.00 per ton), despite a tipping/pickup fee more than twice
as high in Portland.
e
As shown in Figure 3, builders pay twice for usable construction materials that end up
in the waste pile--once when the material is purchased and again when it is hauled away.
Decisions regarding source reduction of construction waste should include the cost
savings of avoided purchase and disposal costs.
13 Vinyl and aluminum siding and trim pieces are delivered to the job site in corrugated cardboard
containers while wood and brick are not.

Table 2. Construction Waste: Total Costs
Figure 3. Translation of Construction Waste Costs
Bowie, Maryland

STRATEGIES FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF RECYCLED-CONTENT BUILDING
MATERIALS AND PACKAGING WASTE REDUCTION
The objective of this task was to explore with selected manufacturers strategies for the
development of recycled-content building products and reduction in packaging waste. The
Research Center presented and discussed these concepts at the three workshops, in follow-up
meetings with selected manufacturers at the 1995 Annual Home Builders Show in Houston, and
in correspondence on packaging waste reduction with selected manufacturers. In addition, results
from an informal questionnaire sent to the manufacturing community by the Research Center
under a related project were assessed to identify practices and opportunities for recycled-content
building materials.
Development of Recycled-Content Building Materials
As part of an effort to determine the level and nature of manufacturer interest in recycled-content
building product development, the Research Center sent out an informal questionnaire to over
1,740 building product manufacturers. The questionnaire was designed to solicit comments and
concerns regarding the development of a resource-efficient product labeling program that would
certify the recycled content, recyclability , or design for disassembly of the respondent’s products
(A copy of the full report on the questionnaire is contained in Appendix D). 14 Key points from
the results of this questionnaire follow.
Many manufacturers view a focus on the recycled content of building products as
inadequate in encouraging builders to select more resource-efficient materials. The
respondents listed such issues as embodied energy, life cycle assessment, and resource
renewability as equally important in the improved resource efficiency and environmental
sensitivity of home building.
The related issues of product performance and quality often surface with regard to
recycled-content building products. Manufacturers are concerned about unwarranted
perceptions of compromised quality, unfair competition from substandard recycledcontent
products, and a link between performance certification and recycled-content
certification.
Broad-based interest in featuring recycled content may be limited to certain
manufacturing sectors such as insulation and plastic decking/fencing materials. In other
sectors, manufacturers are poised to feature their recycled-content products if they feel
a market advantage is clearly indicated.
14 This industry questionnaire was conducted as a joint effort under Task 1.4 of this project and the NAHB
Research Center. The Research Center has been considering the development of a recycled-content/recyclability
labeling program in response to considerable builder and manufacturing interest, generated in particular from the
Resource Conservation Research House project. Although at least three directories and one labeling program of
this nature already exist, none is national in scope and service to the building industry as a whole is limited,

Many manufacturers remain uncertain about the importance of resource efficiency or
recycled content to their customers--the builders--and the builders’ customers--the home
buyers. These manufacturers must be convinced that featuring recycled content in
building materials is a net market advantage.
Based on the workshop discussions, meetings with manufacturers, and the questionnaire results,
the Research Center makes the following recommendations to further the development of
recycled-content building material markets:
Support development of a labeling program. The best way to provide information on
recycled-content products and to meet industry concerns regarding quality, durability, and
performance of recycled-content building materials is to pursue a national labeling
program. Such a program will provide builders with a third-party source of information
on products and give manufacturers the forum they feel is necessary to ensure that
recycled content is not associated with quality considerations.
Survey builders and consumers. The manufacturers have indicated that information is
required on the value of resource-efficient/recycled-content building materials to builders
and home buyers. Although a recent NAHB survey indicates that 12 percent of home
buyers want recyclable building materials in their homes, more detailed information
could provide manufacturers with the impetus to feature currently available recycledcontent
materials and to accelerate the development of new recycled-content materials.
Promote strategies. Ongoing contact with product manufacturers provides the
opportunity to promote the strategies listed below. For example, the Research Center
is currently working to present the results of the questionnaire and other aspects of this
project to the National Council of the Housing Industry (NCHI).15 The second year of
this project will provide continued opportunities for the Research Center to feature its
work in construction waste management and the development of recycled-content
building materials. The opportunities include work on the ASTM 16 Residential Green
Building Standard Guide (sections of which deal specifically with materials selection and
construction waste management), membership on the US Green Building Council, and
Task 2 activities involving manufacturers in Grand Rapids, Michigan, Prince George’s
County, Maryland, and Homestead, Florida.
Aquire market advantage. Many building product manufacturers, are finding that
promoting their efforts to maintain environmental quality is good corporate policy. At
the local, regional, and even national level, keeping the community, government officials,
and legislators aware of a firm’s efforts to meet and exceed environmental standards can
distinguish the manufacturer in competitive markets.
15 NCHI is the manufacturers’ council of NAHB. Its 75+ members are primarily major U.S. building
product manufacturers.
16 American Society for Testing and Materials.

Proactive versus reactive positioning. Firms are discovering that anticipating trends in
environmental issues and policies can result in better working relationships with
government agencies as well as in long-term savings in environmental compliance.
Developing recycled-content building materials can be an important element of proactive
positioning.
"Take-back" policies. As firms investigate recycled-content building materials, some are
finding that a take-back policy can create significant product distinction as well as
mitigate some of the blending and contamination problems that affect recycling
processes.
Reinforce/reassure quality standards. In the past, recycled content has had some
association with reduced product quality. Assuring consumers (builders, homeowners,
and home buyers) that recycled-content products maintain standards of quality while
achieving environmental responsibility is an essential part in the development of
recycled-content products.
Monitor relevant recycling markets. It is certainly not a given that recycled inputs are
less expensive, more available, and in steadier supply than other inputs. However, the
markets for both virgin and recovered material inputs are constantly and rapidly
changing. Manufacturers should make it a point to keep abreast of recycling markets
and their pricing structures and make it known to both brokers handling recycled
materials and solid waste officials involved in the development of recycling markets that
their company has an interest in recycled inputs.
Packaging Waste Reduction
Given that packaging waste represents a large and growing share of residential construction
waste, packaging waste reduction can be cost-effective for both the manufacturer and builder.
Correspondence with major building product manufacturers resulted in the following
recommendations (This letter is included as Appendix D) 17:
Engage a packaging engineer. Some manufacturers are hiring specialists in packaging design
to optimize the use of materials in protecting their products.
Perimeter packaging. Perimeter packaging replaces whole-box corrugated containers with edge
and corner protection. Manufacturers that employ perimeter packaging can reduce total
packaging waste and increase the visibility of their products at the same time.
Use only highly recyclable packaging. To increase the likelihood that required packaging
materials do not contribute to construction waste, manufacturers can avoid the use of difficult-torecycle
mixed (cardboard and foam, for example) and composite packaging materials.
17 All manufacturers received a follow-up telephone call to encourage company response and to increase the
likelihood that appropriate company representatives reviewed the strategies.

Establish a "take-back" policy. "Take-back" means that packaging is either reused by the
manufacturer or simply treated as distributor or manufacturer responsibility. Particularly for large
appliances and building materials with distinctive packaging requirements due to unusual
dimensions, a "take-back" policy on packaging may be a cost-effective option for both builder
and manufacturer.
Recycling reminder. Prominently labeling packaging material as recyclable and encouraging
the installer or end user of a product to recycle the packaging waste can result in waste reduction.
The following examples illustrate the types of programs in place or being considered by major
building product manufacturers.
One appliance company was developing returnable packaging containers. The returnable
containers were undergoing development solely to reduce production costs. The company, prior
to contact with the Research Center on this issue, had not considered the costs savings that might
accrue to the consumer by reducing or eliminating packaging.
A plumbing fixture company initiated work on packaging waste reduction approximately two
years ago. The company was encouraged to learn of the EPA/NAHB Research Center efforts
in this area. The firm's research and development staff will review the suggested approaches to
packaging waste reduction to determine potential application to their products.
A major manufacturer of doors felt that all the strategies had merit. The company was using
the recommended strategies as the impetus to assess the company's current approach to product
packaging.
Within the last year, one window manufacturer completely changed its product packaging in
an effort to reduce packaging costs. The company eliminated corrugated cardboard six-paneled
boxes and replaced them with clear plastic, perimeter tape. The company had determined that
protection for its windows could be limited to abrasion protection for the perimeter window
frame. The company worked with distributors and builders to test the new system and to ensure
that it met the needs of both. A special adhesive applied to the perimeter tape permits removal
of the abrasion-resistant strips without difficulty and without leaving residue on the window
frame. The company has made no attempt to market this change as a cost savings to builders.
Savings to the consumer were viewed by the manufacturer as merely coincidental to its own cost
savings.
As one aspect of its participation in the utility-sponsored Good Cents Environmental Home
program," a roof window manufacturer was reviewing its packaging waste system and looking
for opportunities to increase resource efficiency. The firm will incorporate the suggested
strategies into its current assessment of packaging waste.
18 The Good Cents Environmental Home program is a trademark of Gulf Power Company and is the
result of a cooperative effort between EcoGroup, Inc., and Southern Electric International, Inc.

A vinyl siding manufacturer had just hired a packaging engineer to review and, where indicated,
redesign product packaging in an attempt to reduce costs and meet the company’s policy of
resource-efficient production and environmental sensitivity.
In summary, many manufacturers are currently assessing their packaging systems in an effort to
reduce their costs. They have not considered other savings that might accrue to builders or the
community as a whole. The responses to the suggested strategies were positive, with some firms
taking this opportunity to open up a company wide dialogue on packaging waste and its
reduction.
Initial Project Results of Manufacturer Contacts
As a result of the Prince George’s County workshop, the United States Gypsum Company (USG)
is investigating the collection, containment, and transport of construction-site clean drywall waste
for recycling at its Baltimore plant. This effort will be an integral part of the pilot project in
Prince George’s County. USG’s Baltimore plant is capable of accepting clean drywall waste for
the production of new wallboard. USG is also using the results of the workshops and waste
assessments (Task 1.3) in the continuing development of another recycled-content building
product .
Three other manufacturers intend to participate in Task 2 pilot projects based on meetings held
at the 1995 Annual Builders Show. Certainteed, Inc., a manufacturer of insulation, windows,
roofing, and siding, will work with the Research Center on the collection and processing of vinyl
siding waste in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Alcoa Building Products, a manufacturer of metal and
vinyl siding, intends to participate in the collection and processing of siding materials in Prince
George’s County, Maryland. Homasote, Inc., a manufacturer of 100 percent recycled wood fiber
sheathing products, indicated an interest in Task 2 pilots and will look for a role to play as the
specifics of the pilot projects are determined.

DISSEMINATION ACTIVITIES
Several efforts to inform and educate the building community on alternatives to the disposal of
construction waste were carried out during the first year of this project. Dissemination activities
included the following:
Builder magazine article. The February 1995 issue of Builder magazine features
"green" building, recycled-content building products, and NAHB Research Center
activities in construction waste management. 19 The magazine is distributed to all NAHB
members and has a circulation of over 185,000.
Nation's Building News (NBN) article - Text has been sent to the biweekly NAHB
newspaper. A copy of the article will be sent to the EPA project manager when it
appears in NBN.
Presentation: First International Conference of CIB TG 16: Construction and
Waste. Results of the first year activities to date were presented during a panel
presentation in Tampa, Florida, in November 1994. Approximately 500 professionals
in the construction industry attended this first international conference on sustainable
construction.
Presentation: 1995 Home Builders Show Educational Seminar. Results of the firstyear
activities were presented as part of the builder education series at the 1995 Annual
Builders Show in Houston, Texas. Approximately 30 major builders attended the 90-
minute session.
Presentation: 1995 EEBA 20 Conference. Results of the first-year activities were
presented at the EEBA Conference in Minneapolis on March 10, 1995. Attendance at
this conference includes approximately 500 builders and product manufacturers with
special interest in resource and energy efficiency.
Publication: "Construction Waste: From Disposal to Management." This NAHB
Research Center document is part of the Center's publication list. It was written as an
interim builder-service document providing interested parties with project results to date.
It will be replaced by a builders' field guide during the third year of the EPA/Research
Center construction waste management project.
News Release: NAHB National Representatives. An overview of NAHB Research
Center activities is sent out on a regular basis to the 200 national representatives of
NAHB (A copy of the news release is included as Appendix G).
19 A copy of the February 1995 issue of Builder magazine has been sent to the EPA project manager.
20 Energy Efficient Building Association.

Presentation: NCHI Spring meeting. The National Council of the Housing Industry
is the manufacturers’ division of the National Association of Home Builders. It has a
membership of over 75 major manufacturers and several major trade publications. The
Research Center is making efforts to present the results of this project, including
strategies for packaging waste reduction and the development of recycled-content
building materials, at the next NCHI meeting.
Entry: Awards Program for Architectural Research, Progressive Architecture
Magazine. A paper summarizing year activities is being submitted to the Awards
Program of Progressive Architecture. The program advocates and disseminates research
that supports the design and construction of inspiring buildings and sustainable
communities. Judging will take place in April 1995, with winning entries published in
the July 1995 edition of Progressive Architecture, a publication with 56,000 subscribers
worldwide.

CONCLUSIONS
The construction waste assessments conducted by the Research Center were consistent with
quantities and characterization from earlier studies. The construction of a typical 2,000 square
foot home generates approximately 4 tons of waste. Wood, drywall, and cardboard consistently
account for 60 to 80 percent of this total. Depending on methods of construction and choice of
materials, rigid foam insulation, vinyl siding, and brick waste can make significant contributions
to the total weight or volume of construction waste.
Workshops conducted by the Research Center for builders exploring waste reduction opportunities
focused on potential efficiency gains in the selection, layout, and installation of major building
components (primarily wood and drywall) and restructuring of job contracts to more closely link
the financial responsibility of supplier, installer, and disposer of construction materials. Many
builders participating in the workshops had already switched to more resource-efficient
engineered wood products but were reluctant to consider changes in layout and installation
practices. The most common reasons offered for this reluctance were poor quality of materials
that prevent optimization of layout, a fear that competitors would link reduced material use to
reduced quality, and a perception that employing individual techniques in material optimization
would not result in significant waste reduction. Builders generally agreed that structuring
contracts to more closely link responsibility for the purchase, installation, and disposal of
construction materials could have a significant impact on waste reduction.
Workshops conducted by the Research Center exploring waste reuse and recycling opportunities
focused on the recovery of specific materials and different methods of managing construction
waste. The low value of wood and drywall waste dictates that the costs of separating,
transporting, and processing the materials be minimal. On-site reuse of wood and drywall waste
may be the most promising management method in many areas of the country where the low cost
of gypsum ore and virgin sources of wood fiber make it difficult for recycled wood and drywall
to compete. Higher value corrugated cardboard and siding waste (vinyl and aluminum) are more
likely to be recycled if markets and channels of distribution exist or can be developed. In areas
where recycling markets exist or can be developed, there was interest in both commingled
recovery and passive time separation of materials. Real progress was made at each of the
sessions on developing reuse and recycling opportunities, clearly demonstrating the value of
bringing builders, waste management and processing firms, product manufacturers, and solid
waste officials together in a single forum. The expertise and perspective of each contingent is
required to identify existing or begin the development of alternatives to construction waste
disposal.
Recommendations for reducing packaging waste were well received by the manufacturing
community, with several manufacturers indicating current employment or future consideration
of suggested strategies. Packaging waste reduction appears to be driven more by the purchasing
cost packaging represents to the manufacturer than the disposal problem it represents to the
consumer.
Builder interest in purchasing and manufacturer interest in producing recycled-content building
materials is driven by the following concerns - cost; access to information on content, quality,
and durability of products (for builders) and inputs (for manufacturers); and availability of

products and inputs. Both builders and manufacturers need more information on the current and
projected demand for recycled-content building materials within their respective markets.
In response to the results of the first year of the project, the Research Center has made
recommendations for Task 2 activities contained in the following section.

PROPOSED TASK 2 ACTIVITIES
In the second year of the project (Task 2), the Research Center will conduct pilot programs
designed to test and evaluate selected waste reduction and recovery techniques. As a result of
Task 1 activities, elements of the programs may include
a focus on wood, cardboard, and drywall recovery opportunities;
supply-and-install contractual relationships with subcontractors, creating a direct link
between material purchaser and installer;
documentation of waste reduction for a builder who emphasizes efficient material
selection, layout and installation;
continued investigation of on-site reuse of both clean wood waste and drywall as a soil
amendment and on-site reuse opportunities for brick and rigid insulation;
assistance to interested builders in both pilot programs in the selection of recycledcontent
building materials;
assistance to waste haulers/processors and builders in determining the costs and
feasibility of commingled processing, source separation, and passive time separation
methods of waste management; and
fenced or other container-less areas designated for construction waste on job sites and
issues related to this waste management technique.
More specifically, discussions with builders, waste processors and product manufacturers at the
workshops in Michigan and Maryland have led to several region-specific developments as
follows:
Through funding from the Gypsum Association, research performed by the USDA
Agricultural Research Service should formally determine the acceptability of waste
gypsum wallboard for certain agricultural and topsoil uses.
The Research Center is working with the American Plywood Association (APA) to
determine the nature of and need for research on the suitability of engineered wood
products for topical application either on site or in mulching/landscaping operations.
United States Gypsum’s Baltimore plant will accept drywall cut-off waste from new
construction sites as part of the Prince George’s County, MD pilot program.
Certainteed will work with the Research Center in the Grand Rapids, Michigan pilot
program on the potential for recovery of vinyl siding cut-off waste.

Alcoa Building Products will be working with the Research Center on the potential for
metal and vinyl siding cut-off waste recovery in the Prince George’s County, Maryland,
pilot program.
Representatives of Dow Chemical will assist the Research Center in exploring and
evaluating a variety of on-site reuses of rigid insulation waste as part of the Task 2 pilot
project in Grand Rapids. 21
Local builders, waste haulers, and waste processors in both communities will participate
in the pilot programs and be an integral part of the evaluation process.
Finally, Jordan Commons, a Habitat for Humanity project in Homestead, Florida, has
been added as a third demonstration and evaluation site under Task 2. This 200-home
model development features energy and resource efficiency in a sustainably designed and
constructed affordable community. The development, implementation, and evaluation
of a construction waste management plan for Jordan Commons provides an excellent
opportunity to promote alternatives to the disposal of residential construction waste at
the local, regional, and national level.
The results of the pilot programs will be used in the development of both a builder’s field guide
and a videotape on construction waste management as part of the third year of the project.

APPENDIX A--WORKSHOP SUMMARY

Grand Rapids, Michigan"
Doug Woods, Director of the Kent County Department of Public Works, gave a short statement
on C&D landfill disposal capacity in the county. Capacity across the county is large, with over
20 years remaining in the county owned/operated Type II landfill and privately owned capacity
exceeding 50 years. Tipping fees, currently at $29.52/ton, are expected to remain stable or
perhaps decrease slightly due to extensive landfill capacity. Operating costs for the county
landfill are actually approximately $17/ton, with overhead charges added to this figure to support
recycling programs and to close/maintain/monitor older, obsolete landfills.
Tim Wright, Director of the local office of Department of Natural Resources - Solid Waste spoke
briefly regarding the state's role in construction waste management. He discussed on-site
disposal or use of inert construction materials such as brick, block, dirt, and pure wood fiber
wastes, but cautioned against the on-site re-use of other construction waste materials, such as
gypsum board or wood composite materials, before testing was conducted to ensure the
acceptability of such practices. Tim clarified that any construction waste materials source
separated at the job site are not regulated in any way and require no licensing to handle or
transport.
Lisa Kapp from the state office of recycling discussed the existence of a $50 million bond, a state
fund for recycling projects or research efforts into the recovery of waste materials. (She further
added an application deadline of early December, 1994.)
Portland, Oregon
As previously mentioned, Portland has well established recycling markets for construction waste.
Driven by both a strong conservation-ethic, and the local government's commitment to waste
management, the city states that approximately 45 percent of the area's 1993 C&D waste was
diverted from the landfill. To further their success, the workshop participants offered several
material-specific discussions during the workshop. They are as follows.
Although significant recovery of wood waste is done in the Portland area, 75% of the total is
used as an industrial fuel source, while 25% is recovered as furnish and used in the production
of wood products. This situation could be changing over the next several years. Many current
users of construction and demolition wood waste as a fuel source are switching to Co-generation
operations or to natural gas for economic and air emission considerations. The relatively "clean"
nature of residential new construction wood waste should present continued good prospects for
recovery as the use of wood waste as a fuel begins to give over for its use in manufacturing
processes.
Recycling of drywall in the metro Portland area consists largely of agricultural use of the
material. The ground or processed gypsum material is used as a soil amendment, in mushroom
22 Workshop summaries were written after each workshop and sent to all participants for their information
and review. These summaries were submitted to the EPA project manager as part of monthly status reports.
The information in Appendix A is taken directly from these summaries.

production, and as bedding material in dairy operations. Although local and state waste officials
are currently neither recommending nor prohibiting agricultural uses of construction waste
gypsum wallboard, approximately 17,000 tons of scrap gypsum wallboard was recycled for
agricultural use in the region in 1993.
Recycling of scrap drywall for use in new gypsum wallboard is currently no longer an option in
the metro Portland area. Although a plant in Fife, Washington (90 miles north of Portland)
recycles scrap wallboard for use in the manufacture of new board, successful arrangements to
recover significant amounts from the Portland area have not been made. Apparently, the
combined processing and transport costs make it difficult to cost-effectively recover the gypsum
board waste unless quantities are large enough to gain some economies of scale in its recovery.
Metro Regional Services feels that much more gypsum wallboard waste could be recovered from
residential construction than is currently being recovered.
There is strong interest in the recovery of corrugated cardboard by most waste haulers,
construction recycling services, and local solid waste officials because of the relatively high value
of the material and the well-established markets for the material. A significant part of its
recovery is accumulating enough material to market it directly and get a better price by
eliminating intermediate handlers. The current price in the Portland area is approximately
$50/ton as sold to an intermediary.
Prince George's County, Maryland
Lori Scozzafava, Chief of the Recycling Division for the Maryland Department of the
Environment (MDE), described the current status of construction and demolition (C&D) disposal
and recycling from a regulatory standpoint.
1) Construction waste materials separated at the source (in this case, the construction job
site) are not regulated as solid waste and are classified as recyclables. Source-separated materials
are not regulated by the state and no permit is required to handle, transport, or process these
materials. On the other hand, construction waste that leaves the job site commingled and is taken
to another location for separation is considered solid waste. Only permitted landfill operations
may handle these materials. Because the permitting process for solid waste handling can be
expensive and lengthy, Ms. Scozzafava encouraged looking at construction waste recovery that
involved source separation.
2) Rubble fill (the Maryland term for C&D landfills) design requirements are slated to
be upgraded under new regulations with a liner requirement becoming effective by October 31,
1996. These new regulations are still in the development stage and anyone may comment at this
time. For a copy of the pertinent new regulations contact MDE and ask for MDE #631-3424.
3) The state has compiled a directory of both wood and corrugated cardboard recycling
markets. Copies of these directories were given to the NAHB Research Center project manager.
In later discussion, Ms. Scozzafava indicated interest in MDE involvement in the creation of a
recycling directory created specifically for construction waste materials.
Barbara Yuhas, Recycling Chief for Prince George's County, stated that the County currently
accepts source-separated, "untreated" wood waste for eventual sale to mulching operations at a
reduced tipping fee of $25/ton. This facility evidently does not normally receive new

construction wood waste due to the confusion about the acceptability for mulch of engineered
wood products.
Bill White of United States Gypsum (USG) in Baltimore outlined current USG activities:
Their Baltimore plant currently recycles approximately 1,000 tons a month of internal
plant waste, consisting of culled boards and cut-off material. A recycled content of 2-
3% based on recycling plant cull is fairly typical of U.S. gypsum wallboard
manufacturing plants.
a
a
USG accepts another 500 tons per month of new construction waste wallboard in a pilot
project. This construction cut-off waste comes from local manufactured housing
("mobile home") plants and a few general construction or drywall contractors. The
current recycling process at the Baltimore USG plant could handle another 3500 tons per
month, if arrangements could be made with MDE inspectors for the storage of clean,
construction, cut-off waste gypsum wallboard.
USG has 140 building product distribution centers nationwide that could become
involved in the recovery of waste gypsum wallboard if cost-effective methods of
handling the materials can be established. Backhauling of waste gypsum wallboard from
distribution centers has been mentioned in the past by more than one drywall
manufacturer.
Larry Cartano of Pleasant Companies represented both the Ritchie Reclamation and Landfill
operation and Environmental Alternatives, Inc. (the construction waste hauling company that
participated in the waste assessment of the TABCO home). Permits have been received for the
construction of a building to house material recovery of construction waste at the Ritchie Landfill
in Upper Marlboro. Mr. Cartano has in the past expressed interest in beginning with the recovery
of corrugated cardboard from new construction waste, with the intention to explore the recovery
of other materials as the operation moves forward.
Brent Dilts, Executive Vice-President of Brandywine Enterprises, has also received the necessary
permits to recover construction waste at his facility in Fairmont Heights. Mr. Dilts expressed
interest in the potential recovery of any materials for which a proven market structure exists or
is highly likely.

APPENDIX B--WASTE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

KEY ELEMENTS OF CONSTRUCTION WASTE ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
This document outlines the key elements of a construction waste assessment for new, singlefamily
residential construction. Members of the NAHB Research Center staff, in cooperation
with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, developed and used this methodology to conduct
and document residential construction waste assessments.
e
Obtain a securable and weathertight roll-off container.. Large waste management firms
often have a limited number of closed-top roll-offs, which are ideal for minimizing driveby
contamination from other building sites and homeowners as well as for virtually
eliminating moisture gain of key components such as drywall, wood, and cardboard.
These containers typically have six sides, with a hinged door on one end. A 40-yard
closed-top container will, if properly managed, hold about the same amount of material
as the conventional 30-yard open-top, roll-off. For an average 2,000-square-foot house,
two containers are generally required to handle the associated construction waste. When
closed-box containers cannot not be obtained, open-top roll-offs can be weatherized with
sheets of OSB or plywood, a tarp, and bungies.
Select container location carefully. The location of the container for the assessed home,
particularly in relation to the containers for other homes under construction, can
determine the accuracy of the waste assessment. The designated roll-off for the audited
home must be the most convenient container available for disposal for that site only, i.e.,
containers for other sites must be considered and appropriately placed as well.
Establish a good working relationship with site manager. Although permission to
conduct a construction waste assessment is generally obtained from the administrative
office of a builder, it is the site manager who determines the success of the assessment.
Clarifying the objectives and responsibilities of the assessment with the site manager and
explaining that no significant shift in operation is required to achieve those assessment
objectives should ensure the collection of accurate information. Whether or not to
inform the subcontractors of the waste assessment process is a decision best made by the
site manager. In some cases, best results are obtained when everyone is well informed
of the assessment; in other cases, site managers may decide that some subcontractors are
less likely to alter their waste generation and disposal habits if they know nothing about
the waste assessment.
Monitor the job site at least twice weekly. Check the container contents regularly to
verify that the waste in the container corresponds with job site activity, i.e., that all of
the waste and only the waste from the designated construction site is placed in the
container. Because workers often place waste near the door opening, plan some extra
time with each site visit for packing the waste further into the container to maximize use
of its capacity. The packing effort will also act as an in-progress inventory of waste
materials. Keeping a log of specific dates or reccurring sizes of materials can be helpful
later to identify a wasteful construction technique.

Conducting the waste assessment. Conducting a singular waste assessment after
construction is complete is more cost effective than multiple in-progress assessments due
to the time required to arrange and coordinate all of the involved parties. Furthermore,
assessments done before construction is complete may result in workers being more
conscious of their waste generation, and modifying their normal construction technique.
1. Site selection. Although any site with a solid surface capable of handling 10-wheel
trucks and roll-off containers is acceptable, the assessment is best performed indoors or
under roof to ensure that materials remain dry before being weighed. Because a tipping
scale and multiple roll-offs are required, a waste transfer station or landfill is ideal.
Research Center staff conducted audits at a transfer station (carefully working out details
with an interested municipality) and outdoors on a graded surface at a private C&D
landfill (owned by a firm interested in expanding landfill operations to include C&D
recycling).
2. Site logistics. Once the waste is dumped in the identified location, materials are hand
separated into piles or containers. If available, large containers (preferably a minimum
of four open-top roll-offs) are situated around the pile and designated for major waste
components such as solid wood, engineered wood, drywall, and cardboard. Smallerquantity
components such as metal, plastic sheeting, and siding can be loaded into the
bed of a pick-up truck or into barrels or trash cans for weighing on a portable scale. If
roll-off containers are used for individual components, a truck and driver will be required
to weigh the components. The proximity of the sorting area to the scale and the ultimate
disposal site largely determine the time required to weigh the individual materials.
3. Personnel. With a sorting crew of two supervisors and six helpers, the physical sorting
of material for an average 2000-square-foot house requires approximately 35 to 40 total
labor hours. Obtaining the individual weights requires an additional two by four hours,
assuming the scale and ultimate disposal site are nearby. If roll-off containers are used,
an individual capable of driving the truck and obtaining the net weights is be required.
4. Measurements. For those materials separated into roll-off containers and pick-up
trucks, individual weights are obtained from the tipping scale (the level of accuracy of
most tipping scales is twenty pounds). Small-sized waste materials can be placed into
garbage cans and weighed on a bathroom scale. Accurate volume measurements
(obtained by measuring the height, width and length) are difficult for three reasons: the
compressibility of some materials (cardboard and plastic sheeting for example), variations
in captured air space, and the irregular dimensions of the piles.
5. Records. See the attached sheets for a suggested standardized format. Notes: mass
and volume measurement checks should be made by comparing summed individual totals
with the overall totals obtained before the roll-off is tipped; expect a small percent error
in weight totals due to the tipping scale’s 20-pound level of accuracy; in addition, the
weight of floor sweepings can be deceptive--one inch of sawdust and gypsum powder
spread over a 400-square -foot area can weigh as much as 1,000 pounds.

Waste Assessment Form

APPENDIX C--WASTE ASSESSMENTS

Waste Assessment Form

APPENDIX D--PACKAGING WASTE REDUCTION LETTER

February 15, 1995
Dear 2-:
As more and more building components are delivered to the construction site in finished form,
packaging waste at job sites is increasing. According to waste assessments conducted by the
NAHB Research Center and others, packaging waste, most notably corrugated cardboard, can be
as much as 600 to 800 pounds for a typical 2,000 square foot single family home. Often more
important than the total weight of packaging, is the total volume that this material can occupy
in the job-site disposal container:
As much as one-half of the total volume of the job-site disposal container (20 cubic
yards) can be captured by packaging waste.
Concern among builders regarding this disposal problem resulted in an NAHB resolution
(Resolution #5-2/7/93) which includes a recommendation for manufacturers to reduce packaging
waste. Additionally, the rising cost of packaging to manufacturers has created another incentive
for reduction.
Please review the following recommendations on reducing packaging waste from building
materials. Let us know if your company has adopted or plans to adopt any of the suggested
strategies for packaging waste reduction. If your company employs a strategy that we have
omitted, please inform us of your ideas.
Packaging Waste Reduction Strategies
Engage a packaging engineer Some manufacturers are hiring specialists in packaging design
to optimize the use of materials in protecting their products.
Perimeter packaging Manufacturers that employ perimeter packaging can reduce total
packaging waste and increase the visibility of their products at the same time.
Use only highly recyclable packaging To increase the likelihood that required packaging
materials do not contribute to construction waste, manufacturers can avoid difficult-to-recycle
mixed (cardboard and foam, for example) and composite packaging materials.
Establish a "take-back" policy Particularly for large appliances and building materials with
distinctive packaging requirements due to unusual dimensions, offering a "take-back" policy on
packaging may be a cost-effective option for both the builder and the manufacturer.

Recycling Reminder - Prominently labeling your packaging material as recyclable and
encouraging the installer or end user of your product to recycle the packaging waste can result
in waste reduction.
We look forward to your input. Please fax your comments (301-249-0305) or call me: (800)
638-8556, ext. 542.
Sincerely,
Peter A. Yost
Construction Waste Project Manager

APPENDIX E--RECYCLED CONTENT QUESTIONNAIRE
AND REPORT

RESULTS TO INFORMAL QUESTIONNAIRE:
MANUFACTURING INTERESTS AND CONCERNS REGARDING
A RECYCLED CONTENT/RECYCLABILITY LABELING PROGRAM
Introduction
Under a separate but related project, an informal questionnaire was mailed to approximately
1,740 manufacturers across the United States (see attached double-sided letter). The purpose of
the questionnaire was to determine the level and nature of manufacturer interest in a labeling
program that would certify the recycled content, recyclability, or design for disassembly of their
product(s). In addition, the questionnaire was designed to solicit comments and concerns
regarding the design and scope of a labeling program.
Results--Questions 1, 2, and 3
178 responses were received by fax or return mail for a response rate of approximately
10 percent (approximately 50 questionnaires were "return to sender”s).
77 percent of respondents manufacture products with recycled content; another 5 percent
are currently developing products with recycled content.
Of the respondents having or soon to have products with recycled content, 80 percent
had some level of interest in labeling program participation; 20 percent had no interest
in program participation.
52 percent of all respondents had interest in certification of their product's recyclability.
39 percent of all respondents had interest in certification of their product's design for
disassembly or recycling.
Breakdown by type of manufacturer:
Insulation 12.4% Gypsum board 1.7%
Plastic decking and fencing 12.4% Roofing 1.7%
Home Accessories Miscellaneous 21.3%
(including appliances) 8.5%
Wood panel products 8.0%
Doors and windows 6.8%
Concrete/Masonry 6.8%
Framing - Lumber/steel 6.8%
Flooring - carpet, tile, vinyl,
hardwood, tile 5.6%
Responses came from all 50 states and Canada. Nearly 20 percent of the total came
from California, Illinois, and Ohio. All other responses were evenly and widely

distributed. Attaching much significance to this distribution is admittedly difficult
because there is no way of knowing how the sample or respondents relates to the actual
geographical distribution of manufacturers. In addition, the questionnaire solicited no
quantitative information on the volume of business of each manufacturer.
Of respondents interested in a labeling program, fully one-third were insulation 23 and
plastic fencing/decking firms.
Interest in the program, by type of manufacturer, ran highest in the insulation and plastic
decking/fencing industries (above 85 percent). Within other categories, interest in the
labeling program was fairly consistent around 75 percent.
Results-Question 4
Approximately half of all respondents offered written comments detailing or qualifying
their interest in a labeling program.
Comments were divided into eight general categories for discussion and follow in order
of frequency:
Problems with defining “green”. Over 25 comments focused on the problem of singling
out recycled content, or recyclability , as desirable or environmentally superior. Issues
of product life, embodied energy, and the renewability of raw material inputs were
raised. Four comments specifically stated the problem with distinguishing between postand
pre-consumer recycled material.
Quality concerns. Fourteen comments raised the issue of actual or perceived
compromises in quality with products having recycled content. Some respondents were
concerned with unwarranted consumer perceptions of lower quality while others were
asserting that lower quality was an issue with some competitors’ products.
Long-term durability. Seven comments targeted product durability as a necessary
component of a labeling program.
Code/specifications problems. Six comments were made on code or specifications issues.
Some of these manufacturers, particularly manufacturers of plastic products, felt that
recycled content was or would be a problem in meeting codes, or specs, or require the
need for additional specs, specifically tailored for recycled content products.
Other labeling programs. Five comments cited other labeling programs--Green Seal,
Scientific certification System (SCS), Canadian labeling, United Laboratories (UL). One
23 Sixty percent of respondents identifying themselves as insulation manufacturers produced cellulose
insulation.
E-2

window manufacturer stated that they had gotten so many requests for participation in
labeling programs that there would be no clear space on their glazing if all were used
(this same manufacturer stated that this program could be a part of the National
Fenestration Research Council [NFRC] label). Green Seal is utility sponsored and
Scientific Certification Systems is a California-based private venture. We have been
unable to determine how United Laboratories is involved in certifying recycled content
(in this case, it was an insulation manufacturer).
Cost-effectiveness of using recycled versus raw inputs. Five respondents stated that
recycled inputs were still more expensive than virgin sources and until this changed, little
certifying of recycled content was necessary.
More details of program required. Only three responses were related solely to the need
for more details before indicating an interest. This reservation was, however, ran
through in many others' comments.
Little consumer interest. Several responses included reference to the lack of consumer
interest in resource efficiency or recycled content among consumers. Some of these
comments cited research supporting the lack of consumer interest. 24
The following responses are cited specifically (and paraphrased) because they come from
major manufacturers, all of whom manufacture products with recycled content and
expressed no or very qualified interest in the labeling program.
Plant to plant variation and year to year variation in recycled content would make
certification of recycled content impossible.
Recycling is not the issue and should not be the focus of a labeling program attempting
to give builders information on the resource efficiency of building products.
There is no need for a third-party label, companies can put their own label on indicating
recycled content. A more important issue to certify is quality/consistency of product
performance.
*** Responses for the three companies above were received from two different
individuals. In each case, one of the responses indicated interest in the program, the
other indicated no or heavily qualified interest. ***
The post consumer recycled content of this company's product is certified by SCS.
Although the company plans to use the label in the "near" future, they currently do not
advertise this aspect of their product.
24 There were a number of comments that did not fit in any of these eight categories. The comments were
of a general nature, usually describing the products manufactured by a respondent.

A labeling program such as “Green Seal“ is so restrictive that no products qualify.
However, broadening the scope of a program could dilute its impact. This aspect of a
product could be an integral component of a performance certification label to which
the company subscribes.
There is little consumer interest in this aspect of product performance.
This company did not see a clear benefit to the label. They did state that a product fact
sheet or directory of products might be more useful.
Another company stated that they may be interested at some point “down the road.”
This manufacturer did not want to feel bound to a recycled content percentage that could
effect their first priority of purchasing the lowest-price, highest-quality raw material.
This manufacturer cited too many labeling requests as the reason for their lack of
interest.
There were several major manufacturers that indicated interest in the labeling program.
The following paraphrased comments are representative of these responses.
The ecological/environmental impact of the recycled item should be considered, i.e., just
because it is recycled doesn’t make it enviro-friendly.
Interest in program is dependent on specifics of program.
Our company supports environmentally sensitive manufacturing and recycles about 98%
of our scrap. Our company will not however go outside to purchase scrap nor will we
advertise that fact.
Materials must have equivalent performance to materials currently meeting building
industry requirements.
Environmental issue is declining in customer’s agenda. Programs like this must be costefficient
or our company would lose interest quickly.
Our company is currently focusing on product efficiency, environmental sensitivity, and
packaging.
Conclusions
The strongest indications of industry interest in a labeling program, both in number and nature
of responses, come from two industries--plastic decking/fencing and insulation. In both
E4

industries, recycled content is an important aspect of their marketing. In addition, both markets
are comprised primarily of relatively young, small, regional firms.
Manufacturer comments suggest that the scope of the labeling program must encompass more
than just recycled content and/or recyclability in order to attain broad-based industry support and
participation. Issues such as embodied energy, life cycle analysis, and some measure of "overall
resource efficiency" may need to be addressed.
Comments also suggest that product durability and quality are tangential issues that will need to
be addressed before a certification system can be developed. For some nonstructural building
components that lack code or specification standards, measures of product quality and/or
durability may be required along with a certification of recycled content or recyclability.
The plastics industry, particularly for materials such as piping, is evidently grappling with issues
of code approval, material specifications, and standards for recycled content products.

As you may know, the mission of the NAHB Research Center, Inc., is to assist builders and the
industry in meeting changing U.S. housing needs. In the last several years, there has been
growing interest within the general public and the building industry in the resource efficiency and
recycled content of building materials and housing components.
The Research Center is considering the development of a building product labeling program for
certifying recycled content. The purpose of the program will be to provide the marketplace with
information on the recycled content of building products.
To ensure that our proposed labeling program best serves the needs of manufacturers, builders,
homebuyers, and homeowners, we ask that you complete this questionnaire. We prefer your
response be made by fax by January 20, 1995.
Firms returning a completed questionnaire will be contacted with information on the results of
the survey. Thank you for your cooperation.

APPENDIX F--" CONSTRUCTION WASTE: FROM
DISPOSAL TO MANAGEMENT"

RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION WASTE:
FROM DISPOSAL TO MANAGEMENT
HERE’S WHY Marketing Know what you throw.
Opportunities for reducing
For many builders, construction As you begin managing your waste start with a working
waste disposal is simply a construction waste, take credit for knowledge of what is being
necessary evil, an unavoidable cost being a good corporate neighbor discarded. Although some
of doing business. Here are four and protecting resources. Let the information on the general
reasons why you might begin buying public know that as you nature of residential
managing this stream of materials, build indoor environments you are construction waste is available
just as you do other aspects of your striving to protect the outdoor (see table) and will be
business: environment. addressed below, only you can
tell how materials are being
cost
utilized on your job site.
HERE’S HOW Routinely inspecting your
A recent NAHB survey reported
construction waste can reveal
that a typical builder pays $511 per Below is a list of options to much about the efficient use of
house for construction waste consider in construction waste materials by your crew and
disposal. It is likely that your management. Each one relates to subcontractors. Builders
disposal costs will continue to rise one or more of the reasons given wishing to conduct their own
as old landfills close and new ones above for changing the way you detailed waste assessments
become more difficult to site and handle your construction waste. can contact the Research
more costly to design and operate. Some of these ideas are being Center for information and
Efficiency
evaluated as part of an ongoing assistance on how to proceed.
NAHB Research Center program
investigating cost-effective, Builders should also be aware
If materials are wasted on your job voluntary alternatives to of the need to assess
site, you pay twice-once for the construction waste disposal. A hazardous waste generation on
original purchase of the material builder’s field guide and video will the job site. Hazardous waste
and again when the usable material be available when the work is management should be guided
is hauled off for disposal. Knowing completed in the summer of 1996. by a working knowledge of both
what materials end up in your job Resource Conservation
site dumpster can tell you a lot
about how efficiently your crews
and subcontractors are using
materials that affect your bottom
line.
Liability
As a generator of some quantity of
potentially hazardous materialscertain
paints, solvents, adhesives,
caulks-it is important that you
protect yourself from any potential
liability resulting from the
unauthorized or illegal disposal of
hazardous wastes.
Recovery Act (RCRA) and
Comprehensive Environmental

Response Compensation, and
Liability Act (CERCLA)
legislation. NAHB’s The
Regulation of Solid and
Hazardous Waste: A Builder's
Guide is an excellent reference.
Call (800) 368-5242 and ask
the Environmental Regulations
Department for a copy.
Eliminate waste before It
starts. If you, the builder, are
paying for all materials and all
disposal, there may be little
incentive for your crews to
efficiently use your materials or
the disposal services you
provide. "Supply and install"
subcontracts, in which the
responsibility for ordering and
purchasing materials is
assumed by each
subcontractor, can help to per job to two or three, effective. Recovery
maximize the efficient use of significantly increasing your opportunities for building
material. Additionally, making total disposal costs. materials cannot be developed
subs responsible for their own
by builders alone, but must be
waste disposal creates a Eliminate roll-off service. done in cooperation with waste
natural incentive for minimizing The standard thirty cubic yard, haulers and processors, local
waste. roll-off containers can represent and state solid waste officials,
a big portion of your total and product manufacturers.
Re-use. There are several disposal costs. They can also The best way to discover
waste materials that, regardless encourage the "outsf-sight, existing or develop new
of quantity, can be re-used on out-of-mind" problem; the six- recovery opportunities in your
site: fiberglass and rigid foot high sides of roll-off area is to bring this group
insulation; slightly damaged containers can make wasteful together. If alternatives to
finished products such as practices difficult to monitor. disposal are important to you,
cabinets and doors; large An alternative is to fence off encourage your local HBA
pieces of clean carpet and vinyl with rolled wire or plastic mesh and/or local officials to hold a
flooring; and masonry/concrete a small portion of the job site forum in which obstacles and
material. Insulation materials and use a hauler who will opportunities for recovering
can be placed in attic space manually or mechanically pick construction waste can be
and larger rigid insulation up construction waste materials explored.
scraps can be used under from the fenced area. This
concrete floors. Cosmetically eliminates costly containers Market your efforts. As you
damaged finished products can and can decrease the likelihood take the time and initiative to
go to non-profit organizations of useful materials ending up in manage your construction
and taken as a tax-exempt your waste pile. waste stream more effectively,
charitable donation. Flooring let your customers know. On0
sheet goods can be neatly Recycle. Most residential suggested marketing tool is to
rolled and stored for the home construction waste is recyclable provide your home buyers with
owner. All brick and concrete including wood (solid-sawn and a trash container that has your
waste is inert fill and can be engineered products), drywall, company's logo and a recycling
used on site under walkways or corrugated cardboard, metal, symbol forming the roof line of
driveways. Once again, and some plastics. In order for a house. Accompanying this
individually these materials recycling of construction waste home owner Itmoving-in gift” is
don't fill dumpsters but materials to work, however, a one-page brochure explaining
collectively they can send your separation, collection, transport, your company's construction
total from one or two containers and processing must be cost- waste management program

and the total landfill space per products such as OSB and plywood not contribute much to the total
year your company is is not feasible. Contact local wood weight, it can be as much as 30
conserving. This demonstrates waste processors to determine the percent of the total volume and,
your company’s concern for suitability of your wood waste for unconsolidated, can send your jobresource-efficient
homebuilding their markets. This is a good site dumpster to the landfill long
and can help to distinguish example of how a local forum before it is necessary. Recycling
your homes in the would be helpful in identifying markets for corrugated cardboard
marketplace. Regardless of re c y c I i n g o b s t a c I e s an d have been very strong, leading to
the approach, be sure to take opportunities for builders.
increasing interest in the quantities
credit for your company’s generated at construction sites.
efforts to be a good corporate
neighbor.
Drywall. Drywall waste makes up
about 15 percent of job-site waste,
You can handle this material
yourself, engage a non-profit
which is the equivalent of one organization such as the Boy
pound per square foot of living Scouts of America in recycling, or
space. Clean waste gypsum board, see if a local hauler is interested in
after being ground, can be recycled recovering the material. The higher
into new drywall, used for some quantities on job sites today and
types of animal bedding, or applied better markets for this material
as a soil amendment. Drywall make it easier to recover than it
manufacturing plants across the was just a couple of years ago.
country are gradually gaining the
technology for recycling Siding. Vinyl and metal siding cutconstruction
site waste but few off waste typically generated from a
plants can currently take significant single home can be over 200
quantities. Some states allow pounds. This is not enough to
agricultural uses of ground gypsum warrant recovery and does not
wallboard, some do not, and some represent a significant portion of
HERE’S WHAT TO TRY have no stated policy. Research your disposal costs. However, it is
has been recently undertaken to the only waste other than
Below are recovery opportunities determine the suitability of various cardboard that your siding
identified or developed from forums agricultural uses of waste gypsum subcontractor generates. If it is
held in several areas across the board, with results available within returned to a central collection area
United States. Use these as the next 12 months. This research such as a siding or building supply
guideIines f o r recovery should help to broaden recycling distributor, it can contribute to
opportunities that are available or opportunities for drywall cut-off quantities large enough to warrant
can be developed in your area. waste.
recycling. At least one pilot project
is currently being conducted to
Materials It can be cost-effective to cut and evaluate centralized vinyl siding
stack waste drywall into uninsulated waste collection, and two more will
Wood. Wood waste accounts for wall cavities. Care must be taken be a part of the Research Center’s
40 percent to 50 percent of the to place pieces securely to prevent project.
residential construction waste rattling, choose framing cavities
stream. Wood waste can be used without wiring runs, and use New Methods
for mulch, in composting cavities in closets, basements, and
operations, animal bedding, landfill garages in which interference with On-site application and clean-up
cover, in some building products, subsequent additions or services are two new methods of
and as an industrial fuel source. renovations is less likely. In this managing construction waste that
For many of these applications, way, any concerns that the home are being evaluated as part of the
however, there is concern with buyer or other trades may have Research Center’s work.
regard to the adhesive content of with this method are addressed.
engineered wood products such as
On-Site. It is possible to grind up
plywood, oriented strand board Cardboard. Corrugated cardboard all wood waste and drywall and
(OSB), or wood I-beams. Up to is the most common building apply it to the site just before
half of job site wood waste can be product packaging material. seeding or sodding the lot. Many
engineered wood product waste. Quantities are increasing as more states or localities, however, will
and more building components are require evidence that this approach
For many builders, separation of
solid-sawn wood waste from panel
delivered to job sites as finished
products. Although cardboard may
does not harm soil or water quality.
The Gypsum Association is

sponsoring such research for represent the best use of this to relate to the various stages of
drywall waste and the Research material. A low-speed, low-noise, construction, allowing wood,
Center is working with the mobile grinding unit is best suited cardboard, drywall, or other
American Plywood Association for job-site service. Large materials to be substantially
(APA) to see if similar research can production builders may consider separated. The builder knows
be conducted on wood waste. You purchase of the equipment. waste disposal costs up front, can
will need to check with state and Smaller builders will have to
local solid waste agencies to arrange service with a hauler or
determine the level of service
required (number of job site visits
determine the acceptability of this
method.
waste processor interested in this
method of waste management.
and degree of clean-up), and saves
money while someone else
determines what can and cannot be
If all wood waste and drywall could Clean-Up. In Portland, Oregon recycled. So far, clean-up services
be handled in this way, and Chicago, Illinois, builders are. have been cost-effective in areas
containment, transport, and being serviced by haulers that that have high disposal costs and
landfilling costs would be eliminated charge by the square foot, do not established recycling markets for
for up to 65 percent of jobsite require roll-off containers, and common construction waste
waste. If cardboard can be recycle more than 50 percent of materials.
included, the percentage would be jobsite waste. The clean-up
even higher, but this may not services time their pick-up of waste
This publication is an interim document. A new field guide to waste management
for builders and a documentary video tape will be available sometime after midyear
1996.
If you have any questions about construction waste management, please call
Peter Yost at the number given below.
NAHB Research Center, Inc.
400 Prince George’s Boulevard
Upper Marlboro, MD 20772-8731
(301) 249-4000, ext. 542

APPENDIX G - LETTER TO NATIONAL REPRESENTATIVES

NEWS FOR NATIONAL REPS
from the NAHB Research Center
"The Builder's Highway to Tomorrow"
NAHB Research Center Studies
Home Building Construction Waste
The NAHB Research Center has completed the first year of a 2 1/2-year study of waste management at
residential construction sites. Funded by the Office of Solid Waste of the Environmental Protection
Agency, the study is designed to investigate, evaluate and demonstrate environmentally sound and costeffective
voluntary methods for reducing the amount of residential construction waste that ends up in
municipal waste facilities and landfills.
Products which will be made available in the final year of the study include a builders' field guide and
a video tape featuring the most successful approaches to reduction and recovery of waste created in home
building.
An Increasingly Important Issue
Dealing with construction and demolition (C&D) waste has become an issue of increasing importance.
C&D waste generated by such activity as building or demolition of homes, commercial structures, and
transportation facilities, amounts to about 40 million tons a year, which is approximately 20 percent of
the 225 million tons of waste generated annually in the U.S. The contribution made by new house
construction is substantial, amounting to about four tons per house.
In recent years, C&D waste from home building has been taken to municipal solid waste (MSW) facilities
or to C&D landfills, depending on local availability and tipping fees. However, MSW capacity has been
rapidly diminishing. In addition, many states have adopted or are considering adopting more stringent
design and siting requirements for C&D landfills. These circumstances result in sharply increased tipping
fees for builders.
Although much effort is being devoted to developing markets for recyclable municipal solid wastes, little
comparable time and money have been focused on recovering, recycling, and improving markets for C&D
waste. Some localities have tried to create reclamation incentives, but little guidance has been provided
to builders and remodelers on alternatives to traditional landfilling.
Analyzing Home Building Waste
The first step taken by the Research Center was to identify the components of residential construction
waste and quantify their contribution to the total. Three sites were selected for the analysis, on the basis
of their high level of residential construction activity, the presence of an interested Home Builders
Association (HBA), and an atmosphere of cooperation among local solid waste officials, builders, waste
management firms, and building product manufacturers. The chosen sites were: Grand Rapids, Michigan;
Bowie, Maryland; and Portland, Oregon.

Composition of Waste
The study found that, despite significant differences in methods of construction and the builders'
construction volume, results from all three sites were similar. Findings included the following:
Variations due to regional building practices such as use of brick front facades in Bowie, wood
siding in Portland, and vinyl siding in Grand Rapids made only minor differences in the waste
totals.
The fact that the Bowie builder was a large production builder and the Grand Rapids and Portland
builders were small custom builders had relatively little impact on the results.
At all three sites, wood, drywall, and corrugated cardboard comprised 70-80 percent of the total,
both by weight and by volume.
Drywall waste at all the sites followed the industry rule of thumb of one pound of waste per
square foot of living space.
Engineered wood products can make up as much as 50 percent of total wood waste. This is
important because these products contain adhesives, whose impact on recyclability is being
Studied.
cost Analysis
Of equal interest was information produced by the cost analysis. The accompanying table shows that the
total cost of construction waste disposal at the Bowie site was nearly identical to that at the Portland site,
despite the fact that the pickup/tipping fee was more than twice as high in Portland.

Workshops
The Research Center conducted workshops at each of the three sites. The workshops provided guided
discussion of:
Opportunities for waste reduction and recovery of individual materials;
Methods of containing, collecting, transporting, and processing the materials; and
Development by manufacturers and use by builders of materials with recycled content.
Separate workshop sessions were devoted to:
Discussion of waste reduction measures with members of the building industry; and
Discussion of on-site reuse and recycling measures with representatives of local and state
governments, building and building materials industries, and private-sector waste haulers.
Major attention was given to recovery issues associated with wood, drywall, corrugated cardboard, and
PVC building materials. Specific methods of recovery that were discussed included commingled
processing, separation of recoverables at the site, passive time separation in which the major portion of
various types of recoverables are accumulated through the natural progression of the work, and reuse of
materials at the site.
Barriers to waste reduction and recovery of materials were discussed at length. These include the low
value of many construction site recoverables and the need for establishing cooperative activities and
arrangements among many parties. The consensus was that effective reduction of waste involves a
comprehensive re-education process involving architects, engineers, builders, and inspectors.
Regional Initiatives
With funding from the Gypsum Association, research will be conducted by the USDA Agricultural
Research Service to determine the acceptability of waste gypsum wallboard for agricultural and topsoil
uses.
Discussions with waste processors and product manufactures at the workshops in Bowie and Grand Rapids
have led to several other initiatives:
The Research Center is working with the American Plywood Association (APA) to determine the
nature and need for research on the suitability of engineered wood products for topical application,
either on-site or in mulching/landscaping operations.
United States Gypsum has a plant in Baltimore which will accept drywall waste from new
construction sites as part of the Bowie pilot program.
CertainTeed will be working with the Research Center in the Grand Rapids pilot program on the
potential for recovery of vinyl siding waste.
Alcoa Building Products will work with the Research Center on the potential for metal and vinyl
waste recovery in the Bowie pilot program.
G-3

Second-Year Demonstrations
Pilot programs designed to test and evaluate various techniques for reduction, recycling, and re-use that
were Idendified during the first year of the project, will be implemented at selected building projects in
the area of Grand Rapids and in Prince George's County, Maryland, where Bowie is located, during 1995.
Guidelines for Builders
On the basis of the work thus far done, the Research Center has prepared an information paper for
builders, entitled, Residential Construction Waste. From Disposal to Management. A copy of this
paper is enclosed. For further information, contact Peter Yost at the NAHB Research Center, 301/249-
4000.
Quality Help Offered by NAHB Research Center
The NAHB Research Center's Total Quality Management (TQM) Program includes direct assistance to
individual home builders who wish to launch a quality effort in their business.
The TQM Program is conducted by Research Center staffers Lee Fisher, Ed Caldeira and Shelley Smith.
In addition to seminars, publications, and sponsorship of the National Housing Quality awards, Ed and
Shelley are available to visit builders, help to identify important problem areas, and give step-by-step
guidance in launching and sustaining a permanent quality improvement program.
The Research Center's TQM seminars have proved to be highly popular. A seminar conducted at the
NAHB Annual Convention in Houston attracted 130 attendees, despite the fact that they had to travel to
Houston a day early to attend.
'The seminars and publications are valuable,'' said Ed Caldeira, “but we are stressing implementation.
We are ready and willing to help builders to get quality programs going in the real world of their own
business."
'Experience indicates strongly that TQM pays off where it counts -- at the bottom line."
For information on types of help available and rates, call Ed or Shelley toll-free, 1-800/638-8556.
NEWS FOR NATIONAL REPS is issued monthly to provide information to NAHB National
Representatives about newsworthy programs and activities of the NAHB Research Center. The Research
Center, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the National Association of Home Builders, studies problems and
issues on the frontiers of home building, and tests and certifies building products. For further information
on subjects covered in NEWS FOR NATIONAL REPS, contact Ralph Lee Smith, NAHB Research Center,
400 Prince George's Boulevard, Upper Marlboro, MD 20772-8731, 800/638-8556, 301/249-4000, Fax
301/249-0305. Queries are welcomed.
G-4