PRINT | PDF

Recycle, Salvage and Reuse Building Materials

Brandon Hanson (author), Jonathan Rosenbloom & Christopher Duerksen (editors)

INTRODUCTION

Every year the construction industry in the U.S. produces over 160 million tons of construction and demolition materials.[1] Most of these materials are sent to landfills, and each year the amount of space needed for landfills grows. The landfill space needed for this material could be drastically reduced by salvaging and recycling.[2] Many materials, such as brick, wood, concrete, roofing materials, asphalt, and metals, can have reuse purposes and can be recycled to generate new raw materials.[3] Local governments should enact ordinances that require or encourage a specific minimum percentage of materials removed from buildings during demolition to be diverted from a landfill by either reuse, recycling, or other ways.

Ordinances addressing construction or demolition should be drafted to require a minimum percentage of total waste or an amount per square foot of building space being erected or razed be diverted from landfills. Meeting diversion rates encourages developers to use more sustainable practices and to use material that can easily be reused or salvaged before the demolition of a structure. Local governments can impose monetary sanctions for not complying with the ordinances and/or suspend or revoke a developers’ permit to build. Another way to reach a similar goal, is to require specific materials in construction and demolition to be recycled or salvaged. The specific materials can be added to a diversion rate ordinance or be enacted separately.

Local governments may also set specific rates or percentages for waste to be salvaged rather than recycled. Alternatively, local governments could create incentives for de-construction and salvaged materials, as opposed to demolition.[4] Deconstruction is the process of taking apart existing constructions rather than leveling and separating materials. This makes it easier to salvage, reuse, and recycle materials, leading to greater waste diversion rates from landfills.[5]

EFFECTS

The amount of debris estimated to be generated in 50 years by the construction and demolition industries is over 3 billion tons.[6] Encouraging or requiring salvaging and recycling of that material can have a large impact on the environment and communities. Enacting an ordinance that addresses building materials and demolition helps keep materials out of landfills.[7] Also, reusing building materials saves energy, compared to creating new building materials.[8] The amount of energy needed to produce building material from raw materials is drastically higher than reusing or recycling materials from structures being razed.[9] With lower energy consumption, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions drop, helping to mitigate climate change and improve air quality.[10] By encouraging or requiring reuse, salvaging, and recycling, local governments can reduce the building and demolition industry’s impact on the environment.

This ordinance may also have a positive economic impact. Local governments are often touting the number of jobs various projects create. Because deconstruction has been shown to require more labor and time than demolition, it requires more jobs for an equivalent project.[11] Another area that could see an increase in employment is the recycling and reuse industry. If local governments require a certain percentages to be diverted from landfills, more will be sent to recycling and reuse centers.[12] This will require more employees to sort and process the materials.[13]

EXAMPLES

San Francisco, CA

The City of San Francisco requires a 65% minimum diversion rate of construction and demolition debris from landfills.[14] Any person, firm, company wanting to demolish a structure is required to submit a plan that lists the materials expected to be a part of the demolition and 65% of the materials are restricted from going to a landfill.[15] Failure to comply with the ordinance can result in suspension of licenses and permits required for operation of facilities and machinery related to the demolition and destruction industry.[16] The City can also impose monetary penalties of up to $1,000 for each day of non-conformity.[17] Enforcement of the code is implemented by the City’s director of the environmental code and can inspect any property registered for demolition to insure compliance of the diversion rate.[18] The City is also planning to increase the percentage of diversion over the upcoming years in an effort to reach zero waste.

To view this provision see, San Francisco, CA Environmental Code §§1400-17 (2006).

Austin, TX

For certain buildings (described in § 25-11-39), Austin set: 1) a maximum weight of waste that may be disposed of per square foot, and 2) a minimum of 50% total waste diversion rate from landfills. Austin will decrease the maximum weight of waste per square foot 2.5 pounds to .5 pounds by 2030.[19] Subject to subsequent Council approval, the City also codified an increase in percentage of waste to be diverted from landfills: 50% will increase to 75% by 2020 and 95% by 2030. This is the minimum diversion rate of materials generated by the construction and demolition.[20] Failure to comply with the code is a class C Misdemeanor and can contain monetary fines. The diversion rate is determined by the local Resource Recovery Department and materials can be given to a qualified processor to meet the requirements.[21] The processor weighs and determines if the material diversion rate is met.[22] Processors must file reports to the department to ensure compliance with the current diversion rate. Waivers may be requested and given with the approval of the director of the Resource Recovery Department.[23]

To view this provision, see Austin, TX, Code of Ordinances §§ 15.6.150 – 6.170 (2016).

ADDITIONAL EXAMPLES

Portland, OR, City Code § 17.106 (2016) (setting deconstruction requirements for specific building types, making the reuse of materials easier).

Orange County, NC, Code of Ordinances § 34.73 (2002) (mandating specific types of construction materials to be recycled, demolition requires documentation of recycling).

Northbrook, IL, Code of Ordinances §§ 6.241-6.251 (2008) (setting a 75% diversion rate for construction and demolition materials from landfills).

Arroyo Grande, CA, Code of Ordinances § 8.32.200 (2017) (requiring deconstruction or salvage to fullest extent possible before following mandatory recycling plan).

Minneapolis, MN, Code of Ordinances § 527.260 (2018) (sustainable building practices including deconstruction plans are a primary consideration for demolition approval).

 

CITATIONS

[1] EPA, OSWER Innovation Project Success Story: DECONSTRUCTION, (Nov. 2009) https://perma.cc/E97K-LQA5.

[2] EPA, Recover Your Resources: Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle Construction and Demolition Materials at Land Revitalization Projects, (Oct. 2009) https://perma.cc/FTF5-K7R5.

[3] EPA, supra note 2.

[4] USDN, supra note 3.

[5] Id.

[6] Nelson, A.C., Toward a New Metropolis: The Opportunity to Rebuild America, Discussion paper prepared for The Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program (Dec. 2004).

[7] EPA, supra. note 2.

[8] Stephanie Boyd, Charley Stevenson & JJ Augenbraun, Deconstructing Deconstruction: Is a Ton of Material Worth a Ton of Work?, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc., Research and Solutions Vol. 5 No. 6 (Dec. 2012).

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

[11] USDN, supra note 3.

[12] Construction & Demolition Recycling Association, This is Where the Real Work Beginshttps://perma.cc/24WA-BLSU (last visited June 7, 2018) (noting the C&D recycling industry will create over 28,000 jobs).

[13] Id.

[14] San Francisco, CA Environmental Code §1402 (b) (2006).

[15] Id.

[16] Id. at § 1410 (c).

[17] Id. at § 1410 (e).

[18] Id. at § 1410 (a), (b).

[19] Austin, TX, Code of Ordinances §§ 15.6.151- 6.152 (2016).

[20] Id.

[21] Id. at § 15.6.155.

[22] Id.

[23] Id. at § 15-6-1 (12); id. at § 15.6.156.


Please note, although the above cited and described ordinances have been enacted, each community should ensure that newly enacted ordinances are within local authority, have not been preempted, and are consistent with state comprehensive planning laws. Also, the effects described above are based on existing examples. Those effects may or may not be replicated elsewhere. Please contact us and let us know your experience.