Deconstruction in Clallam County

Deconstruction in Clallam County

Viable or Not?

Built Green Clallam County

January 2013

Prepared by Strait Solutions, LLC

Blyn, Washington

Built Green – Clallam County January 2013

2 Deconstruction in Clallam County Strait Solutions, LLC, Version 2.0

Contents

1.0 Executive Summary .................................................................................... 3

2.0 Introduction ................................................................................................ 5

3.0 Estimating the Size and Location of the Supply of C&D Materials .......... 7

4.0 Existing Demand for C&D Materials ......................................................19

5.0 Potential Demand for a Re-use Facility in Clallam County ....................21

6.0 Market Barriers to Building Deconstruction and Material Reuse ..........22

7.0 Best Practices for Building Deconstruction and Material Reuse ............24

8.0 Policy Incentives for Increasing Building Deconstruction ......................26

9.0 Conclusion ................................................................................................28

10.0 Appendix ...................................................................................................28

Table of Figures and Tables

Figure 1-Market for Deconstruction and Demolition Materials .......................................................... 5

Table 1-Residential Permit Activity ...................................................................................................... 8

Figure 2-Residential Permit Activity .................................................................................................... 9

Figure 3-1975-2011 New Home Construction Clallam County ......................................................... 10

Table 2-Residential Permit Activity by Project Valuation .................................................................. 11

Table 3-Clallam County Demolition Permit Activity 2007-2012 ....................................................... 12

Table 4-Residential Demolition Permit by Type ................................................................................. 12

Table 5-Commercial Demolition Permit by Type ............................................................................... 13

Table 6-Commercial Demolition Permit Comments ........................................................................... 13

Table 7-Commercial Permit Activity 2007-2012 ................................................................................ 15

Table 8-Annual Disposed Tonnage by Waste Generation Area ......................................................... 16

Table 9-Annual Wood Debris Tonnage - West WGA .......................................................................... 16

Table 10-Annual C&D Debris Tonnage - West WGA ........................................................................ 17



1.0 Executive Summary

This study was commissioned by Built Green of Clallam County to assess the market for re-use

of construction and demolition (C&D) material. Additionally, data are analyzed to determine if a

re-use store or recycling center could be supported in the County. Building permit data from

Clallam County, Port Angeles, and Sequim are reviewed to determine the potential supply and

demand for C&D material. Current public and building permit policies are reviewed to determine

their impact on current practice. Landfill composition studies are assessed to determine potential

C&D material diversion volumes. The focus of the analysis is on Residential and Commercial

C&D materials re-use as opposed to that generated by public infrastructure or large industrial

projects.

This study is structured in phases, each phase designed to determine if the next phase should be

pursued. The first phase of the project focuses on analysis of data made available by the Port

Angeles, Sequim, and Clallam County permitting agencies. The second phase of the project

includes conducting in-depth interviews with key stakeholders, dependent on the first phase data

analysis.

Concurrently, a deconstruction project under the direction of the North Olympic Library System

was tracked to assess the state of current practice. An assessment of market demographics of

County residents is also presented. Other studies in other areas of the country are consulted and

their findings are contrasted with what exists in Clallam County.



Essentially, the current economic and other conditions in the County do not appear to be

conducive to the establishment of a large-volume recycling center for C&D materials. Building

permit data do not distinguish between demolition and deconstruction activities; all such permits

are classified as demolition. Even if all demolition activities were to be arbitrarily classified as

deconstruction, the volume and type of materials made available for re-use do not appear to

support the establishment of a high-volume, stand-alone C&D materials recycling site or an

additional re-use store.

Instead, a re-worked partnership amongst the cities and County, Built Green, the landfill

operators and the re-use store(s) already in operation appear to offer some viable options for

future development, including the possibility of co-locating on existing transfer facilities.

Further, some types of C&D materials have a potential for being diverted from landfill disposal:

carpeting and asphalt roofing and will be researched in a separate effort..

Acknowledgements: The authors wish to thank the following individuals and organizations for their advice, assistance, and

insight: FaLeana Wech, Tom Schindler, Brian Phillips, Sue Roberds, Yochai Eisenberg, Brian Phillips, Port Angeles Community

and Economic Development, Sequim Building Department, Around Again staff, Habitat for Humanity staff.



2.0 Introduction

Built Green Clallam County commissioned a study to assess the market for Construction and Demolition

(C&D) debris re-use in Clallam County. The primary objective was to determine if the current rate of

Residential and Commercial building demolition could be redirected to be more of a deconstruction

activity and thereby reduce the amount of C&D debris being sent to landfills. Instead, these materials

would either be recycled or re-used. If necessary, establishment of a conveniently-located recycling drop-

off location would be considered as a means to encourage deconstruction.

To facilitate discussion of the waste streams being considered, the attached diagram from Youchai

Eisenberg was adopted as a reference:

Figure 1 - Market for Deconstruction and Demolition Materials



For this study, the Industrial sector is left out of the analysis, only Multi-Family, Commercial, or

Residential sector Construction and Demolition debris flows are considered. The Industrial sector is so

specialized that each site can be analyzed individually to determine re-use/recycling opportunities, such as

that done with the Pen-Ply lumber mill/site.

Using the preceding graphic as a model, and following the practice of other studies, we tried to estimate

the size of potential supply and demand of deconstruction materials by looking at building permitting

functions of the County and the cities of Sequim and Port Angeles. Using Demolition permit data was

thought to be a good method of capturing the potential source of demolition debris that could instead be

re-purposed into deconstruction materials.

Looking at New Construction and Alterations/Additions permit data was thought to be a good method of

estimating the potential demand for deconstruction materials. This approach paralleled those in other

studies so as to make comparisons possible.

A review of the most recent Statewide Waste Composition Study completed in 2009 yielded data on the

waste streams flowing into the landfill. Clallam County results are grouped with Grays Harbor and no

extrapolation of results was performed.

See https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1007023.pdf for a complete discussion of the

study, its methodology, and complete findings.

The estimated tonnage figures reported are used to assess the potential volume of materials for

deconstruction.

https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1007023.pdf



3.0 Estimating the Size and Location of the Supply of C&D Materials

A data extract was requested of the Clallam County Building Department to assess the volume of

construction/demolition activities as represented by the permitting function. This extract included all

permit records from January, 2007 through November 12, 2012, and will be referred to as 2007-2012 in

all charts, tables, or graphs, and included a total of 3902 records. Records prior to these dates were

excluded, as they are not accessible by the same database system. Manual tabulation of non-mechanized

data is outside the scope of this study. The extracted records were then reviewed and analyzed for

duplication, completeness, and other data integrity considerations.

The authors and sponsors of this study recognize that some amount of “off-permit” activities take place in

the county, including demolitions, remodeling, and renovations. It is outside the scope of this effort to

quantify these activities, although some building permit enforcement actions and self-report violation data

were part of the extract file the County Building Department provided. The volume of “Built Without

Permit” records were insignificant compared to the other types of permitting data included in the file, thus

having minimal impact on the study’s overall conclusions and recommendations regarding D&C debris.

A policy decision by the Clallam County Building Department may be needed to change current

practices. It is outside the scope of this study to assess the financial and other impacts of this policy issue.

Similar requests for data were made of Port Angeles and Sequim building departments, and some printed

data was made available for review. The more robust data for analysis was the Clallam County extract

file and is the focus of more detailed consideration. The Port Angeles and Sequim data represented such

low volume of activity that further analysis was deemed uneconomic and county results could be

extrapolated if necessary.



Data was analyzed to determine the potential demand for C&D debris materials, as represented by

building permit activity for New construction as well as Alterations and Additions. Permit data was also

reviewed to assess the volume of Demolition activity.

A breakdown of the permit records included in the extract file for Residential permit activity is shown in

the chart below:

Residential Permit Activity 2007-2012 - Clallam County

Permit Type Count % of Total

Single Family Dwelling NEW 753 31.5%

Detach New 629 26.3%

Single Family Dwelling Alt/Add 480 20.1%

Demolition Res 117 4.9%

MINOR Alt/Add 87 3.6%

Change of Use 53 2.2%

Detach Alt/Addn 52 2.2%

Built w/o permit 41 1.7%

Woodburning Appliance 37 1.5%

Alt/Add to Manufactured Home 33 1.4%

Propane 23 1.0%

Replace Structure 20 0.8%

Fence 16 0.7%

NEW MULTI-UNIT Dwellings 14 0.6%

NON-Building structure 13 0.5%

NEW Manufactured Home Placement 12 0.5%

Other 6 0.3%

Sign 3 0.1%

Total 2388 100.0%

Source: Clallam County Building Department Data Extract 01/01/07 thru 11/12/12

Table 1-Residential Permit Activity




Figure 2-Residential Permit Activity

The majority of the permits issued were for new construction of single-family dwellings, SFD NEW, with

753; new construction of detached structures, Detach New, with 629; alterations or additions to single

family dwellings, SFD Alt/Add, with 480; and Demolition, minor alterations or additions, change of use,

and alterations or additions to detached structures accounting for another 308. Together these 6

categories account for almost ninety percent of Residential permit activity contained in the extract file.

SFD NEW, 753

Detach New, 629

SFD Alt/Add, 480

Demolition Res, 116

MINOR Alt/Add, 87

Change of Use, 53

Detach Alt/Addn, 52

Built w/o permit, 41

Woodburning Appliance, 37

Alt/Add to Manufactured Home,

33

Propane, 23

Replace Structure, 20

Fence, 16 NEW MULTI-UNIT Dwellings, 14

NON-Building structure, 13 NEW Manufactured

Home Placement, 12

Other, 6

Sign, 3

Source: Clallam County Planning Dept



The County Building Department also publishes its own charts and graphs of select permit types.

Figure 3-1975-2011 New Home Construction Clallam County

For the above 36 year period, 273 permits were issued, on average, per year, while for the period 2007-

2012, an average of 166 permits were issued, an almost 40% drop.

The severe economic downturn is primarily responsible for this decline. There are few reliable estimates

about future housing sector activity at the national, state or local levels due to a wide variety of factors.

The current consensus is that 2013 will be a year of slow economic recovery nationwide, with the

Olympic Peninsula somewhat lagging the rest of the nation.

The Clallam County Permit data extract file contained project valuation and project square footage data,

similar to that used in other studies (R.Weber, S. Kaplan, and H. Sokol, et al), to assess the viability of the

D&C debris recycling and re-use. Unfortunately, the square footage data fields are used inconsistently

across permit types, rendering them somewhat unreliable for the purposes of this study and accurate

correlational analysis. A major data scrub, specific to the needs of this study, but currently out of scope,

would be necessary to assure the reliability of the square footage data, if used for this study’s purposes.



A policy decision on the part of the Building Department would be necessary to address this data on a

going forward basis if other square-footage based analysis is desired.

Unlike Square Foot data, Project Valuation data were consistently populated throughout the data extract

records reviewed. The following chart depicts the estimated aggregate project value of the various

Residential sector permit types:


in order of Project Valuation

Permit Type Valuation

Single Family Dwelling NEW $ 163,916,747 62.1%

Single Family Dwelling Alt/Add $ 56,793,870 21.5%

Detach New $ 27,526,659 10.4%

NEW MULTI-UNIT Dwellings $ 3,680,777 1.4%

Replace Structure $ 2,448,086 0.9%

Built w/o permit $ 2,005,051 0.8%

Change of Use $ 1,878,615 0.7%

Detach Alt/Addn $ 1,477,176 0.6%

Demolition Res $ 1,203,894 0.5%

Alt/Add to Manufactured Home $ 982,549 0.4%

NEW Manufactured Home Placement $ 830,368 0.3%

MINOR Alt/Add $ 453,199 0.2%

Other $ 282,549 0.1%

NON-Building structure $ 224,621 0.1%

Woodburning Appliance $ 125,111 0.0%

Fence $ 74,934 0.0%

Propane $ 68,580 0.0%

Sign $ 3,000 0.0%

Total $ 263,975,786 100.0%

Table 2-Residential Permit Activity by Project Valuation

Project valuation data indicates that 94% of permit activity was comprised of three main types:

construction of New Single-Family Detached Residences, Alterations or Additions to same, and

construction of New Detached Structures. Permit activity data also indicates that the combination of

Alterations/Additions to Single Family Dwellings and new construction of Detached structures account

for slightly over half the project valuation of new Single Family Dwellings construction.



Residential and Commercial Demolition permit activity included in the extract file broke down as

follows:

Demolition Permit Activity 2007-2012 - Clallam County

Year Residential Commercial

2007 17 6

2008 20 0

2009 19 5

2010 22 2

2011 23 6

2012 16 4

Totals 117 23 Table 3-Clallam County Demolition Permit Activity 2007-2012

2007-2012 Residential Demolition Permit by Type

Type Count

Manufactured Home 42

Single Family Dwelling 31

Detached Structure 26

Fire 12

Other 6

Total 117 Table 4-Residential Demolition Permit by Type

The above results indicate that using Demolition Permit data records alone to capture and estimate the

potential volume of deconstruction materials is not sufficient. The low sample size also constrains the

statistical analysis that can be performed, impacting results variability and reliability. Further, the square

foot data reported in the demolition permit records did not lend itself to analysis that would yield

comparable results to other projects.

A visual review and manual classification of the free-format comment section of Residential sector

Demolition permit records was completed and is summarized in the Table 4, above. Demolition permit

records indicate Manufactured Homes, Detached Structures, and Single Family Residence permits rank

first, second, and third, in volume, respectively. The first two categories may not be high-yield sources of



deconstruction material re-use. With only 31 Single Family Dwelling Demolition permits over six years,

the volume of available deconstruction materials represented by this source is questionable.

A review of the commercial sector demolition permit records included in the extract file for 2007-2012

shows the following:

2007-2012 Commercial Demolition Permit by Type

Type Count

Building 7

Manufactured Home 1

Fire 3

Detached 4

Other 8

Total 23 Table 5-Commercial Demolition Permit by Type

The review of the Commercial Demolition permit records comments section shows:

Permit Comment

1 DEMOLITION OF GREENHOUSES

2 DEMOLITION OF EXISITING STRUCTURES; INCLUDING PUMP ISLAND CANOPY; PUMP ISLANDS

3 REMOVAL OF THREE 20,000 GALLON U/G GASOLINE STORAGE TANKS

4 675 GALLON REMOVAL OF UNDERGROUND FUEL TANK; FILLING WITH SLURRY

5 425 GALLON UNDERGROUND DIESEL FUEL TANK ABANDONMENT - FILL W/SLURRY#RECIEPTS SHO

6 DEMOLITION OF OFFICE BUILDING *PRIOR TO FINAL OF THIS BPT PUMPING RECEIPT FOR S

7 DECOMMISSION OF 250 GAL U/G GASOLINE FUEL TANK TO BE FILLED WITH SLURRY * PROV

8 DEMO PERMIT FOR 3 MANUFACTURED HOMES

9 UNDERGROUND FUEL TANK REMOVALS (1) 4000 GALLON & (1) 6000 GALLON WASTE OIL (COMB

10 DEMOLITION (FORMER K-MART) 80,500 AND 9,000 SQ FT BUILDINGS ## KOLONEL WAY IS

11 DEMOLITION OF SHELL FISH PROCESSING BUILDING ON A PIER

12 DEMOLITION OF FIRE DAMAGED STRUCTURE - INDIAN VALLEY MOTEL (GRANNY'S) PER ORCAA

13 ABANDON IN PLACE, 275 GALLON UNDERGROUND FUEL OIL TANK, AT GRANGE HALL * PRIOR T

14 REMOVAL OF 10,000 GAL UNDERGROUND FUEL TANK (GASOLINE) (ORIGINALLY INSTALLED UN

15 DEMOLITION OF CABIN BEING USED AS STORAGE * CALL FOR FINAL WHEN DEMO IS COMPLETE

16 (NON-RESIDENTIAL) DEMO OF 18' X 40' ADDITION BUILT W/O PERMIT * CALL FOR FINAL

17 DEMO OF GRANDSTANDS FOR SPEEDWAY * CALL FOR FINAL INSPECTION WHE DEMO AND SEPTI

18 DEMO OF COMMERICIAL BUILDING DAMAGED BY FIRE * EASTERLY BUILDING-METAL CONSTRU

19 DEMOLITION OF RESTAURANT COLLAPSED BY FIRE (PEKING CHINA) * CALL FOR INSPECTIO

20 DEMO OF "OLD" LITTLE BROWN CHURCH OF BLYN *CALL FOR FINAL INSPECTION WHEN DEMO

21 DEMO OF COMMERICIAL BLDG (SCHMITT SHEET METAL) * CALL FOR FINAL WHEN DEMO IS COM

22 DEMO OF 400 SQ FT STORAGE BUILDING * CALL FOR FINAL INSPECTION WHEN DEMO IS COMP

23 DEMO OF OFFICE BUILDING * CALL FOR FINAL INSPECTION WHEN DEMO IS COMPLETE & PROV

Table 6-Commercial Demolition Permit Comments

The data do not indicate a high-volume source of deconstruction materials to be handled in a centralized

recycling center. Deconstruction opportunities can be addressed on a project-by-project basis.



Other jurisdictions address demolition permitting in ways that differ from how it is done in Clallam

County and the cities of Port Angeles, and Sequim. For example, some places differentiate between

demolition and deconstruction as a matter of policy and their permitting processes encourage

deconstruction and recycling/re-use over demolition and transfer-to-landfill. In some cases, it costs an

applicant more to get a demolition permit than a deconstruction permit. Yet other places allow

deconstruction permits to affect the processing queue of new construction permits as an incentive. Many

policies and practices are well-documented and available for review via the internet.

These studies show that policies can be developed and put in place to encourage deconstruction,

recycling, and re-use to replace transfer to landfill. It is outside the scope of this project to analyze,

contrast, compare, and assess in detail the specifics of the current permitting practices in the three

jurisdictions in Clallam County.

In summary, the use of demolition permit records to quantify the potential supply of deconstruction

materials is inadequate to fully and accurately quantify said materials. The relatively low volume of

demolition permits in either the Residential or Commercial sectors may not adequately capture the

materials flow for the purposes of this study.

A review of the comments section of the Residential Alterations/Additions permits indicates a potential

source of deconstruction materials. Manual tabulation of this otherwise non-formatted data into a

quantifiable potential is outside the scope of this study.



The Commercial sector as represented in the County Extract File record counts is shown in the table

below and includes a record count, Project Valuation, and reported square footage, each grouped by

Permit Type and sorted by permit volume:

Commercial Permit Activity 2007-2012 - Clallam County

Count Value Square Footage

Commercial Alt/Add 127 $ 13,274,819 236,462

Commercial - NEW 102 $ 15,346,862 262,527

Sign 51 $ 251,461 Change of Use 24 $ 1,371,719 138,947

Commercial - Non Building Structure 17 $ 684,410 1,662

Demolition* 15 $ 328,500 12,490

MISC - Commercial 13 $ 252,294 4,588

Propane 4 $ 13,700,352 181,843

Demolition* Commercial Structure 3 $ 81,000 Replace Commercial Structure 3 $ 157,169 1,128

Built w/o Permit 2 $ 117,551 2,288

Other 2 $ 52,119 Alt/Add to SFD 2 $ 6,992 1,894

Solid Fuel 1 $ 2,000

Totals 366 $ 45,627,248 843,829 *5 record difference in Demolition counts is due to data field use inconsistencies

Table 7-Commercial Permit Activity 2007-2012

Based strictly on permit data record counts, the volume of activity in the Residential sector is almost

seven times that of the Commercial sector, and almost six times the Project Valuation.

Given these results, we determined it was uneconomic to consider the Commercial sector more fully

without more robust data.

We now change focus to consider the waste stream data as a source of potential deconstruction/re-

use/recycle materials.



The most current Statewide Waste Categorization Study completed by the Washington State Department

of Ecology in 2009, which included Clallam County, yields the following results.

Annual Disposed Tonnage by Waste Generation Area

Source: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1007023.pdf, Table 23, pg. 46

Table 8-Annual Disposed Tonnage by Waste Generation Area

Annual Wood Debris Tonnage – West WGA

DISPOSED SELF-HAUL

Material Est % Est Tons Est % Est Tons TonnageTotals

Treated Wood 0.1% 65 2.1% 253 318

Painted Wood 0.4% 292 8.6% 1020 1312

Dimensional Lumber 0.3% 194 9.8% 1155 1349

Engineered Wood 0.3% 187 6.5% 772 959

Pallets & Crates 0.0% 0 1.6% 192 192

Other Untreated Wood 0.0% 23 0.7% 82 108

Wood By-Products 0.2% 124 0.4% 45 169

R/C Wood Debris 0.0% 20 3.0% 349 369

Wood Debris Total 1.3% 905 32.8% 3870 4776

Total Waste for WGA Sector 68,636 11,808

Source: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1007023.pdf, pp 103, 104

Table 9-Annual Wood Debris Tonnage - West WGA

Of the above Wood Debris estimated waste tonnage, Painted Wood (1312 est. tn), Dimensional Lumber

(1349 est. tn), Pallets & Crates (192 est. tn), and Other Untreated Wood (108 est. tn) are the most likely

candidates for potential re-use or recycling. There is a potential 2961 tons, if 100% re-purposed,

available to deconstruction or recycling. This would equate to approximately $414,000 in tipping fees, at

an approximate cost of $140/ton. This does not include potential revenues generated by the sale of

WASTE GENERATION AREAS ANNUAL DISPOSED WASTE TONNAGE

Central WGA (Yakima, Grant) 523,636

East WGA (Spokane, Walla Walla) 734,627

Northwest WGA (Whatcom) 306,189

Puget Sound WGA (Kitsap) 2,810,988

Southwest WGA (Lark, Lewis) 428,085

West WGA (Clallam, Grays Harbor) 174,971

Total 4,978,496





materials to deconstruction/recycling materials vendors, nor the labor costs associated with performing

the deconstruction activities necessary to prepare for re-sale, transport, or storage costs.

Annual C&D Debris Tonnage – West WGA

DISPOSED SELF-HAUL

Material Est % Est Tons Est % Est Tons Totals

Natural Wood 0.1% 38 0.0% 0 38

Insulation 0.0% 0 1.5% 178 178

Asphalt Paving 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0

Concrete 0.2% 132 0.5% 64 196

Drywall 0.1% 46 18.2% 2147 2193

Carpet 0.1% 98 4.8% 563 661

Carpet Padding 0.0% 4 2.8% 334 338

Soil, Rocks, Sand 0.7% 497 0.0% 0 497

Asphalt Roofing 1.3% 905 9.8% 1159 2064

Plastic Flooring 0.0% 0 0.0% 0 0

Ceramics & Brick 0.2% 133 3.1% 368 501

R/C Construction Materials 0.6% 422 5.1% 601 1023

Total Construction Materials 2.0% 1369 45.9% 5414 6783

Total Waste for WGA Sector 68,636 11,808

Source: https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/publications/1007023.pdf, pp 103, 104

Table 10-Annual C&D Debris Tonnage - West WGA

The above Construction debris results above indicate there may be opportunities for re-use of some

materials. Of those with a potential for consideration, Asphalt Roofing, with an estimated 2064 tons, has

the most opportunity for immediate conversion from landfill to re-use/recycling. If 100% converted to

these purposes, the impact to tipping fees is approximately $289,000.

Carpet (661 est. tn) and Carpet (338 est. tn) padding have also been mentioned in some informal data

gathering interviews as potential sources of re-use/recycle materials. Together, they account for and

additional estimated 999 tons and an additional $140,000 in tipping fees.

In summary, using the most recent Statewide Waste Categorization Study, and assuming a 100%

conversion from current practice to deconstruct/re-use/recycle practices, a potential estimated 6,024 tons

of Wood Debris and Construction/Demolition Debris components is available for consideration,

representing an impact of approximately $843,000 in tipping fees.




Clearly, a change from current practice to deconstruction/re-use/recycle will not achieve 100%

conversion, and the estimated tonnages provided via the statewide waste characterization study are

subject to variance from actual amounts, as the study so indicates. Nevertheless, almost a million dollars

per year are potentially being spent on tipping fees and over 6,000 tons of debris is likely being buried in

landfills when they could be otherwise put to use.

Additional tipping fee savings and landfill diversions may be possible for the Drywall component of the

C&D Waste Summary. This component accounts for an additional 2,193 estimated tons and

approximately $307,000 in tipping fees.

The above estimates are based on the Waste Characterization Study tonnage estimates. An updated

calculation of benefits was provided as part of the presentation to the Solid Waste Management

Committee and is included as part of this document as an Appendix.

As the data indicates, the vast majority of the potential sources for deconstruction materials are in the

Self-Haul category. Accordingly, efforts to facilitate the separation of potentially re-usable materials

from that which can only be transferred to landfill are an opportunity to be explored further. Included in

this exploration is the establishment of a temporary location for the sorting of materials for

deconstruction/re-use. Currently, Around Again (a local vendor of deconstruction materials) staff has

expressed interest in establishing such a site. Details of the proposed approach are being developed and

will be communicated once more firm. Additional effort to establish a co-located site with the current

Port Angeles Transfer station facility is indicated.



4.0 Existing Demand for C&D Materials

The demand for C&D Materials for re-use and recycling is comprised of a number of variables. The

County Building Permit Data Extract File was used as a basis for analysis of potential demand. One

variable used to estimate demand for re-use was volume of building permits issued for new construction

of Single Family Dwellings. The first ten months of 2012 yielded less than 100, while the end of year

2012 was just shy of 110 permits for new Single-Family Dwellings. Of all permit types in the file, these

permits rank first in terms of Project Valuation. Although some migration from construction of new

homes to Alterations or Additions of Single Family Dwellings is expected, the potential increase is not

expected to drive a large demand for deconstruction materials. As shown previously, six years’ data on

the Project Valuation field in Clallam County extract files shows that Alterations and Additions to Single

Family Dwellings are approximately one-third the stated Project Valuation of permits for new

construction. Permits for new construction of Detached Structures is even less, approximately only 17%

of the value for new construction of Single Family Dwellings. Consequently, the permit data would

indicate that demand for any building materials, much less re-use deconstruction materials, is suppressed,

and likely to continue for at least this year.

The lowered demand for construction services in the county is also reflected in the local lumberyard retail

trades. A shuttered lumberyard/building materials retailer on Highway 101 between Sequim and Port

Angeles has not re-opened. Informal in-person surveys of three other existing lumberyards/building

materials suppliers showed decreased staffing and reduced hours, as well as reduced customer traffic.

Informal interviews with local contractors found that some premium custom home builders are taking on

smaller projects, such as storage sheds to keep staff busy.

Given the above, as well as the current economic forecasts for the nation, state, and region, leads us to

conclude that demand is likely to continue to be lower than hoped.

Further affecting our estimate of subdued demand are the County population demographics and economic

statistics. The market for re-use material, in the consumer segment, tends to be concentrated in the

younger population with more disposable income.



The 2011 US Census Bureau website estimated population of Clallam County is listed as 71,838. Of

these, 24.6% of the population is over 65 years in age, and another 17.8% is under 18 years of age. These

facts reduce the number of people between the ages of 18 and 65 to approximately 41,480 potential

consumers. Clallam County has a median household income of $46,212 per the US Census Bureau

website.

As contrast, one of the most successful counties in Washington State, two hours away by ferry, in the

deconstruction trade is King County. Per the US Census, King County has 94,460 households with

household incomes between $35-49,999; 138,336 households earning $50-74,999 and another 109,540

with earnings between $75-99,999. Clearly, these and other demographic factors make for a much more

favorable source pool of potential customers.



5.0 Potential Demand for a Re-use Facility in Clallam County

With analysis of the County Building Permit Extract file completed and a review of current economic

forecasts and County demographic data indicating a potentially lower than ideal level of consumer

demand, we focused on determining what level of re-use facility could be supported in the County. Key

characteristics of a re-use facility include:

- Easy access for consumers and contractors to drop-off and pick-up re-use materials

- Convenient location to minimize out-of-the-way travel if already going to Transfer Station

- Large enough space to allow for materials clean-up/salvage operations, storage of product for

re-sale, and room for dumpsters

- Low-cost rental of property to reduce overhead to minimum

With the low volume of materials being captured via the demolition permit process, and the potential

volume of materials already being sent directly to landfill via the transfer station as a result of the

Alterations/Additions activity, it raised the question of whether this Re-use Facility could be co-located

with the Port Angeles Regional Transfer Station. A more thorough investigation of this possibility was

outside the scope of this study. However, a local deconstruction/re-use contractor is filling the current

and anticipated need via the Around Again retail operation. A coordinated and integrated project with

them and Built Green Clallam County is a possibility that can be further explored, but beyond this study’s

scope.



6.0 Market Barriers to Building Deconstruction and Material Reuse

The overall economy continues to have significant impacts on construction activity; nationally and

locally, the rate of improvement is only slight, and the core segments of the housing construction industry

are in slow recovery mode. Without an increase in demand of significant size, the local market for

deconstruction materials for reuse is likely to continue to be small.

Clallam County is a rural county, with nearly 72,000 total estimated residents. Not all of these potential

consumers are attracted by the “reuse aesthetic.” This reduces the potential local market size as well.

The local market, when compared to pre-recession levels, was not supporting significantly more

deconstruction materials retailers than today, so increases from today’s levels may prove less than

desired.

The deconstruction reuse market can be defined in many ways, but a large component of the market can

be said to be in the “eye of the beholder.” Some people prefer the look and feel of old rustic wood on

their floors. To be able to say that it was re-sawn from the deconstruction of an old barn is an added

sought-after bonus. Yet other consumers like to focus on the history of the pieces that were rescued from

the landfill. The decision to use reclaimed materials is a sometimes less-than-straightforward process. In

some cases, the re-purposed material tends to be just as, or considerably more expensive than “new”

products. Sometimes it takes time to gather all the right pieces together for that “just right” look and feel.

Each of these attributes about the potential consumer of reuse material fragments the market into smaller

niches. Clallam County does not appear to be represented in high numbers in these market demographic

niches.

Another potential barrier to the establishment of a robust local deconstruction material reuse market is

lack of “desirable” inventory. The meaning of “desirable” is again being defined in the “eye of the

beholder.” There were only a few local single family dwellings being demolished per year, as previously

shown via building permit analysis. Whatever of those future demolitions were instead converted to

deconstructions is difficult to establish, and there are no significant incentives to do so. For future

consideration as a potential source of deconstruction material, policy incentives might be considered for

residents to give serious consideration to deconstruction versus demolition.

There are few alternatives for residents to consider for drop-off and storage of deconstructed materials

they may generate. Whatever materials that are generated via alterations or additions are either being sent

to landfill or being re-purposed through existing processes.



Without a convenient and effective way to gather, prepare, inventory, store, and display available

deconstruction materials, it becomes more difficult to match buyers with sellers.

One of the most successful deconstruction markets is a two-hour trip by ferry: King County. The

selection of materials, the displays, the volumes, the convenience – they are all there, and many in very

mature businesses. For those Clallam County residents that do fit the reuse demographic, they have King

County. Even closer, Jefferson County also offers many alternative sources for materials and artisans that

integrate them into their work. Some of these businesses are also mature and well-established. A robust

local market would need to offer something unique to compete and succeed.

The largest barrier, however, will be cultural – because it will require people to change – change their

attitudes, their behaviors, and their understanding of a number of issues, many covered here. Some will

be open to it, some may resist. Not all affected by potential change will have the same stake in the

outcomes. Some may have more at stake than others. All of this will take time to work through. The

longer it takes to get a cohesive group together to act in a concerted way to achieve the change, the less

likely a robust market will be created, nurtured, and supported.



7.0 Best Practices for Building Deconstruction and Material Reuse

The following is excerpted from the March 2011 Go Guide for Deconstruction and Re-use,

produced by the Delta Institute and available online in its entirety at URL: http://delta-institute.org/sites/default/files/GO-GuideToDeconstructionAndReuse.pdf

Part III: Practitioners Guide for Contractors Traditional demolition typically involves the salvage of building materials, such as metal, wood, concrete or roof shingles, and subsequent recycling or processing to create new products or uses. Material is transformed, requiring new energy and losing embodied energy. Deconstruction is the process of carefully dismantling a building in order to salvage components for reuse in substantially the same form, requiring less energy and resulting in the recovery of higher-value materials. This section provides practical information to help contractors interested in participating in this growth industry:

Understand the business opportunity in deconstruction; Learn steps for getting started and succeeding long-term; Understand how to market deconstruction services; Discover strategies for overcoming common challenges; Get more information.

All of the above topics are covered in more detail in the guide, and are not repeated here.

Further, the Go Guide recommends the following additional resources:

Guide to Deconstruction, Deconstruction Institute www.deconstructioninstitute. com/files/learn_center/45762865_guidebook.pdf

A Guide to Deconstruction, National Association of Home Builders (NAHB), prepared for the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development www.huduser.org/publications/pdf/decon.pdf

Recycling How-to Guide, Madison Environmental Group, Inc. www.madisonenvironmental.com/documents/pubs_deconkit.pdf

In summary, there are substantial resources available to help anyone seriously considering entering the

Deconstruction practice.

Locally, there are several for-profit and non-profit organizations involved in a variety of segments of the

re-use market. One for-profit business closed in Port Angeles and none has yet replaced it fully. Each

existing organization has its area of specialization and customer base, and there are cross-over customers

amongst store types.

http://delta-institute.org/sites/default/files/GO-GuideToDeconstructionAndReuse.pdf



One non-profit, Around Again, participated in a public works deconstruction project with the North

Olympic Library System (NOLS) from contracting to completion. As part of this study, several field

visits were made to document progress, initial and follow-up interviews were conducted with the NOLS

Facilities Manager and the Contractor. In brief:

- Each would do it again,

- They both learned a lot in the process

Public works projects require prevailing wages be paid. The word “demolition” versus “deconstruction”

apparently had an impact on the determination of a prevailing wage requirement in excess of $40.00 per

hour for the worker. If this determination is not modified or a better way to define the work is not

established with the Department of Labor and Industries, it will be severely UN-economic to perform

public works deconstruction work with this classification. It is outside the scope of this project to pursue

this issue.



8.0 Policy Incentives for Increasing Building Deconstruction

In reviewing the literature and media available on the internet, one study, cited earlier, the Go Guide,

(http://delta-institute.org/sites/default/files/GO-GuideToDeconstructionAndReuse.pdf ) contained a

section specifically addressing Policy subject matter and is excerpted below:

Strategy #1: Be a Role Model

In areas of the country where disposal costs are high or for specific buildings that have a large volume of higher-value reusable materials, deconstruction is cost competitive with traditional demolition and disposal. Local governments can be role models by requiring audits or inventories of salvageable materials for public projects as part of the bid process

Strategy #2: Fund Demonstration Programs

Grant funds can subsidize deconstruction project costs in cases where the higher cost of deconstruction is unlikely to be offset by avoided disposal costs, value of reused materials, or tax benefits to the building owner. Government grants for housing rehabilitation, job training or energy conservation are potential sources of funding for subsidized deconstruction programs. Subsidized programs can be used to train contractors on handling materials and to find markets for higher-value reusable materials. The City of Chicago and Cook County are examples of local governments that are currently using government grants to subsidize deconstruction work, provide an example, build capacity and jump-start the local market.

Strategy #3: Adopt Supportive Local Ordinances

Local governments can support the reuse and recycling of C&D materials by passing ordinances that require private demolition contractors to recycle a specific percentage of materials or that incorporate green building standards in public building projects. These types of ordinances are more common in states with high levels of environmental awareness and regulation, such as California, Colorado and Washington. Examples in the Great Lakes region are less common, but do exist. See the sidebar for a list of prominent ordinances. For more detail, see Appendix A. Some local governments are also supporting deconstruction activities by expediting the permitting process or waiving permit fees for demolition and new construction that involves deconstruction. For example, Los Altos Hills, CA, waives the permitting fee for projects when a deconstruction contract is attached to the permit application and expedites the process for new buildings.

Strategy #4: Provide Education and Training for Contractors

Local government and non-government partners can provide funding, education and training for contractors on topics that will help them grow their deconstruction line of business, including: The value and markets for a broad range of reusable materials; Methods for carefully handling and packaging reusable materials for resale markets; Risks and regulations in handling materials that may contain lead-based paint or other potential contamination; Labor standards for deconstruction workers and risks relating to work in areas where these standards have not yet been defined formally; Hybrid deconstruction techniques, which combine manual deconstruction to maximize reuse and recycling and traditional machine-operated demolition techniques; and Potential tax incentives for donation of building materials by higher-income homeowners or commercial building redevelopers. More detailed information on these topics is included in the Practitioners Guide for Contractors (page 19). A number of non-profits that provide training services for contractors are listed in Appendix D. Other training publications and resources are also provided in Appendix E.

http://delta-institute.org/sites/default/files/GO-GuideToDeconstructionAndReuse.pdf



Strategy #5: Support New Labor Standards

Because deconstruction is relatively new, there are no specific labor standards for deconstruction workers in many states. Government-funded programs that require payment of prevailing wage have been stalled because of the high cost of paying lower-skill and youth trainees wages that may not fit their job site activities. A recent forum hosted by Cook County, IL, on market barriers to deconstruction resulted in a recommendation that deconstruction be defined as an occupation through the Department of Labor’s Office of Apprenticeship.

Strategy #6: Support New Appraisal Standards

Charitable tax deductions for donation of used building materials are an important incentive to offset the higher up-front cost of deconstruction. The IRS requires an appraisal by a qualified appraiser of materials valued at more than $5,000. Deconstruction of an entire home is sure to yield materials with a value over this threshold. Finding a qualified appraiser that has education and experience in valuing used building materials may be a challenge, however, given that national appraisal organizations do not yet have specialized certification programs for this type of personal property. Most personal property appraisers specialize in art, antiques, jewelry, or specialized equipment. Outreach to appraisal organizations is needed to encourage them to provide new appraisal standards for valuing donated building materials.

Strategy #7: Advocate for Clear Environmental and Public Health Policies for Handling and Selling Salvaged Materials

Environmental and health regulations are clear on the removal and disposal of asbestos-containing materials and other types of hazardous building materials. Regulations on handling lead-based paint in rehab situations are also clear since the EPA’s Renovation, Repair and Painting (RRP) rule took full effect in April 2010. However, it is not yet clear if this rule or other regulations apply in deconstruction or demolition cases where a building will no longer exist or be occupied. Some national deconstruction advocacy groups are seeking clarity from government officials on this issue. Organizations that sell used building materials are also establishing best practices for the safe reuse of salvaged materials. During the salvage process, as long as there is no flaking, peeling, or cracking, lead-based materials are still often sent to retail centers and sold to customers. In these cases, customers are directed to a wide range of existing lead-management resources. Reuse retailers cannot play the role of educational resource regarding lead issues because of potential liability, but they can encourage customers to educate themselves about lead, especially given the amount of information already published by the EPA.

Strategy #8: Build Public Awareness

Although there is a long-standing public preference for new goods, the recent economic downturn and changing tastes are increasing demand for salvaged and reclaimed materials. A small but growing group of artists, craftsmen, do-it-yourselfers and architects are embracing the reclaimed aesthetic and making it a norm of the green building movement. Education and marketing by government and advocacy groups is needed to increase awareness among homeowners and building managers about deconstruction and reuse opportunities. In most parts of the country, non-government practitioners are leading the way in expanding awareness.

Clearly, each of the above strategies needs to be considered in light of a number of factors, including all

other high priority issues that are currently before the various affected regulatory agencies, staffing needs

and workloads, budgets, and many other considerations. Some work is being performed in some of these

areas on a more ad-hoc than formalized basis, and that may be appropriate for the current economic

environment. The NOLS project is but one example of executing the Role Model strategy listed above.



The current permitting processes in Clallam County, regardless of regulating agency, do not differentiate

between demolition and deconstruction. There are no policy-based incentives to encourage one activity

over the other. The same is true for ORCAA-issued permits.

Whether it makes sense at this time to review these and related issues is up to each regulating agency to

determine, given the numerous ongoing issues they face.

9.0 Conclusion

A Powerpoint presentation summarizing this material and adding additional tables and charts was

prepared for and presented to the Solid Waste Advisory Committee on January 17, 2013.

Recommendations and discussion are part of the public record, available from the SWAC sometime in

February.

10.0 Appendix

January 17, 2013 Powerpoint Presentation to Solid Waste Advisory Committee

Documents

Deconstruction in Clallam County