Residential Construction Waste Assessment Results

This document summarizes the observations made during a two-day assessment (Sept. 8-9, 1998) of residential construction waste management practice in the Atlanta metropolitan area. The assessments recorded the types and quantities of materials in the waste stream, the methods of hauling used by the builders, and the cost of these services. The assessments were conducted in four different residential developments in Gwinnett and Forsyth counties.

Assessment Methodology

It is important to note that these results are derived from “snapshot” assessments, i.e., an evaluation of the waste materials on-site at that time, and not a detailed assessment made of all materials done after construction is completed. To ensure the accuracy of the measured quantities of materials, the current stage of construction and the amount of waste material previously hauled from the site was verified with the participating builder. The NAHB Research Center has performed several detailed assessments and the results of these are presented as national averages in the table entitled “Components of the Waste Stream”. The emphasis of this waste assessment was on wood, drywall and cardboard because these materials typically comprise approximately 75% of the waste stream and they are the most likely materials to be recovered from the waste stream.

Site Descriptions

All of the residential developments contain similarly sized lots and homes, and have similar terrain and vegetation. Most of the homes in the developments range in size between 2,800 and 3,500 square feet, although some are slightly larger. The average lot size was approximately 1/3 to _ acre, although the lots ranged from 1/4 acre to _ acre. Terrain on the individual lots is sloped, in some cases rather steep. Most of the lots are heavily wooded. The selling price for all of these homes is upwards of $200,000—many are significantly higher.

Method of Hauling

Three of the four builders currently have their construction waste removed from their jobsites by a “clean-up” service, i.e., a crew of laborers manually load the waste into 7-10 yard trucks and haul away from the site. Although the fourth builder is currently using roll-off dumpsters (30 cubic yard) to contain and haul their waste, the company used a clean-up service until 12 months ago. The scrap gypsum wallboard is removed from the site by the subcontractor on approximately 50-75 percent of the jobsites. This is the only subcontractor who removes their own waste.

The clean-up crews typically make 4-6 visits to the site during construction and “sweep” the site clean. Because the material is manually loaded the crews request the scrap piles be hauled to the curb, although when possible the crew will drive their truck to the pile. All three of the builders have been using the service for several years and are pleased with the flexible and thorough level of service provided.

The roll-off Dumpster service used by the fourth builder is owned and operated as a subsidiary of the parent construction company. A roll-off container is placed on most jobsites, although many adjacent sites will share a dumpster. The builder stated that some of the subcontractors do not clean-up their scrap, leaving this task for the general contractor. The builder also stated that wood generated during the site clearing phase is either processed in a tub grinder or burned (when allowed).

Cost of Services

The total cost of the services described above range from $900-$1300 per house. In some cases the fees are a flat, per-house charge, in others the cost is itemized per material. The total cost includes the charge by drywall contractors who remove their own scrap – this fee ranges from no charge to $250. The dumpsters are provided for a flat fee of approximately $270.

Components of the Waste Stream1

Other Observations

• Cardboard generation. All of the builders use cabinets which are custom made in the Atlanta metropolitan area and shipped to the site without cardboard. The doors and windows also arrive on site with little packaging waste. The packaging for appliances, HVAC equipment, and plumbing and lighting fixtures will comprise most of the cardboard scrap.
• Roof framing technique. All of the roofs are stick-framed – no trusses were observed.
• Siding options. Due to problems in the area related to hardboard siding and EIFS (exterior insulation and Finish system), most builders choose brick, cedar shingles and/or fiber-cement siding as an exterior veneer.
• Seeding and soding lawns. Some of the builders sod the front of the house only (seeding the remainder of the lawn), while others plant sod in the front and sides (this is important when considering on-site reuse of processed material as a soil amendment).
• Sloped terrain. The steep slopes on many of the sites create problems for trucks servicing the site, e.g., dumpster locations are limited and trucks (used for manual loading) can not drive to the waste piles.
• Processing/recycling wood. One builder is using chipped wood (from land-clearing) for horse-trails in the development.
• Leverage with subcontractors. The builders all pointed out they currently have little leverage with subcontractors to require clean-up, i.e., fill dumpsters or move scrap to the curb, due to the low unemployment (2%) in the area.

Analysis of Results

• Generation rates. Both the size of the homes and the generation rates of waste material are slightly higher than the national average. It is not uncommon for large houses (with more detail and unusual shapes) to result in high waste generations rates. The total amount of waste generated during the construction of these homes could be as high as 10 tons.
• Cost of services. The total waste management cost per house reported by the builders is approximately twice that of the national average. The large size of the homes aside, the total cost is nonetheless high, particularly when considering the low tipping fees at area landfills (approximately $10-20 per ton).
• Method of hauling. Only a small percentage of the area builders (approximately 10-20%) appear to use dumpsters. Although clean-up services are available in other parts of the country, it is rare for this type of service to be the predominant one. Several builders cited drive-by contamination as a major reason for not using dumpsters.
• Manual loading. The manual loading involved with the clean-up services creates an opportunity to sort the waste material while servicing the site.
• Components of the waste stream. The amount of cardboard waste generated is relatively low. When combined with drywall scrap being hauled by the subcontractor, the portion of the total waste stream that is wood is very high–approximately 60 percent.

Assessment Participants

Assessment sponsor

Pollution Prevention Assistance Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources

Builders

Image Builders
Dacula, GA

Applecore Construction
Tucker, GA

Hedgewood Properties

Cumming, GA

John Weiland Homes

Duluth, GA

Assessment crew

Eric Lund, NAHB Research Center

Stephanie Siniard, Pollution Prevention Assistance Division, Department of Natural Resources

Components of the Waste Stream1

1. The emphasis of this waste assessment was on wood, drywall and cardboard because these materials typically comprise approximately 75% of the waste stream and they are the most likely materials to be recovered from the waste stream.