This report was prepared by Industrial Economics, Incorporated (IEc), under the direction of Robin Snyder of the Urban and Economic Development Division (UEDD) of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Policy, Economics, and Innovation (USEPA). The building inventory section is based on the results of a parallel effort undertaken by Peter Yost and the National Association of Home Builders Research Center (NAHBRC). The discussion and conclusions presented in this report are based in large part on information provided to IEc by the contacts listed in Exhibit 3.

INTRODUCTION

Deconstruction is the process of selectively and systematically disassembling buildings that would otherwise be demolished to generate a supply of materials suitable for reuse in the construction or rehabilitation of other structures. The benefits of deconstruction, ranging from the diversion of demolition debris from landfills to the creation of jobs and job skills, have been documented elsewhere. Numerous examples from across the country illustrate how buildings can be successfully deconstructed and how salvaged materials can be collected and distributed for reuse. The purpose of this paper is to describe the state of deconstruction activities in Washington, D.C. and to identify some of the issues that may promote or impede the growth or sustainability of a deconstruction "industry" in the District. Many of these issues are not unique to Washington, D.C., and should be relevant to the consideration of deconstruction potential in other metropolitan areas.

Our consideration of deconstruction comprises six elements, as illustrated in Exhibit 1. First, we consider the current Economic and Political Climate in which deconstruction is now occurring and being promoted in Washington, D.C. Next, we present a preliminary Washington, D.C. Building Inventory in order to provide a sense of the number and type of buildings that may present deconstruction opportunities. The third element addresses the Planning and Implementation of Deconstruction Projects in the District, focusing on the types of expertise and labor required to accomplish deconstruction objectives. This element is followed by the Collection and Distribution of Salvaged Materials and the End Use of Salvaged Materials, emphasizing the point that a supply of buildings and a labor force capable of deconstructing them represents only half of the equation. Finally, we explore the Brownfields Link to deconstruction in Washington, D.C. to see if there are useful connections between these redevelopment concepts. We conclude by summarizing the status of deconstruction activities in Washington, D.C., highlighting the major issues that will affect the future growth and direction of these activities, and recommending specific policy and program directions.

With the exception of the first section (Economic and Political Climate), which is based on readily available data from on-line sources, the information contained in this report is based largely on conversations with local contacts who are actively engaged in deconstruction-related efforts. A list of contacts with whom we have had communication and a list of potential contacts are provided at the end of this report (Exhibits 3 and 4). This is not an exhaustive list of contacts. In fact, one conclusion we quickly reached is that there are many individuals and organizations in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area who have an active interest in, or are already practitioners of, deconstruction. In speaking with some of the local participants in the deconstruction arena, we realized that this report will provide the first integrated description of active deconstruction initiatives in the District, and perhaps will promote additional cooperation and information exchange among the interested parties.

Exhibit 1

ELEMENTS OF THE DECONSTRUCTION ANALYSIS FOR WASHINGTON, DC

ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL CLIMATE

A growing economy makes it easier to direct public policies as well as private spending toward projects, such as deconstruction, that generate additional economic opportunities. This section provides a "snapshot" of the D.C. economy and some of the initiatives that demonstrate a local commitment to promoting continued growth and redevelopment. As discussed below, a relationship between deconst ruction and economic growth exists with respect to the supply of and demand for both urban real estate and salvaged materials.

General Economic Conditions

The recent growth of the D.C. economy can be illustrated through a variety of measures, including employment, income and real estate activity. For example, unemployment in the District stands at 6.0 percent, a 34.4 percent decrease since the first quarter of 1998 and the lowest level in more than nine years. Much of this decrease in unemployment can be attributed to the growth of D.C.'s major industry sectors, including Business/Financial Services, Telecommunications, Entertainment/Tourism, and Biomedical/Health Services, all of which have seen significant employment increases in the past decade. Employment increases have been accompanied by increases in personal income. In 1987, per capita personal income (PCPI) for Washington, D.C. was $19,566, fourth highest in the U.S. By 1997, PCPI had risen to $35,704, second in the U. S. and 141 percent of the national average. D.C.'s average annual nominal growth rate of PCPI during this time was 6.2 percent, compared to the national average rate of 4.7 percent. In addition, the Washington D.C. Chamber of Commerce predicts that population will increase by 7.6 percent by 2010, reversing a trend that saw the D.C. metropolitan population decline by 14 percent over the last nine years.

In combination, a growing population and an increasingly strong local economy stimulate activity in the real estate market. For example, with 429 permits issued, 1998 witnessed the greatest amount of residential construction activity in the District in the last 10 years. At the same time, numerous "speculative" office projects are presently underway. This high level of real estate activity relates to deconstruction because new development (residential, commercial or industrial) requires property and deconstruction sites are an option. Existing incentives (described below) for redevelopment in the District, rather than in outlying areas, may be sufficient to encourage developers to reclaim currently underutilized properties. Each instance of redevelopment of urban properties may be an opportunity for deconstruction.

Current Redevelopment Incentives

The local government is taking active measures to stimulate redevelopment in the District. As a result, numerous financing incentives exist to reduce the costs associated with (re)development projects within the city. These incentives include the following programs:

• District of Columbia Enterprise Zones (EZ). Tax benefits are available to businesses operating primarily within lower income (e.g., greater than 10 percent poverty rates) census tracts, including the southwest portion of Washington D.C. Such businesses may be eligible for tax exempt financing of redevelopment projects, employment tax credits, zero capital gains tax on investments, and expensing allowances for machinery and materials.

• Governmental Revenue Bonds. The District of Columbia is offering revenue bonds for the specific purpose of stimulating redevelopment, commercial development, and infrastructure improvement projects. Program funds will be available through the sale of tax-exempt and taxable municipal revenue bonds, notes, and other obligations. Proceeds from the sale of these bonds are loaned to borrowers who may use them to finance or reimburse costs associated with acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, restoration, expansion, or improvement of local structures.

• Tax Increment Financing. The District is offering the sale of tax-exempt governmental revenue bonds as part of a tax increment financing (TIF) system. Such a system assumes that the redevelopment undertaken using bond sale revenues will result in higher property tax revenues, which in turn can be used to finance the debt. Tax increment financing is facilitated by laws that allow the establishment of special districts to collect TIF revenue and issue debt.

• Employment and Training Tax Credits. Businesses may claim employment and training tax credits for wages paid to, and costs of training, all individuals hired from within Washington D.C. These credits are available from the District government and include the D.C. Employment Tax Credit, the Welfare-to-Work Tax Credit, and the Work Opportunity Tax Credit.

Another important local initiative that could stimulate deconstruction activity is the Homestead Housing Preservation Program. This program, which is operated and funded by the District of Columbia Department of Housing and Community Development, was established in 1987 with three principal objectives: (1) increase residency within the District, (2) facilitate the associated increase in tax revenues, and (3) make housing units acquired under tax foreclosure available to low and moderate income D.C. residents. The program acquires abandoned or "marginal" properties, resolves title issues, and advertises the unencumbered units for sale. Many of these properties may have deconstruction potential. Most units (including single family homes) are sold for $250, with low-interest $10,000 per unit loans for reconstruction and renovation available from the D.C. government. Other housing renovation programs in the District provide low-interest loans ranging from $5,000 to $50,000 to individuals who wish to renovate or rehabilitate their homes. These renovation and rehabilitation activities present obvious opportunities both to salvage building materials for reuse elsewhere and to reuse salvaged materials on site.

Due to extremely high levels of demand, the program uses a lottery to aid the process of allocation. In 1999, for example, the Program distributed 15,000 applications -- 2,500 of which were deemed valid -- for a lottery which allocated fewer than 100 units. Any person or developer may apply for a property. To be eligible, however, applicants must be able to demonstrate that they will be able to complete all renovations needed to bring units into compliance with local building codes. The program also requires purchasers to attend a 10-week training class that includes instruction in how to facilitate and finance renovation activities. This training is intended to help ensure success in achieving the program's objective of "revitalizing" D.C. properties. While the use of salvaged materials may present successful applicants with a cost-effective approach to making some or all of the necessary renovations, it may also be possible to deconstruct and re-sell certain materials during the renovation/rehabilitation process.

Overall, the information presented in this section describes a local environment that not only can stimulate and support deconstruction activity, but also can benefit from the additional economic growth and redevelopment that deconstruction will provide.

BUILDING INVENTORY

The potential growth and sustainability of a building deconstruction and material reuse program in Washington, D.C. obviously requires an adequate supply of buildings suitable for deconstruction. In order to begin to characterize the existing "stock" of potential deconstruction sites, the National Association of Home Builders Research Center ("Research Center") completed an initial inventory and assessment of 236 condemned residential structures in the District of Columbia. The Housing and Environmental Regulation Administration within the D.C. Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA) provided the information that helped the Research Center locate these buildings.

The Research Center completed drive-by, visual inspections of 86 of the 236 condemned properties identified by the DCRA. The visual inspections noted: building type, general construction type, overall condition, property status (e.g., abandoned, effectively cordoned, under renovation, for sale), neighborhood context, and whether a detailed assessment would be appropriate. Based on the inspection of condemned properties, the Research Center defined four categories of residential buildings, as described below, each with attributes that suggest the potential for cost-effective deconstruction. The Research Center then chose four different types of structures for detailed assessments. These assessments provide an indication of the type and quantity of materials available from residential buildings.

• High-rise multi-family buildings. These large apartment buildings potentially contain many interior features that could be salvaged and reused (appliances, cabinets, fixtures, etc.). These buildings are usually made of structural concrete and steel, so complete deconstruction is generally not a feasible option. However, the structural materials may be good candidates for recycling. A detailed assessment of one building in the Arthur Capper public housing complex identified cabinets, stainless steel sinks, garbage disposals and metal framed windows suitable for salvage, as well as copper piping and aluminum baseboard heating units that could be removed and sold for scrap.

• Low-rise multi-family buildings. These buildings offer significant potential for the deconstruction of both interior and exterior materials. In general, the low-rise multi-family buildings in D.C. are made using brick and block construction with wooden roof assemblies. Many interior elements (e.g., appliances, cabinets) can be salvaged from the low-rise buildings. A detailed assessment of one building in the Kentucky Courts housing complex identified wooden roof trusses with plywood sheathing, recently updated kitchen cabinetry, stainless steel sinks, garbage disposals, and metal framed windows. As with the high-rise example, this building also contained copper tubing and aluminum heating units with potential scrap value. A second detailed assessment, of a three-unit building in the Frederick Douglass housing complex, found a significant amount of salvageable material including framing lumber, brick double glazed windows, and over 1,000 square feet of oak strip hardwood flooring, as well as a recently replaced gas boiler and water heater. There are approximately 107 buildings of similar type in the Frederick Douglass complex, 83 of which are also reported to have exterior natural wood siding suitable for salvage.

• Rowhouses. Rowhouses offer multiple deconstruction opportunities. Exterior construction offers salvageable brick, roofing and architectural details. Rowhouse interiors can provide valuable wood materials. A detailed assessment of a rowhouse in Northwest D.C. identified framing lumber, hardwood flooring, oak stair cases, plywood sub-flooring and roof sheathing, and a recently replaced gas water heater and furnace. The exterior of this structure features Roman brick, stone lentils and slate roofing. It should be noted that adjoining rowhouses, particularly those that are not end units, may have a structural interdependence that would need to be considered prior to deconstruction.

• Single-family dwellings. Wood-framed single-family dwellings offer significant potential for deconstruction, since it may be possible to salvage nearly the entire structure. The same types of materials found in low-rise multi-family buildings can be expected to be found in single-family homes (i.e., wooden framing, roofing materials, flooring, windows, cabinets, appliances, etc.). However, it should be noted that wood-framed single-family homes represent a relatively small percentage of the D.C. residential housing stock.

The NAHBRC research indicates that the residential sector alone provides numerous opportunities for deconstruction. In fact, the number of residential sites with potential for deconstruction may be considerably larger than the 236 condemned properties identified by the DCRA. The D.C. Public Housing Authority provided the Research Center with a list of structures that have been or are soon to be vacated for property redisposition or redevelopment. In addition, the D.C. Building Department maintains a list of properties for which demolition permits have been granted. It should also be noted that D.C. properties in the commercial and industrial sectors, which were not examined in the context of this report, may provide additional opportunities for salvaging valuable materials.

PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTATION OF DECONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

Deconstruction is occurring in Washington, D.C. There are at least two deconstruction practitioners already operating in D.C., Ron Allan and Dave Radius, who have filled a specific niche in the redevelopment community for many years. The practitioners generally salvage materials that are of particular interest to a target customer base. Mr. Allan, proprietor of The Brass Knob and The Back Doors Warehouse, concentrates on materials such as old woods, fixtures, gratings, and ornamental pieces. This commercial enterprise, established in 1981, has a client base that ranges from architects, interior designers, and homeowners to filmmakers and restauranteurs. Mr. Radius, an independent contractor and occasional collaborator with Mr. Allan, has been deconstructing buildings in the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area for more than three decades. Mr. Radius maintains his business essentially by word-of-mouth. Residential (and some commercial) property owners seeking to remove existing structures contact Mr. Radius and allow him to salvage those materials in which he has an interest. The keys to Mr. Radius' success are his abilities to quickly discern the value of certain materials and the sequence in which deconstruction should occur, and to know what his customers will buy. (His focus is hardwood flooring and other wooden elements.) He has a fairly regular customer base, meaning he does not need to engage in any significant marketing efforts. Mr. Radius also maintains his own warehouse space in which he stores salvaged materials that have not yet been sold.

In addition to the deconstruction practitioners that are operating in Washington, D.C., there have been and continue to be advocates of deconstruction, promoting the practice as a more routine and widespread redevelopment tool. These generally non-profit organizations seek to develop a sustainable market for a broad range of salvageable materials, while also seeking to enlarge the supply of available deconstruction labor. In 1998, the Ellen Wilson Training Program and the Walter Reed Army Medical Center, in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the National Association of Home Builders Research Center, completed a deconstruction and job training project on the Medical Center grounds. This project involved the disassembly of four greenhouses in a manner that permitted their reassembly at new locations. Eighteen trainees from the Ellen Wilson neighborhood worked as subcontractors to an established general contractor in completing this deconstruction effort. The development of marketable job skills was an objective of equal importance to the salvage and reuse of the greenhouses.

Supported in part by an EPA Sustainable Development Challenge Grant, an organization named Sustainable Community Initiatives (SCI) is currently directing a deconstruction and job training project in the Ivy City and Trinidad neighborhoods. SCI is using deconstruction as a tool to stimulate community-based economic development. Team members, including Dave Radius, will train ten Ivy City residents in deconstruction techniques. In addition, the trainees will receive general life skills and entrepreneurial skills training. The team will then utilize these skills in developing and then implementing a business plan for a community-based deconstruction business. Training is scheduled to begin in November 1999; the implementation phase is currently scheduled to begin in April 2000. Upon the recommendation of the D.C. Housing Authority and the NAHBRC, SCI's current deconstruction target is the Frederick Douglas Dwellings in SE Washington.

Past, current, and planned deconstruction activities in Washington, D.C. demonstrate that people with the skills necessary for deconstruction are present within the District community. However, as described above, the history of deconstruction in D.C. is one of isolated projects and niche market fulfillment. The primary question this raises is whether sufficient interest and support for deconstruction can be generated to expand the industry and capitalize on the benefits that result.

Assessment and Planning Expertise

Deconstruction is widely regarded as a relatively low-skill activity. While this is true for the bulk of work conducted at a deconstruction site, the overall deconstruction process must be managed with skill and expertise. The most important skills required for the successful implementation of deconstruction projects are the ability to assess a structure for its deconstruction potential, to plan the optimal sequence of tasks, and to train and direct laborers in proper deconstruction techniques to ensure that salvaged materials retain their maximum value. While there are currently only a few qualified project leaders with these skills in D.C., the number will increase as the deconstruction sector expands. Individuals currently active in related construction trades (i.e., with an existing understanding of building and materials concepts) will likely make a fairly easy transition to the deconstruction arena. The availability of the necessary expertise should naturally increase in response to the growth of a market for salvaged materials.

Job Skill Development

The District supports general job training programs that often have construction-related components. For example, in 1999 the Job Training Partnership Act, sponsored by the D.C. Department of Employment Services, provided counseling, training referrals and monetary assistance to approximately 1,000 people; approximately 150 people received construction-related apprenticeship training. Deconstruction projects sponsored by a government agency or non-profit organization typically include a component focused on job creation and construction-related job skill development. Consequently, these projects incorporate on-the-job training with the goal that this will lead to opportunities for project laborers to leverage their new skills into permanent employment, though not necessarily in the deconstruction arena. If the goal is to groom trainees for the deconstruction industry, the variability in the types of structures that may be deconstructed and the types of materials to be salvaged, suggests that participation in multiple deconstruction efforts (that offer multiple and varied challenges) is necessary. Ideally, at least some of the laborers who acquire deconstruction skills through job-training programs would gradually increase their skill level to the point where they can assume responsibility for the assessment and implementation of deconstruction opportunities, and thus contribute to the expansion of the market.

Worker Safety/Liability

Though not necessarily an obstacle to deconstruction, worker safety and liability are issues that must be addressed. Nearly every contact we spoke with mentioned these as factors that might make it difficult to establish deconstruction as a widespread redevelopment tool. Deconstruction workers potentially face both physical and environmental hazards associated, for example, with a building's age and/or the presence of materials such as lead paint and asbestos. These considerations add an extra dimension to the type of training that deconstruction workers require. In addition, the organization directing a deconstruction project must ensure that all parties are covered by adequate liability insurance.

COLLECTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF SALVAGED MATERIALS

Like many reuse and recycling networks, the Washington D.C. collection and distribution infrastructure for salvaged materials is spotty. Most deconstruction activities are for high end, old, and rare materials. There is currently little deconstruction of structures for lower value materials such as doors, windows, floors, bricks, and appliances. More recently, public agencies and non-profit groups have started to take an interest in collecting and distributing more ordinary salvaged items for reuse. A non-profit organization, GreenHOME, that works to build environmentally sustainable homes, partnered with D.C. Habitat for Humanity to build an affordable demonstration house built with sustainable building practices, which included the use of salvaged materials.

A significant development in the collection and distribution of salvaged materials in D.C. is the recent formation of Community Forklift, a non-profit organization that seeks to establish a permanent distribution center for salvaged building materials. Currently, Community Forklift is in the process of legally incorporating, attaining tax exempt status, and drawing up a business plan. Furthermore, the D.C. chapter of Habitat for Humanity plans to open a ReStore, a salvage distribution center for donated building materials that has many locations across the country. Organizers are in the process of searching for a suitable site for the Washington D.C. ReStore.

In order to successfully collect and distribute salvaged materials, efforts to establish a sustainable market infrastructure must continue, including the establishment of a distribution network and the creation of adequate warehouse space.

Sustainable Market Infrastructure

Unlike mature market infrastructures, where collection and distribution is typically carried out by different parties, it appears that the same players both collect salvaged materials in D.C. and distribute them to customers. For example, Ron Allan hires his own labor to do the deconstruction work, arranges for transport to his own warehouse/showroom, and sells directly to customers. However, there is no equivalent of The Brass Knob for everyday materials in the District, making commerce difficult. The future opening of distribution centers in D.C., such as Community Forklift and ReStore, will provide necessary outlets for common building materials and will make it possible for contractors to provide materials and for consumers to find them. The expansion of Habitat for Humanity ReStores to fifty nationwide locations over the past seven years indicates that such centers can be a successful model for creating a market infrastructure for salvaged materials.

Warehousing Needs

One of the largest barriers to salvaging building materials in D.C. is the lack of convenient and affordable storage space. During the GreenHOME project, for example, project managers could not find any affordable storage space in the District. Instead, they had to rent a truck to transport salvaged bricks and other items to a farm 20 miles outside of D.C., where they were stored until they could be used at the demonstration house. In addition, some materials had to be stored outdoors, causing damage that precluded their future reuse. A previous non-profit distributor of salvaged materials, Movement and Acquisition of Gifts in Kind (MAGIK), also could not afford the high cost of warehouse space in D.C. This was one of the reasons that MAGIK eventually went out of business.

END USE OF SALVAGED MATERIALS

Currently, the customer base for deconstructed materials reflects the high value of the materials supplied. The Brass Knob supplies upscale residences, restaurants, and theater companies with rare and expensive materials, often items with historic value. Similarly, Dave Radius has a mostly residential clientele for his antique hardwood flooring. As the number of retail centers grow, the customer base for salvaged materials will expand. In its demonstration house, GreenHOME was able to make use of salvaged building materials such as bricks, dimensional lumber, hardwood flooring, kitchen cabinets, and a cast iron bathtub. The group was also able to reuse materials such as ceiling rafters and slate walkway blocks in the construction of a new school in Maryland. In order to serve an economically diverse clientele, Community Forklift envisions providing materials to a variety of customers on a sliding price scale.

Current Demand for Salvaged Materials

Although there is currently a market for high end salvaged materials, it is unclear how large the demand for more commonplace materials will be when a broader market infrastructure is in place. Thus, it is difficult to assess whether the reason for the lack of an existing market for lower cost salvaged goods is the lack of a collection and distribution network to supply customers with materials or simply a lack of customer demand. If demand currently exists but is not adequately fulfilled, then a new distribution system could realistically be expected to succeed.

Potential Demand for Affordable Salvaged Materials

If a distribution system for affordable salvaged materials existed, who would the customers be? Would there be enough of them to sustain a business, even a non-profit business? According to Kim Schaefer, a local architect, it is much easier to incorporate salvaged building materials into small projects than into large projects. Small projects include residential homes and small commercial establishments. Interestingly, these are the same types of customers for higher end salvaged materials, minus the high income status. Thus, Habitat for Humanity, GreenHOME, and participants in the Homestead Housing Preservation program are potential customers, as are homeowners and small business people who are looking for low cost materials for renovation and rehabilitation and/or are environmentally conscious.

There are many factors that could limit potential demand, including:

• Lack of public and/or contractor awareness about the availability of salvaged materials;

• Lack of an awareness of the significant price difference between new materials and salvaged materials;

• The "hit or miss" problem of not being able to find a salvaged material when needed, or enough of a particular salvaged material to complete the project;

• Lack of awareness about the environmental benefits of using salvaged materials; and

• Perceptions that salvaged materials are inferior.

Moreover, it may be difficult to predict the demand for particular materials. Brenda Richardson, co-chair of the D.C. Mayor's Brownfields Action Team, recounted a deconstruction project at Anacostia Pump Works where project organizers reportedly could not give away salvaged turbines, floors, windows, and other materials. Their inability to find customers could be associated with the lack of a distribution center and salvage network, and the inability to adequately advertise the salvaged materials. Demand for specialized industrial equipment such as turbines relies on very specific, targeted marketing to appropriate buyers.

Downcycling and Recycling Alternatives to Reuse

Although deconstruction yields a supply of quality, low cost building materials to a community, other options for the salvaged materials exist that may also generate revenues and cost savings. Some salvaged materials, such as carpets and ceiling tile, may be more appropriate for recycling than reuse. Recycling of business materials is already taking place in D.C. There are a few national commercial enterprises that currently specialize in recycling their own products. They are mainly carpet and ceiling tile companies that will haul away and recycle old carpet and tile into new products. Commercial recycling is typically carried out when materials are replaced, but can also be utilized in conjunction with deconstruction. Additional investigation is needed to explore the potential for commercial recycling in the context of deconstruction in D.C.

BROWNFIELDS LINK

The Washington D.C. brownfields program is in its infancy. Currently, funding for the program is being provided solely through EPA. EPA awarded the District a Brownfields Demonstration Assessment Pilot Grant in October 1998. The pilot provided $200,000 in funding to hire a Brownfields Coordinator (Brent Coleman), establish a Brownfields Community Advisory Committee (CAC), conduct outreach efforts to develop community support for a brownfields program, conduct an inventory of contaminated sites in the District, and complete at least two site assessments. In addition, EPA provided a $500,000 grant to the District to establish a revolving loan fund to assist private owners, developers, and non-profit organizations looking to redevelop contaminated sites.

To date, much of the funding has been used to garner support from brownfields stakeholders in the District. The Brownfields Action Team, which acts as a volunteer staff for Brent Coleman, has taken the lead on this task. In addition, a site inventory has been completed and 23 sites have been identified; most are owned by the District. The EPA proposal to assess two sites, however, is currently stalled because one is the property of the Federal Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Agency (ATF), which claims jurisdiction, and the other is privately owned and the District is facing problems gaining access to the site. Unlike most states, the District does not have a voluntary cleanup program (VCP) or similar program of incentives and assurances to encourage brownfields redevelopment. Long-term plans include the establishment of a VCP and associated soil cleanup standards, a one-stop environmental permitting center, and technical assistance and financial incentives for redevelopment.

The potential for deconstruction at brownfield sites is currently being studied by the Brownfields Action Team. The team met with deconstruction experts to discuss the integration of deconstruction practices with brownfield redevelopment. Ultimately, Brent Coleman would like to see the city offer financial incentives, such as tax breaks, for deconstruction activities.

Linkages between brownfields and deconstruction projects are foreseeable. However, a variety of issues complicate these potential linkages, including timing and development pressures, and the quality of salvaged materials from brownfield sites.

Timing and Development Pressures

Certain buildings on brownfields sites could potentially be deconstructed as an alternative to demolition. However, the long process of getting demolition permits often cuts into the time needed to deconstruct a building; once a permit is secured, developers are under pressure to demolish the building as soon as possible to make up for financial losses incurred while waiting for a permit. With brownfield sites, the slow permit process, and associated financial pressures, exacerbate the potentially sizeable expenses and time delays of environmental testing and remediation. Thus, there is more financial pressure to clear the site quickly and further disincentive to do deconstruction.

Quality of Salvaged Materials

In general, soil contamination does not affect the materials inside a structure. However, contaminants such as oil, fertilizer, lead and asbestos inside a building can affect the quality and value of materials. There may also be additional liability issues associated with deconstructing contaminated materials. Although deconstruction is impractical when these types of contaminants are imbedded in the materials to be salvaged, their presence within structures on brownfield sites is highly variable.

Other Links

Brownfield redevelopment projects may include opportunities to reuse salvaged materials. However, there is often a scale mismatch between deconstruction and brownfields projects. As mentioned previously, deconstruction tends to take place at older homes and small commercial sites, and salvaged materials are more often reused for small-scale projects. Brownfield redevelopments, however, are typically projects with large buildings. According to Kim Schaefer, it is quite difficult to locate enough of a salvaged material to meet the needs of the large projects that typify brownfield redevelopment. Potentially, an increase in commercial deconstruction activities may offset this mismatch by increasing the supply of recycled building materials, which could be incorporated into brownfields redevelopments with greater ease.

Alternatively, brownfield sites may be suitable locations for salvaged materials distribution centers. Distribution centers require space for warehousing and should ideally be located in urban areas to draw from a highly dense customer base. Because large plots of urban land are expensive, it is often difficult for distribution centers, especially non-profits, to find affordable urban locations. Brownfield sites could provide a cost-effective solution because they are typically large and relatively inexpensive properties often located in urban areas.

CONCLUSIONS

Current conditions in Washington D.C. suggest that the expansion of deconstruction activities will benefit from stimuli in the form of government or non-profit support. While this type of support enables the incorporation of objectives other than pure profit-making (e.g., job creation), it also leaves deconstruction initiatives subject to fluctuations in the political climate, at least until deconstruction efforts become economically self-sustaining.

Recent and proposed program initiatives indicate a commitment on the part of the D.C. government to move forward with a broad economic revitalization campaign, in which deconstruction could play a role. Mayor Anthony Williams is attempting to launch a comprehensive sustainable economic development program to address barriers to revitalization. The new brownfields program is a key component of this effort. Although program activities thus far have focused on identifying brownfield sites and courting stakeholder support, the brownfields program has ambitious goals for the future, including more funding for site assessments and a "one stop shop" environmental permitting center for developers. Although the link between deconstruction and brownfields redevelopment is tenuous in and of itself, both are intrinsically related to the sustainable economic development vision advocated by D.C. policy-makers.

The Mayor has also made staffing and organizational decisions that could have positive implications for deconstruction. For example, the Mayor recently hired a new city planner, whose tasks include streamlining bureaucratic permit processes to encourage all types of development. Furthermore, some city government offices, including the Office of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs, have recently reorganized and are better prepared to support an economic development program including deconstruction.

To date, deconstruction activities in the District have been limited to high end materials salvaged for a niche market, and pilot projects focused on the potential market for more common materials. Even with the political initiative necessary to support deconstruction efforts, our research reveals that policy-makers will have to address a variety of issues that affect the viability of deconstruction. These issues include addressing economic and regulatory disincentives to deconstruction, supporting a market infrastructure for salvaged goods, and supporting the growth of deconstruction expertise. A summary of actions that policy-makers could take to address these issues is presented in Exhibit 2.

Addressing Disincentives to Deconstruction

Future efforts of the D.C. government should focus on addressing disincentives for deconstruction. One disincentive may be the low landfill tipping fee for construction and demolition debris in neighboring states. Local policy-makers could address the landfill tipping issue in several ways. In addition to lobbying for higher fees, local policy-makers could support salvaged materials collection centers that provide incentives for contractors to seek alternatives to simply demolishing structures and disposing of debris. Oregon's Metro government has had some success in providing initial funding for salvage centers that go on to become sustainable ventures. Some of these centers charge drop-off fees, but many of the centers are incorporated as non-profit organizations, making the fees tax deductible. In addition, non-profit salvage centers provide receipts for materials, making the value of the materials tax deductible as well.

Other disincentives to deconstruction include timing problems. After waiting a lengthy period of time for a demolition permit, contractors face financial pressure to demolish the structure quickly and proceed with redevelopment in order to recoup some of the money lost while waiting for the permit. The longer period of time required for many deconstruction projects (compared to demolition) provides further disincentive. For example, Kim Schaefer noted that it typically takes twice as long to deconstruct a small residence than to demolish it. Some deconstruction advocates would like to mandate a waiting period between receiving a permit and demolishing a structure in order to create a deconstruction incentive. Such a waiting period, however, might add to the financial burden of a project, and have the unintended consequence of decreasing the project's feasibility (especially with financially marginal projects such as the redevelopment of many brownfields). Alternatively, the District government may want to expand its plans for a "one stop shop" environmental permitting center for brownfields, streamlining the permit process for construction activities in general. Or, the District could specifically target deconstruction projects for expedited review.

Finally, upcoming lead paint regulation may have an effect on some deconstruction projects. A proposed EPA rule states that all architectural components with deteriorated lead based paint must be disposed of or thoroughly de-leaded. However, the rule does not give any criteria for "deterioration," which makes the salvage industry hesitant to salvage anything with lead paint, since they are liable for damages under the rule. Furthermore, de-leading most architectural components is more expensive than disposing of them in landfills. The new rule could lead to more disposal and limit reuse or even recycling of building materials that contain lead paint. Fortunately, many architectural components (e.g., dimensional lumber) are not painted, and thus would not be affected by the new rule.

Supporting a Market Infrastructure for Salvaged Materials

Incentives and outreach efforts would help stimulate and support new collection and distribution systems for salvaged goods. Oregon Metro, the state's regional planning authority, has extensive experience in assisting these types of materials collection and distribution centers. Metro also publishes a Site Recycling Guide that directs construction contractors to facilities that accept salvaged materials for reuse or recycling. Most centers that Metro supported succeeded in becoming economically self-sufficient. Success seems to be determined by factors such as the presence of experienced staff, center specialization in particular materials, and tax exempt status. Subsidizing warehouse space is another area where local government and/or foundations can support the collection and distribution of salvaged materials. The provision of low cost space would help to boost the market by making it more cost-effective to collect and store materials, and in turn would boost deconstruction activity in the District.

The success of materials distribution centers depends upon a steady demand for materials. Again, the Oregon experience is illustrative. Oregon Metro conducts outreach to construction contractors describing the reuse of salvaged materials in new projects and the value of salvaging materials from redevelopment projects. The regional government also published a series of case studies on job site recycling and materials salvage that demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of alternatives to landfilling. Furthermore, Metro has placed incentives and some requirements for deconstruction, recycling, and the use of salvaged and recycled materials into construction procurement contracts.

Expanding Deconstruction Expertise

As workers trained in basic construction skills, and even some previously unskilled laborers, gain deconstruction experience, they will develop the ability to identify and take advantage of additional deconstruction opportunities. The process of developing a vibrant deconstruction community would be enhanced, however, by training or vocational programs designed specifically to provide deconstruction assessment and planning skills. Presently, there is one job training program underway in D.C. and another has been completed. Policy-makers could support training efforts by providing more funding for programs and subsidizing training costs for participants.