1

EPA is continually searching for new 

ways to protect human health and 

the environment. The development 

of new approaches, practices, and 

technologies can make environmental 

protection more practical, more 

effective, and less costly. The 

Innovations Program in EPA’s Office of 

Solid Waste and Emergency Response 

(OSWER) uses funding to support 

promising new policies, approaches, 

and/or technologies with the hope of 

turning promising ideas into practical 

realities. In the past, we have used 

grants as a tool to fund opportunities. 

More recently, we have funded projects 

internally through contractor technical 

assistance.

Innovations project funding tests new 

and cutting-edge technologies and 

programs without drawing significant 

resources from other EPA programs. 

Innovations projects and pilots provide 

a virtual test bed for ideas within 

OSWER. Many of these projects take 

flight and become supported OSWER 

programs. This series of fact sheets is 

meant to demonstrate how innovations 

projects have led to programs that 

address EPA’s greatest environmental 

challenges.

The Problem with Debris

Construction activities, including 

demolition, produce a substantial 

environmental footprint—consuming 

significant amounts of natural 

resources, over-burdening landfills, 

and contributing to greenhouse gas 

emissions. 

It is estimated that 60 percent of the 

materials flow in the United States’ 

economy (excluding food and fuel) is 

consumed by the construction industry.1

According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), a typical 13,300 

square foot commercial demolition project generates over 155 pounds per 

square foot or over 2 million pounds of waste;2

 building-related projects in 

the U.S. alone generate an estimated 164 million tons of construction and 

demolition (C&D) material every year.3

 Approximately 40 percent of this 

material is reused, recycled, or sent to waste-to-energy facilities, while 60 

percent is sent to C&D landfills.4

 Some researchers estimate that the amount 

of C&D waste generated in the U.S. is equivalent to the volume of municipal 

solid waste—e.g., garbage—landfilled every year.5

While diverting 40 percent of C&D material from landfills is substantial, 

the remaining 60 percent remains an unacceptable—and for the most 

part, preventable—amount of material still being merely discarded. The 

potential reuse benefits represented by this discarded portion are enormous. 

Virtually every step in a raw or virgin material cycle requires energy input for 

extraction, refining, transportation, and fabrication—which in turn creates 

carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, the primary greenhouse gas causing 

climate change. Reused and recycled materials require far less energy and 

resources and produce fewer emissions. For example, when one ton of steel 

is recycled, 2500 pounds of iron ore, 1400 pounds of coal and 120 pounds 

of limestone are conserved.6

The amount of construction space in the United States is expected to grow 

to nearly 430 billion square feet by 2030—which includes replacement of 

more than 25 percent of structures that existed in 2000.7

 An estimated 3.3 

billion tons of material debris will be generated over the next 50 years.8

Given the current estimate of only 40 percent of C&D waste being recycled 

or reused, this amount of resource use and waste generation may present 

a significant, long-term environmental problem. In recognition of this issue, 

OSWER Innovation Project Success Story:

DECONSTRUCTION

Deconstruction of an ongoing ReSOURCE project house by attendees of the two-week 

pilot-developed training course on deconstruction and building materials reuse.

Conventional demolition underway.
2

EPA IPCO’s Innovations Pilots—

Demonstrating the Benefits of 

Deconstruction 

Region 1

Deconstruction and Building with 

Reused Materials Training

With approximately $53,000 in EPA funding, the 

Deconstruction and Building with Reused Materials 

Training pilot led by ReSOURCE developed curricula on 

deconstruction and building materials reuse for a free, 

two-week training course attended by representatives 

from the building industry, educators, architects, and 

other related areas. Based on the program’s success, 

a course entitled Deconstruction and Materials was 

created by the Yestermorrow Design/Build School in 

Vermont in July 2008; enrollment for the course taught in 

2008 and 2009 was full. 

Region 3

Deconstruction for Urban 

Revitalization

The Susquehanna Avenue Row-House Deconstruction 

Project, Deconstruction for Urban Revitalization, used 

approximately $73,600 in EPA funding to evaluate 

the cost-effectiveness of panelization—an innovative 

technique that involves cutting roof and floor panels 

into sections that can be easily processed and reused. 

Panelization and other techniques for deconstructing 

urban row houses were implemented to reclaim and 

reuse the maximum amount of structural materials. This 

pilot demonstrated that deconstruction can be costcompetitive with demolition methods when there are 

sufficient recoverable materials with market value to 

offset higher labor costs. The project diverted more than 

$7,500 worth of bricks, lumber, and metal from disposal. 

Region 4

Design for Deconstruction

Using approximately $69,000 in EPA funding, the 

Design for Deconstruction (DfD) pilot organized a 

EPA established an innovative program that has 

pioneered different approaches and solutions.

An Innovative Approach

Today, “going green” is a household term. While there 

are many programs in place to reduce environmental 

footprints, EPA has long recognized that a new, more 

sustainable approach to construction waste was needed. 

As part of its Innovations pilot grant competitions, 

the Innovation, Partnerships, and Communication 

Office (IPCO) funded proposals to explore different 

approaches to demolition through the concept of 

deconstruction. Deconstruction is the dismantling of 

buildings to maximize the reuse and recycling of building 

materials in a cost-effective manner, turning much of 

what is traditionally considered demolition waste into a 

valuable resource.9

Building materials reuse retains the energy invested 

in existing materials, preserves virgin resources, 

and reduces the pollution associated with materials 

production and disposal. Studies show that 

deconstruction can reduce construction site waste by as 

much as 70 percent. 

IPCO’s Innovations pilots tested unique but related 

aspects of deconstruction, including: Building 

Deconstruction and Materials Reuse, Deconstruction 

and Building with Reused Materials Training, 

Deconstruction for Urban Revitalization, and Design for 

Deconstruction (DfD). These pilots not only produced 

meaningful results, they laid the groundwork for future 

deconstruction activities and initiatives and helped 

shape a more sustainable approach for C&D. These pilot 

case studies serve as examples of how deconstruction 

and materials reuse can be both environmentally sound 

and cost-effective—and demonstrate that there is a 

market for knowledge and education surrounding this 

issue.

OSWER INNOVATION PROJECT SUCCESS STORY: DECONSTRUCTION

A training course attendee deconstructing lumber from the ReSOURCE 

project house.

Susquehanna project 

experimenting with 

“panelization”, where large 

sections of the row-house 

are removed intact for 

disassembly in a staging 

area.

Unique architectural features such as a 

corner turret and radiators reclaimed from the 

Susquehanna urban row-house and marketed 

through local architectural salvage businesses. 
3

group of experts to formulate DfD principles; design 

and build a case study using those principles; promote 

the “cradle to cradle” approach for residential building 

design; and document all research and results. This 

first known study of its kind asserts that residential 

homes can be designed both for increased longevity 

and for eventual disassembly and building materials 

reuse—by incorporating techniques such as moveable 

walls, disentangled utilities such as heating and 

cooling systems, and waste reduction. The study led 

to development of a “best practices” toolkit, Design 

for Disassembly in the Built Environment: A Guide for 

Closed-Loop Design and Building, for DfD in residential 

construction, and has become a learning tool for testing 

the viability of DfD.

Deconstruction and Materials Reuse

Using approximately $37,000 in EPA funding, the 

Wesley House/Reichert House Deconstruction and 

Materials Reuse pilot deconstructed a typical woodframed house, and designed and reconstructed its 

constituent materials into new neighborhood building 

projects. The pilot conducted a comprehensive 

study, Final Report: Deconstruction and Reuse, that 

demonstrated and documented the environmental and 

economic value of deconstruction and design for reuse 

principles. In this example, deconstruction proved five 

percent less expensive than the demolition estimate. 

Aside from that savings, 44 percent of the total mass 

of the Wesley House was salvaged for reuse, and 

20 percent of the material recovered was used to 

construct the new Reichert House—diverting 8.84 tons 

of material from landfills. Overall, the project avoided 

41.77 Million British Thermal Units (MMBTU) of energy 

use, 2.68 Metric Tons of Carbon Equivalent (MTCE) 

of greenhouse gas emissions; and 9.83 Metric Tons 

of CO2 Equivalents (MTCO2E) of greenhouse gas 

emissions.

Turning Promising Ideas into 

Practice

The approaches proven effective by IPCO’s 

deconstruction pilot projects have created lasting 

momentum, and are used routinely in real-world 

scenarios—making much-needed progress toward 

reducing the percentage of discarded materials. The 

deconstruction principles and practices demonstrated 

by the pilots have taken on a life of their own—not only 

within EPA, but for local governments, states, nonprofits, 

and across the private sector. 

For example, based on the pilot-developed training, 

the trial deconstruction course offered by Vermont’s 

Yestermorrow Design School has become a regular 

part of their curriculum, due to growing demand. In 

Philadelphia, the Deconstruction for Urban Revitalization 

pilot staff is working with the City of Philadelphia’s 

Sustainability Director to include architectural salvage 

and deconstruction practices as part of the city’s 

developing Sustainability Action Plan. Kevin Brooks 

Salvage (KBS), the deconstruction contractor for the 

Urban Deconstruction project, has since expanded 

beyond the Philadelphia area and reports that its 

deconstruction techniques have been adapted by 

environmental contractors across the state.

Further examples of the momentum generated by 

the IPCO pilots are easy to find. The deconstruction 

practices developed by the Wesley House/Reichert 

House Deconstruction and Materials Reuse pilot have 

become a model for the State of Florida. The pilot 

continues to be one of the most frequently requested 

studies from stakeholders seeking to initiate a 

deconstruction project. It also led to North America’s 

leading supplier of construction cost information, 

RSMeans, to add a cost estimate category for 

deconstruction projects—validating the importance of 

recognizing deconstruction techniques throughout the 

industry. 

The Design for Deconstruction principles developed 

through the DfD pilot have also had far-reaching 

impacts—becoming a widely recognized template for 

architects, engineers, academia, and other stakeholders. 

These principles were used to formulate the design of 

the Chartwell School in Seaside, California, a project 

that incorporated deconstruction methods such as 

modular framing and visible utility networks. 

OSWER INNOVATION PROJECT SUCCESS STORY: DECONSTRUCTION

The DfD case study home (left) features repositionable interior walls (right) and 

disentangled heating and cooling system (not pictured).

Wesley House prior to deconstruction 

(left). Deconstructed building materials 

from the Wesley House such as brick 

(center) and heartpine lumber from 

the main floor beams (right) used to 

build the library and lobby of the new 

Reichert House.
The demonstrated success and environmental benefits 

of building the Leadership in Energy and Environmental 

Design (LEED) certified Chartwell School sustainably, 

led to the creation of the Life Cycle Building Challenge. 

This annual competition seeks innovative projects 

that conserve construction and demolition materials 

and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by designing 

buildings for adaptability and disassembly. In addition, 

the Center for High Performance Schools in California, 

which oversees the nation’s first green building rating 

program for K-12 schools, added criteria on design for 

deconstruction to its rating system based both the DfD 

pilot and the Chartwell School project.

These initial pilots also served as the primary body of 

knowledge for the Lifecycle Construction Resource 

Guide developed by EPA, a document that advances 

the concept of deconstruction by demonstrating the 

economic and technical feasibility of such practices. 

They also led the way for the creation of entities such as 

the Building Materials Reuse Association (BMRA) and 

building material reuse stores (e.g., Habitat for Humanity 

ReStores, Construction Junction). 

The knowledge gained from the Innovations pilots 

helps to address some of EPA’s greatest environmental 

challenges—from developing an integrated waste 

management program, to sustainable redevelopment 

of contaminated land, to green building approaches. 

It also complements other EPA OSWER programs 

and initiatives, such as the Resource Conservation 

Challenge (RCC), Brownfields and Land Revitalization,

One Cleanup, Design for the Environment, and 

initiatives within the construction and demolition sectors.

Looking Ahead

As the U.S. advances toward a more sustainable and 

environmentally friendly future in terms of reducing 

and recycling all manner of waste products, EPA’s 

Innovations Pilots have helped to stimulate creative 

ideas in support of deconstruction. Some state and 

local governments are addressing the large volumes of 

C&D materials entering the waste stream by passing 

ordinances that restrict C&D materials disposal or 

provide time for the often lengthier deconstruction 

process to occur. Some entities are implementing 

Demolition Material Management Plans and issuing 

Requests for Proposal that specify solicitations for 

deconstruction contactors. On a federal level, EPA is 

collaborating with the U.S. Green Building Council to 

include deconstruction in its LEED Green Building 

Rating System; as more and more builders and 

developers seek LEED certification, they will in turn be 

introduced to the benefits of deconstruction.

Reducing construction and demolition materials from 

the country’s waste stream is an important, longterm environmental goal for EPA. The benefits of the 

approach to recycling building materials are multi-fold: 

supporting EPA’s goals by reducing environmental 

and energy impacts of buildings; assisting the building 

industry in reusing millions of tons of building-related 

construction and demolition materials that would 

otherwise be sent to landfills; and reducing the energy 

and greenhouse gas emissions associated with the 

production and transportation of new materials. For 

example, if all concrete and asphalt pavement generated 

annually in the US were recycled, it would save the 

energy equivalent of 1 billion gallons of gasoline or the 

removal of more than 1 million cars from the road.10 The 

IPCO-funded Innovations Pilots helped to incorporate 

this original approach to building material reuse into the 

American mainstream, and stand as successful, reallife examples of how to incorporate deconstruction and 

materials reuse into a variety of projects.

More information on EPA’s Innovations 

projects can be found at: 

www.epa.gov/oswer/iwg/pilots/index.html 

More information on lifecycle building 

can be found at: 

www.lifecyclebuilding.org 

Endnotes

1 Wagner, L. Materials in the Economy: Materials Flow, Scarcity, and the Environment, 

US Geological Survey Circular 1221, US Department of the Interior, Denver CO: US 

Geological Survey Information Services, February 2002.

2 U.S. EPA. 1998. Characterization of Building-Related Debris in the United States, 

accessed at: http://www.epa.gov/osw/hazard/generation/sqg/c&d-rpt.pdf.

3 U.S. EPA. 2007. Draft Final Report, Waste and Materials Flow-Benchmark Sector 

Report: Beneficial Use of Secondary Materials—Construction and Demolition Materials. 

4 U.S. EPA. 2007. Draft Final Report, Waste and Materials Flow-Benchmark Sector 

Report: Beneficial Use of Secondary Materials—Construction and Demolition Materials.

5 David Malin Roodman and Nicholas Lenssen, “A Building Revolution: How Ecology and 

Health Concerns Are Transforming Construction,” Worldwatch Paper 124 (Washington, 

DC: Worldwatch Institute, March 1995), p. 24.

6 The Steel Recycling Institute. Brochure: Buy Recycled With Recycled Steel. 

Accessed at: http://www.recycle-steel.org/PDFs/brochures/buyrec.pdf.

7 U.S EPA 2007. Lifecycle Construction Resource Guide, accessed at http://www.

lifecyclebuilding.org/files/Lifecycle%20Construction%20Resource%20Guide.pdf.

8 Nelson, A.C., “Toward a New Metropolis: The Opportunity to Rebuild America”, 

Discussion paper prepared for The Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program, 

December 2004.

9 Browning, P., B. Guy, and B. Beck. 2006. Deconstruction: A Cottage Industry for 

New Orleans, Working Paper from Pennsylvania State University’s Hamer Center for 

Community Design and Mercy Corps Gulf Coast Hurricane Recovery.

10 U.S. EPA. 2007. Draft Final Report, Waste and Materials Flow-Benchmark Sector 

Report: Beneficial Use of Secondary Materials—Construction and Demolition Materials

United States Office of November 2009

Environmental Protection Solid Waste and www.epa.gov

Agency Emergency Response