Committee of the Whole
Department of Buildings
Budget Oversight Hearing
Thursday, May 29, 2025
Introduction
Chairman Mendelson, thank you for the opportunity to testify at this Committee of the Whole Budget Oversight Hearing on the Department of Buildings (DOB). My name is Daniel O’Brien, and I am a member of the Sierra Club District of Columbia Chapter’s Zero Waste Committee. The Sierra Club is America’s largest and most influential grassroots environmental organization, with millions of members and supporters. We represent 3,000 chapter members, and over 7,000 active supporters in the District.
Enforcement of C&D reuse/recycling requirements requires investment in a database
Construction and demolition (C&D) waste currently represents a quarter of the District’s waste stream, according to the 2021 District Desktop Waste Characterization Study. At least 50 percent of C&D waste should be reused or recycled under District building codes. Currently, DOB is unable to demonstrate that contractors are complying with District building code C&D reuse and recycling requirements, Section 503 of the DC Green Construction Code (commercial) and Section 327.1 of the Residential Building Code (residential). Compliance with these provisions would significantly contribute to meeting the District’s goal to divert 80 percent of waste from polluting landfills and incinerators.
Landfills emit methane, a more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. Incinerators spew toxic fumes into the majority Black and Brown communities in which they are frequently located, including, for the District, the incinerator located in Lorton, Virginia. Our failure to act to enforce these building codes harms people and the planet. This shouldn’t be a big-ticket budget item, but promises high impact.
At the same time, a growing number of other jurisdictions are embracing reuse of building materials through deconstruction requirements, programs, and incentives. The District should embrace deconstruction to prevent waste from being generated.
One solution for determining compliance with existing building code provisions is for DOB to develop a searchable database of hauling receipts provided by contractors. On May 12, Michael Brown, DOB Deputy Chief Building Official, informed us by email that it has not allocated funds to develop such a database, and that its permitting/inspection software, Accela, only records an overall pass/fail for inspection, not compliance with a specific code provision. Mr. Brown noted that the DOB would need to conduct a feasibility study to determine the costs of reporting more granularly and changing its inspection processes. He also expressed confidence in compliance because, he noted without providing details, reviews of the reuse and recycling requirements occur during DOB final inspections. In addition, he explained, data from the first year of the 2017 Building Code cycle showed that “most dumps used by contractors in the District actively engaged in recycling in excess of our code requirements.” We are not convinced. Section 503 only authorizes DOB inspectors to request hauling receipts rather than requiring contractors to provide them. Moreover, the data from dumps is neither recent nor specific to District contractors. The ability to collect and review relevant data needs to be strengthened to effectively confirm and analyze compliance with District building code reuse and recycling targets.
We understood from a 2024 conversation that DOB had applied for a grant to develop such a database. Couldn’t the DOB grant application indicate how much funding is needed without the need for a feasibility study? If not, a simple internet search shows that various jurisdictions have acquired C&D waste recycling tracking systems (e.g. Pasadena, Santa Monica) and that there is competition among providers (e.g., Diversys, Green Halo, Re-TRAC). Also in our April 2024 conversation, DOB agreed they need to improve outreach and raise awareness about these pollution-limiting practices, especially among small contractors.
We request that DOB allocate the funds necessary to improve its ability to collect and analyze the hauling receipts data and publicly report the status of compliance. We also request DOB to assign staff to conduct outreach, guidance, education, and enforcement, and report back to this committee on implementation, and to share relevant information on C&D waste diversion with the Office of Waste Diversion (OWD) in the Department of Public Works. Of course, publishing compliance data will also provide insight on where DOB should offer more guidance, outreach, education, and enforcement, allowing DOB to achieve greater efficiency in implementation.
The District should move beyond C&D recycling to embrace reuse through deconstruction
The zero waste hierarchy recognizes that reuse is a more effective zero waste practice than recycling. Deconstruction is a well-established practice for reuse of building materials, and is included in Action 5 of the DC Zero Waste Plan which calls for deconstruction plans for all new construction, demolition and retrofit projects beginning in 2029, and redirecting materials toward affordable housing. Deconstruction is the careful dismantling of a building to recover reusable materials.
A growing number of jurisdictions are embracing deconstruction not only for its zero waste and climate benefits but also because it generates workforce development, including for disfavored communities, and fosters affordable housing and other community projects (e.g., bus shelters). These jurisdictions include Chicago, Hennepin County, MN, Kings County, WA, Palo Alto, Portland, San Antonio, and Savannah. Policies include deconstruction requirements for older buildings, lowering permit fees for deconstruction, increasing demolition permit fees, bans on landfill disposal of readily recyclable C&D materials, tax incentives, providing municipal materials sorting stations, and adopting reuse resale platforms (e.g. Michigan). A national deconstruction conference, Build Reuse, is scheduled in St Paul, MN, on August 4-6. We highly recommend that DOB, as well as OWD, attend this conference to learn how the District could best embrace deconstruction to end the unnecessary and harmful use of landfill and incineration for our C&D waste and meet the goals of the Zero Waste Plan on deconstruction.
The RFK stadium demolition should comply with reuse and recycling requirements
We are also interested in the RFK Stadium demolition, and whether the project is complying with all District rules and regulations, including on reuse and recycling of building materials. We hope this Committee can shed some light on this important question. A well-supervised and in-code demolition is important not only to comply with the reuse and recycling requirements of the DC Green Construction Code, but also to ensure the government leads by example, and protects RFK neighbors, the Anacostia River, and the habitats along the river.
The District Bottle Bill Is Self-Funding
Chairman Mendelson, please also allow me to thank you for co-introducing the District Recycling Refund and Litter Reduction Amendment Act of 2025, commonly referred to as the bottle bill. We expect the Council will hold a hearing on this groundbreaking legislation later this year. We wanted to take the opportunity of this budget oversight hearing to note that the bottle bill is a self-funding program, paid for by the beverage companies whose packaging choices have caused massive litter in the District. Even start-up costs that the Department of Energy and the Environment (DOEE) might incur to set up the program’s administrative processes (such as the beverage companies’ registration fee) will be reimbursed by the beverage companies, and paid back into the General Fund. The bottle bill will also generate funds, through unclaimed deposits, to fund DOEE’s expenses, other environmental programs, and to ensure the program is equitably implemented, with ease of return for all District residents.
Thank you, Chairman Mendelson, for convening this hearing and for the opportunity to testify.