deconstruction: a tool for reform as the construction and ... · deconstruction can be a valuable...
TRANSCRIPT
THESIS ABSTRACT
Deconstruction: A Tool for Reform as the Construction and Demolition Industry Moves Toward Sustainability
Ryan Michael Jacoby
December 2001
The Triangle region (Raleigh, Durham and Chapel Hill) of North Carolina possesses great ecological diversity and stability. However, rapid and sprawling development is quickly changing the ecological structure and vitality of this region. One specific consequence of this development is the excessive generation of solid waste from the construction and demolition industry and the subsequent environmental degradation that accompanies it. Area municipalities are responding to this problem by imposing aggressive solid waste reduction goals with regards to the processes in which structures are demolished and discarded, most typically via landfills. However, the deadlines for these goals have passed and solid waste reduction numbers were far below targeted diversion rates. Deconstruction, which simply reverses the construction process, can provide an economically and environmentally viable alternative to the demolition process. Through reuse and recycling, deconstruction helps extend the lifecycle of many quality building materials, thereby preserving the embodied energy within them. Not only can this process decrease the flow of the construction and demolition waste stream, but it can also reduce other forms of pollution and ecological degradation that result from development. Additional benefits include job creation and economic continuity within the community. Deconstruction can be a valuable and effective tool for resource conservation, as well as an excellent mechanism for educating the public about issues concerning reuse, recycling, and sustainable development. This thesis is an argument for the widespread proliferation of deconstruction as a viable alternative to the demolition process. The argument will be strengthened by a historical examination of the construction and demolition industry, with a focus on its negative environmental impacts. There will also be attention given to developments within the industry to become more sustainable, and how these changes can facilitate and accommodate deconstruction.
Deconstruction: A Tool for Reform as the Construction and Demolition Industry Moves Toward Sustainability
A Thesis
Presented to Antioch University Seattle
In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements
For the Master of Arts Degree
By
Ryan Michael Jacoby
Raleigh, North Carolina
December 2001
____________________________ Ryan M. Jacoby Degree Committee Member ____________________________ ____________________________ Scott Mouw, M.A. Jonathan M. Scherch, Ph.D. Degree Committee Member Degree Committee Chair
To my wife Sarah,
Whose love and support made this possible.
To my daughter Chloe,
You have enhanced the beauty of this world.
iiii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank my degree committee. Jonathan Scherch has provided
crucial guidance throughout this process, allowing me to develop a useful paper that was
rewarding to write. Scott Mouw, my external degree committee member, proved to be an
invaluable resource throughout the writing of this paper. His patience and insightful
feedback helped me to enjoy this process through its difficult times.
To Steve, Emily, and Adam: you inspired me to become a better person. That
meant understanding my place in this world within a much larger context. I am grateful
to the three of you for your wisdom, humility, and spirit.
To my family, whose continual love and support has made me stronger and
helped to sustain me throughout this process.
Finally, to my wife Sarah, you have been and always will be my biggest
supporter. You have sacrificed greatly in many ways, but have always provided me with
direction, motivation, and love. I am proud to have you as my best friend and soul mate.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS PAGE Chapter I. INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………. 1 II. LITERATURE REVIEW………………………………………….. 4
Methodology……………………………………………………….. 4 Definition of Construction and Demolition Debris………………... 6 Historical Impact of Construction and Demolition Industry………. 11 Technological, Social, and Economic Changes in Past 100 Years… 15 Need for Move toward Sustainability……………………………… 19 How Deconstruction Comes Into Play…………………………….. 20
III. DECONSTRUCTION……………………………………………... 23
Definition of Deconstruction………………………………………. 23 History of Deconstruction…………………………………………. 23 Basic Steps in a Deconstruction…………………………………… 25 Hierarchy of Materials…………………………………………….. 28 Wood as an Example for Waste Reduction/Diversion Potential…... 30 Demolition…………………………………………………………. 31 Environmental, Economic, and Social Benefits…………………… 33 Sources of Structures………………………………………………. 35 Constraints/Obstacles to Success…………………………………... 37 Case Studies of Past Projects………………………………………. 38 Current Happenings in the United States and North Carolina……... 43
IV. MOVE TOWARD SUSTAINABILITY…………………………... 47
Definition of Sustainable Development………………………… 48 Alternative Building Materials and Technologies………………… 49 National and Regional Green Building Projects…………………… 51 Designing for Disassembly………………………………………… 56
vi
V. WAYS TO FACILITATE DECONSTRUCTION………… 59 Policy-Making……………………………………………… 60 Ordinances…………………………………………………. 64 Building Codes…………………………………………….. 66 Deconstruction Permitting…………………………………. 67 Tipping Fees……………………………………………….. 68 Educational Programs……………………………………… 68 Partnerships and Institutional Support…………………….. 69 Development of End Use Markets………………………… 72 VI. CONCLUSIONS…………………………………………... 75 APPENDIX………………………………………………. 81 REFERENCES…………………………………………….. 84
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page 1. Characterization of Residential C & D Debris…………………………. 7 2. Composition of Residential Renovation and Demolition Debris………. 8 3. Characterization of Non-Residential C & D Debris……………………. 9 4. Composition of Non-Residential Renovation and Demolition Debris…. 10 5. Waste Management Hierarchy…………………………………………. 29 6. Deconstruction: Incentives versus Barriers…………………………… 33 7. Whole House Deconstruction Labor Profile…………………………… 42 8. Energy and Environmental Advances in Housing Construction………. 52 9. Energy and Environmental Advances in Housing Construction Continued………………………………………………………………. 53
viii
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
This thesis project is an argument that deconstruction is a valuable and effective
tool for resource conservation within a construction and demolition industry that is far
from sustainable. This argument will be strengthened by a historical examination of the
construction and demolition industry, with a focus on its negative environmental impacts.
There will also be a focus on developments within this industry to make it become
sustainable, and how these changes can facilitate and accommodate deconstruction.
I will tie this argument into several issues that are extremely pertinent both
nationally and regionally. These include extending the life of valuable and declining
natural resources that have already been harvested, the creation of end use markets for
quality building materials being salvaged during the deconstruction process, and
necessary partnerships and institutional support for a successful program. Through reuse
and recycling, deconstruction helps extend the lifecycle of many quality building
materials, thereby preserving the embodied energy contained within them. Not only can
this process help decrease the flow of the construction and demolition waste stream, but it
can also reduce the pollution and other ecological degradation that results from
development.
1
2
This topic is important for several reasons. In North Carolina, and especially the
Triangle (Raleigh, Durham, and Chapel Hill) region, there are growing problems
associated with a large construction and demolition waste stream. These problems
include declining landfill space, unsustainable consumption of natural resources, and
subsequent ecological damage due to the processing (from manufacture to disposal) of
these materials. This large waste stream can be attributed to a healthy regional economy
that is spurring the construction of new commercial and residential structures, as well as
the demolition of many older structures to make room for new development. According
to the Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance (DPPEA),
approximately 2.5 million tons of building-related construction and demolition debris
were generated in North Carolina during 1997. This represents approximately 25-30% of
the total waste stream in the state (Markets Assessment, 1998).
Older structures contain many valuable architectural pieces and quality used
building materials that can be circulated back into the community. This can help
stimulate job and economic growth within a community by utilizing the reuse concept.
Also, the deconstruction process can extend the life of valuable natural resources while
decreasing the flow of materials in the waste stream. It is imperative that we as a society
focus on closing the loop to conserve precious resources and increase the sustainability of
an otherwise harmful industry. It is my hope that this thesis project will help to
synthesize many of the issues that are interconnected, thereby providing a useful
framework to help communities actively pursue this alternative to demolition.
3
The state of North Carolina had designated a solid waste reduction goal of 40%
by June of 2001. At the same time Wake County had established a reduction goal of
25%. Neither of these goals was attained. There must be changes in the construction and
demolition industry (which contributes almost a third of all waste in the state) if it is to
become sustainable and if governments are to meet their overall solid waste reduction
goals.
CHAPTER II
LITERATURE REVIEW
Methodology
Deconstruction is a process that offers valuable economic and environmental
benefits to the community. These benefits include job creation (primarily for unskilled
workers) and economic continuity within the community. Deconstruction can be a
valuable tool for resource conservation, as well as an excellent mechanism for educating
the public about issues concerning reuse, recycling, and sustainable development.
The purpose of this paper is to pull from works that have already been written on
the subject of deconstruction and develop a more comprehensive paper that looks at the
overall sustainability of the construction and demolition industry, with a focus on
deconstruction as one major tool for reform. It builds upon recognition that there is a
significant body of work on this subject; my goal is to highlight the growing viability of
this alternative to deconstruction. There is a foundation provided within this paper that
will enable any interested party to further pursue the effective implementation of
deconstruction.
4
5
Several organizations’ web sites have some highly useful information on
deconstruction, sustainable development, and other related topics. These included the
University of Florida’s Center for Construction and Environment, as well as the National
Association of Home Builders Research Center and the United States Environmental
Protection Agency website. Researchers such as Bradley Guy (CCE) and Peter Yost
(NAHBRC) have spent many years examining the effectiveness of deconstruction on
lessening harmful impacts that typically result from development.
On a national level, organizations such as the Institute for Local Self Reliance
(Washington, DC) and Environmental Protection Agency are serving as resources for
deconstruction efforts. This includes case studies of past projects and ongoing research
concerning alternative materials and technologies, as well as grant funds for pilot
projects. On a local level, the Triangle J Council of Governments (TJCOG) and the
Division of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance (DPPEA is a division of
the Department of Environment and Natural Resources) both serve as a local
clearinghouse of construction and demolition waste reduction activities and resources.
Much of my work consisted of internet research; more specifically examining the
many different deconstruction and green building activities going on throughout the
country. I also discussed with solid waste management practitioners how deconstruction
could fit into efforts to make the construction and demolition industry become
sustainable. I extensively reviewed existing case studies on past deconstruction projects,
as well as current research on the future potential for this alternative to demolition.
6
Definition of Construction and Demolition Debris
In order to familiarize the reader with the specific concept of construction and
demolition (C&D) debris I will use the definition given by NC DPPEA. Construction
and demolition debris is defined as “waste or debris resulting solely from construction,
remodeling, repair, or demolition operations on pavement, buildings, or other structures
(Markets Assessment, 1998, p.1).” Construction, renovation, and demolition jobs
produce varying quantities of the following materials:
! Clean wood (clean scrap lumber) ! Brick and block (also know as aggregates) ! Painted or treated wood ! Gypsum wallboard ! Manufactured wood (plywood, oriented strand board, etc.) ! Cardboard ! Asphalt shingles ! Metals ! Miscellaneous plastics ! Salvageable materials (such as windows, doors, lighting and plumbing
fixtures)
This list helps to give a sense of the types of materials that compose the construction
and demolition waste stream. In gaining a more thorough understanding of the waste
stream, it is easier to begin addressing the problem of how to slow the waste stream
down. Figures 1-4 on the following pages show which materials are generated most
commonly in both residential and non-residential construction and demolition debris
(Markets Assessment, 1998). By identifying the material breakdown, end use markets
can more effectively be developed to accommodate these materials and provide
alternatives to landfill disposal.
7
Figure I . Characterization of Residential C & D Debris
Characterization of Residential C&D Debris
Sources of Residential C&D Debris
Reside Ioai Demolition 38 a%
Residenod Consminion t 85%
Residential Renovabon 42 8%
Composition of Residential Construction Debris
other^__ Brick Cardboard
9.6% ~,, 5 . 2 % l i 4.5% Concrete I ! 12.1%
Drywal 6 3%
I.ooc __- .)a ?%
Roofing J' PlaStlC
5 6% 0 9%
8
Figure 2. Composition of Residential Renovation and Demolition Debris
Composition of Residential Renovation Debris
Otner I1 1%
Composition of Residential Demolition Debris
Concrete 21 8%
Wood 3 2 3 % ',
Roofing 16 6%
PlaStlC 4.8% 0 4%
9
Figure 3. Characterization of Non-Residential C & D Debris
Characterization of Non-Residential C&D Debris
Sources of Non-Residential C&D Debris
Non-Resiaential Demolition
36% NovResidentia' Construction
i- 19%
I\ I
\ '\\
Noli-Residential Renovation 45%
Composition of Non-Residential Construction Debris
Wood 18 8%
- Rooting 9.6%
.~., 0 5% Metal
8.8%
Other k p h a l t
8 I% 0 6% Brick I r6 7% I
\ Cardboard /- 75%
\ I
Drywall 6.6%
Concrete 32.9%
10
Figure 4. Composition of Non-Residential Renovation and Demolition Debris
Composition of Non-Residential Renovation Debris
Other 15 I % - \
\
Brick
4 6% Cardboard , / I 4 %
15 Metal
I 2 E%
Plastic 0 2%
Composition of Non-Residential Demolition Debris
Concrete 2 I .E%
ywall .6%
Wood 24 9%
Metal -1 I I 9%
\
Drywall I 9 7%
11
Historical Impact of Construction and Demolition Industry
Both nationally and within North Carolina, the construction and demolition
industry is one of the largest contributors to the depletion of natural resources, while also
causing harmful side effects such as air and water pollution, ecosystem destruction, and
solid waste generation. Buildings represent a significant portion of this country’s overall
wealth. In 1993 new construction and demolition activities amounted to almost $800
billion, while employing more than 10 million people (National Science and Technology
Council, 1993). Buildings account for one-sixth of the world’s freshwater withdrawals,
one-quarter of its wood harvest and two-fifths of its material and energy flows (Roodman
& Lenssen, 1995). Fifty-four percent of U.S. energy consumption is directly or indirectly
related to buildings and their construction (Chiles, Loken, Milner, & Mumma, 1994).
Out of 260 million tons of waste produced nationally, 136 million tons are a result of
construction and demolition waste (Franklin Associates, 1998).
According to the census conducted by the United States Census Bureau, there are
more than 76 million residential buildings and almost 5 million commercial buildings in
the United States, with an additional 15 million buildings projected by the year 2010 (US
Census Bureau, 2000). Existing buildings use more than one-third of all primary energy
consumed in the country, and account for two-thirds of total electricity use. Lighting
accounts for 20-25% of the electricity used in the United States annually (Energy
Resource Center, 1995). Over 30% of the total energy and 69% of the electricity use in
the United States is in buildings (Barnett & Browning, 1995).
12
These numbers clearly show that construction (and the subsequent demolition of
those structures) contributes dramatically to the overall natural resource consumption and
environmental stress on our planet. These numbers also represent an opportunity for the
construction and demolition industry to make significant changes in a move toward
sustainability and environmental stewardship.
There need to be sincere efforts made immediately to address these many
problems and try to find solutions to alleviate the strain on future generations. This is a
fundamental issue of responsibility. The industry must acknowledge the damage that is
occurring now as a result of construction and demolition, while actively seeking positive
solutions to make the industry sustainable. The design and building of structures has
changed, as has the function of these structures. However, this change has not always
been for the better. As technologies advance, the environment is often exploited (through
resource extraction, pollution, etc.). Only recently has the construction and demolition
industry begun to consider environmental concerns along with economic goals (Bender,
2000).
Within the past twenty-five years there has been extensive research performed on
the significance of building, both why and how we do it. Tom Bender, in his book
Building with the Breath of Life (2000), focuses on how we may design and build
structures in ways that protect and nourish both ourselves and our surrounding natural
environment. A Pattern Language provides comprehensive steps to building in a
sustainable manner, while also meeting the physical and psychological needs of our
society (Alexander et al, 1977).
13
Alexander and Bender represent a shift that is occurring among many architects,
designs, developers and builders. This shift toward protecting the stability of the natural
environment is developing slowly, and the construction and demolition industry
continues to negatively impact our ecosystem in many ways.
An overall decline in the health and stability of the environment occurs through
heavy resource extraction, ecosystem alterations through land development, and the
disposal of solid and hazardous materials that are generated during the construction
process. Also, future generations are left to deal with buildings that become obsolete and
must develop effective ways to deal with the excessive amounts of solid waste generation
(through unwanted building materials) and general environmental degradation. These are
a few examples of the harmful consequences that result from the construction and
demolition industry.
Construction was not always this damaging to the environment. Until the
beginning of the industrial period, construction was typically undertaken in a manner that
was more environmentally sustainable. The power tools and heavy machinery that are
commonly used in today’s construction and demolition work were nonexistent. All of the
work was done by hand, thus producing less waste and less pollution (via noise, air, and
physical waste). Also, because it was harder to extract natural resources, they were used
more carefully. In general, buildings were also relatively smaller and simpler. Thus they
required fewer materials.
14
Daly and Townsend (1993) say the following about the relationship between
technology and resource consumption:
Unfortunately the common view now is that the power of technology is without
limits. We will always be able to not only find a substitute for a resource which
has become scarce, but also to increase the productivity of any kind of energy and
material. Should we run out of some resources, we will always think up
something…(p. 91)
Materials that were originally used in the construction of buildings did not have
the adhesives and synthetic chemicals that are so commonplace today (only recently are
construction scraps being converted into engineered wood products such as oriented
strand board, thereby extending the lifecycle of certain materials). As a result, buildings
were healthier to live and work in since they provided better indoor air quality due to less
off gassing of chemicals.
At the same time, there was an informal mentality of reuse. This means that
materials were used much more efficiently and in a manner that extended their lifecycle.
Many times people who lived in rural areas would have to build new barns or storage
facilities either to replace ones in which the overall condition had deteriorated (i.e.
leaking or damage sustained from a storm) or simply to increase the size of their capacity
(Kilbert, Chini, & Languell, 2000). Oftentimes they would salvage all of the
usable building materials before they demolished the existing structure. This would
include doors, windows, framing lumber, and roofing material. All of the usable
15
materials that could be salvaged from the old barn would then be used in the construction
of the new facility. The result was a structure that was cheaper to build, made from better
quality materials, and demanded less from the environment in its construction.
Technological, Social, and Economic Changes in the Past 100 Years
In the past two hundred years several social, economic, and technological factors
have caused the construction and demolition industry to become far more damaging to
the environment. As populations have grown, especially in thriving urban centers, new
construction is occurring on a large percentage of previously undeveloped land.
According to the American Farmland Trust (2001), the United States loses more than
3,000 acres of productive farmland each day to sprawling development. An average of
1.5 million acres of farmland is lost to suburban sprawl each year (Culture Change,
2001). Urban sprawl is causing large-scale depletion of open spaces and of the nation’s
forests. Aggregate materials such as brick and block are being used to permanently alter
existing ecosystems, whether it is for roads to new subdivisions or for driveways and
parking lots of commercial developments. Technological advancements have enabled
building materials supply companies to access greater amounts of resources in far less
time, causing natural resources to be depleted much faster than natural regeneration
occurs. The large-scale production of iron in the late 1700s led to the wide spread
development and implementation of heavy-duty tools and construction
equipment. These advancements continued through the 1800s and allowed for more
extensive construction activities, while also contributing to significantly more resource
extraction and consumption (“What was iron used for?” 2001).
16
Another contributing factor to the harmful effects of the construction and
demolition industry is a tendency in this country to harvest materials from foreign
countries. This is due to generations of mismanagement of our natural resources and has
forced us to go oversees to satisfy our insatiable demand for the virgin resources needed
to make building materials. The United States is the world’s largest consumer of 11 out
of 20 major traded commodities such as tin, copper, and aluminum. Since the 1980s in
particular, there has been growing concern about the environmental downside of
profligate exploitation of natural resources, with respect to pollution and the degradation
of land (Our Planet, 2001). It is also a function of foreign nations’ abilities to produce
materials and products at less cost and with fewer environmental restrictions. This
introduces several problems that are more magnified than if the resources were harvested
locally. The energy costs and subsequent pollution that results from long distance
transportation are significant and contribute to the environmental degradation of other
countries. Valuable ecosystems (such as the Brazilian rain forest) are permanently
altered in ways that reduce species diversity and threaten the long-term health and
stability of these natural environments.
Also, the old adage “out of sight, out of mind” is particularly appropriate to our
normal means of extracting natural resources from other countries. Because we do not
live there and experience the subtle effects that result from ecological alterations, we do
not behave in a manner that is sustainable or respectful to native peoples. Families are
displaced, ways of life (such as farming) are permanently altered, and ancient ecosystems
are forever compromised.
17
Socially, it is now deemed acceptable to build a larger residential structure even
though the average size of a family has decreased. For example, there was recently a
couple in the Triangle that demolished their existing 4,000 square foot home. In its place
they built a 16,000 square foot home using only brand new building materials. This
process took place without this couple giving a thought to where those resources were
coming from, the energy embodied in both the construction and upkeep of their home, or
the ecological devastation that resulted from the harvesting of so many resources.
The world’s population was dramatically smaller at the turn of the twentieth
century and construction was more spread out than today. The population has grown
exponentially since the Agricultural Revolution and this growth has contributed to
ongoing problems associated with housing (Quinn, 1992). The estimated global
population was 1.5-1.7 billion in 1900. As of December of 2001, the estimated global
population has grown to 6.2 billion (US Census Bureau, 2001).
According to the National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) Research
Center, the average size of a single-family home has increased from 1,905 square feet to
2,273 square feet in the past 13 years. At the same time, lot sizes have decreased from
17,600 square feet to 12,910 square feet (NAHB, 2001). So larger homes are being built
on smaller lots. The basic translation is an increase in the harvesting of virgin resources
for building materials and a loss of natural spaces due to development.
18
According to the census conducted by the United States Census Bureau, there are
115,904,641 housing units in the fifty states and District of Columbia. North Carolina
contributes 3,523,944 to that total count (US Census Bureau, 2001). These numbers
represent an enormous amount of building materials that will eventually be disposed of
(with most of them going to a landfill). They also represent a great deal of embodied
energy in already-harvested resources that would be lost forever if disposed of. As the
age of these homes and the need for land for new development increase, we are going to
experience significant strains upon our national and local solid waste management
systems.
Economically, developers and builders strive to complete structures as quickly as
possible. High production builders complete thousands of new homes throughout the
country each year, leaving behind a large ecological footprint. Reese and Wackernagel
(1996) developed this concept to measure human impact on nature. The ecological
footprint shows how much productive land and water we occupy to produce the resources
we consume and to dispose of all the waste we make. Houses are often confined to small
lots in high visibility areas. For this reason, companies dispose of their waste frequently
in order to maintain a clean work site, thereby preventing on-site separation of materials
either for reuse or recycling. It is a profit driven venture, characterized by fast house
builds and quick waste disposal. It is not an environmental preservation movement.
19
Need for Move toward Sustainability
It is important to realize that the ecological devastation that results from
construction and demolition is far-reaching and oftentimes difficult to substantiate.
Delicate ecological systems are forever altered, runoff may pollute groundwater sources,
and native flora and fauna may be displaced. Builders and developers must recognize the
interconnectedness of all living systems (both human and non-human) and act in ways
that preserve the integrity of all systems. It is imperative that members of this industry
become more aware of consequences and take steps to develop responsibly and
sustainably.
Unfortunately this awareness is developing slowly. There are other social and
economic pressures that impede these industries from operating in a more sustainable
manner. The American economic system is capitalistic and consumer/consumption
oriented (Augenbroe & Pearce, 1998). The long-term costs of wasting are not accurately
reflected in disposal prices, just as the long-term costs of resource extraction are not
reflected in material and product prices.
Serious steps will have to be undertaken in order to decrease the flow of materials
in the construction and demolition waste stream. Only recently have government
agencies and private sector parties begun to address the issue of sustainable development.
Building codes, environmental legislation, and other regulatory restrictions impose
further limitations on the use of recycled or innovative building materials; often taking
years to catch up to changes in materials technology (Augenbroe & Pearce, 1998).
20
The trends in wasteful and damaging construction and demolition are clearly
portrayed in the Triangle region of North Carolina. They are indicative of a much
broader problem, one that pervades most modern societies to some extent. In the
Triangle, construction and demolition waste comprises almost a third of all solid waste
that is currently being disposed of in landfills. As a result, local landfills are quickly
reaching capacity. We must find ways to divert usable materials out of the waste stream
and to capture the embodied energy in the form of already-harvested and manufactured
building materials.
How Deconstruction Comes Into Play
Deconstruction can play a major role in reversing current trends. This creative
alternative to the demolition process provides an immediate answer with proven results.
It slows the flow of usable building materials into the waste stream and provides social,
economic, and environmental benefits that help to strengthen communities.
According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), an estimated 65
million tons of demolition waste are generated each year, with 31 percent from residential
projects and 69 percent from nonresidential projects. Yet only about 20-30 percent of
demolition waste is reused or recycled (Leroux & Seldman, 1999). This represents an
enormous amount of quality, usable building materials that are being disposed of in
landfills, with their embodied energy being lost forever. This also forces an already
harmful industry to continue extracting resources for new materials at a rate that is
unsustainable.
21
Deconstruction case studies have shown consistent recovery rates of 50%, with
some projects having as much as 90% of all materials being reused or recycled (Kilbert et
al., 2001). This creative alternative to demolition can serve as an effective tool at
extending the lifecycle of many building materials, while in turn preventing the
widespread harvesting of natural resources at rates that are damaging our ecosystems
beyond repair.
Deconstruction fills a valuable role by helping to close the loop, serving as one
vital component of resource conservation. Embodied energy is the amount of energy it
takes to mine, harvest, manufacture, package, transport, and dispose of materials. It takes
energy to harvest virgin resources. It takes energy to convert these resources into
finished building materials. It takes energy to transport these materials to a retail outlet
and/or construction site. It takes energy to dispose of these items (typically via
demolition and landfills) at the end of their useful life. Having gone through all of these
processes, deconstructed building materials possess an enormous amount of embodied
energy. The environmental degradation associated with each of these steps is important
to remember.
Through reuse and recycling, deconstruction helps extend the lifecycle of many
building materials, thereby preserving the embodied energy in them. Not only can this
process help decrease the flow of the construction and demolition waste stream, but it can
also reduce the pollution and other ecological devastation that occurs as a result of further
resource extraction and development. While recycling certainly offers environmental
benefits, deconstruction is more effective with regard to preserving the embodied energy
22
contained within building materials and is ultimately a more viable tool for resource
conservation.
CHAPTER III
DECONSTRUCTION
Definition of Deconstruction
Deconstruction is the careful disassembly of an existing structure with the
intention of salvage components for reuse and recycling. This is a labor-intensive
process requiring minimal technology. At the same time, it is an environmentally
beneficial process that minimizes the impact upon the surrounding land, while
maximizing the potential for materials diversion from the waste stream. The
deconstruction process simply reverses the steps of construction, dismantling a structure
step-by-step to maintain the quality of all salvaged materials for further reuse. Most of
the work is done by hand, which ensures that all salvaged materials will be in good,
usable condition either for use in another project or for sale in a retail outlet.
History of Deconstruction
The concept of deconstruction has been in place for nearly a hundred years. The
methodical and quality construction of older structures is conducive to the removal of
these materials in a manner that yields a high rate of reuse and recycling. One important
argument I will make in this paper is that if buildings are constructed well, then they will
deconstruct more easily and yield more reusable materials.
23
24
This concept is essential to the sustainability of the construction and demolition industry.
When the rate of both commercial and residential construction increased
dramatically in the twentieth century, many builders would come into an existing
structure that was going to be demolished and selectively pick (also known as cherry-
picking) items of value (whether through reuse or resale) for themselves before typically
disposing of the rest via landfills. However, this was an informal process that was most
common in either rural areas or regions with few resources.
At the same time there were cases of the deconstruction process being a more
formalized business tool. For example, the Hechinger Company, which was a well-
known supplier to the do-it-yourself home repair market in the Baltimore/D.C. area,
started in 1911 as a hand-demolition company. For several decades they sold salvaged
building materials (Leroux & Seldman, 1999).
Only in the past thirty years has deconstruction become a formalized process that
is decidedly separate and unique from the standard demolition process. It is important to
note, however, that cherry picking is still a common practice on demolition sites (where
deconstruction is deemed not feasible, perhaps because of time constraints) and at least
results in the diversion of small amounts of materials away from the waste stream.
In recent years the practice of cherry picking has become better known as a strip-
out or partial deconstruction. This refers to the process of simply removing certain
materials from a structure before its eventual demolition. Most often this is due either to
time constraints, labor constraints, or poor quality of building materials in a structure.
Items removed during a strip-out usually include doors, cabinets, and light
25
fixtures. This ultimately depends on the age of the structure and the general condition of
the materials contained within.
Basic Steps in a Deconstruction
The following presents a description of the basic procedures to perform a
deconstruction. While these steps serve as guideposts, it is important to realize that each
potential site is unique and may have to be approached in an individualized manner.
Ultimately, it depends on the quality and quantity of materials, the size and location of
the structure, and potential presence of hazardous materials. First I will address a few
topics that are crucial to the success of all deconstruction projects. These include site
assessment, on-site separation of building materials, and site cleanliness.
One of the most important aspects is the initial visit to determine if a project is
worth undertaking. This site examination should be performed by someone who is
properly trained to know the approximate resale values of materials (and market
demand), as well as the estimated time needed for removal, cleaning, and transportation
back to a retail outlet or storage facility. It is also necessary at this time to meet with the
owner of the house to gain a clear understanding of the timeline before demolition or
redevelopment occurs. This is also the best time to clarify which materials will remain in
the owner’s possession or be transferred over to the contractor.
One reason that deconstruction is so effective at diverting building materials out
of the waste stream, while preserving their usefulness, is the practice of on-site
separation. This is a process that is absent from demolition sites. On-site separation
26
refers to the process of separating like materials into different piles so they may
ultimately be reused of recycled. This does not occur with demolition because it is faster
for a machine to pile everything into a dumpster. Once heavy machinery touches
building materials they are generally rendered insufficient for future high-value
applications. Bulldozers and other large equipment cause irreparable damage to building
materials in the process of removing and transporting them. However, all of the
separation on a deconstruction site is performed by hand, thus helping to preserve the
quality of materials and ensuring their future value in construction.
One of the most basic safety precautions is to maintain a clean site. This is
accomplished by sweeping up debris and nails several times a day and always leaving a
spotless site at the end of a work session. Injuries on a deconstruction site often result
from a messy work site, where nails, tools and other materials are scattered about. For
this reason, it is imperative to properly train either paid personnel or volunteer labor so
they have a clear understanding of why safety measures are in place. Traditional
construction apparel is ideal as well, including steel-toed work boots, safety glasses, and
work gloves.
This is also the time to inspect for any presence of hazardous materials (most
often this is asbestos in siding or flooring and lead-based paint) within a structure. If any
hazardous materials are found, then proper remediation should occur as quickly as
possible. Once this is done and the site is safe to work on, deconstruction can proceed.
27
Deconstruction is performed in the reverse order of traditional construction
methods. As such, the first activities include removing interior materials such as
baseboard, trim, and interior doors. This will help to open up some space for free
movement and also allow easier access to other materials such as hardwood floors.
The next area of concentration is usually on cabinets, appliances, plumbing and
light fixtures. These materials take minimal time to remove and require minimal
preparation to take back to a storage facility/retail outlet. Then it is common to begin
working on the removal of materials such as wall coverings, insulation, pipes, and wiring.
If the project entails a full deconstruction where the structure is taken down to the
foundation, the roof is a logical next step. This will oftentimes include the disposal or
recycling of asphalt shingles. However, trusses typically yield significant amounts of
quality lumber.
After all of these areas have been addressed, it is time to focus on the framing
lumber and flooring. Carpet and vinyl flooring require little preparation, but are also
most likely to not be reused due to animal stains or excessive wear-and-tear. The most
value from a resale standpoint is always in hardwood flooring, which requires a great
deal of work to pull up, de-nail, and bundle up for transportation. However, there is high
demand for hardwood flooring and quality used framing lumber and they will sell
quickly. De-nailing is one of the most time consuming activities on a deconstruction site
and can sometimes take up to one-quarter of all time spent on a site. However, this
activity requires low-skilled labor and, in the case of non-profit organizations, can often
28
be performed by volunteers or court-appointed community service workers at non-profit
organizations.
Once a project has reached this stage it is nearing its completion. It is time to
begin final site preparation and cleanup, making sure that all materials have been
transported either to an appropriate recycling facility or to a storage/retail location. It is
important to remember that while there is a basic order of steps with any deconstruction,
these may vary or differ depending on the site, type of structure, and quality and quantity
of materials that can be salvaged. One of the keys is to focus on one material type (i.e.
trim, doors, etc.) at a time, which ultimately helps to make the entire process more
efficient for separating material (whether for reuse, recycling, or disposal) on site.
Although there is no one set procedure that must be adhered to, it is necessary to maintain
a worksite that is safe. This will also help to ensure the removal of building materials in
a manner that yields them a high value for resale or reuse.
Hierarchy of Materials There is an established hierarchy with regard to the deconstruction of a structure
as a form of solid waste management. According to Figure 5 on the following page,
deconstruction is close to the top of the waste management structure (Kilbert et al, 2001).
Only a reduction in resource harvesting and consumption is more effective at managing
the solid waste stream. This is with regard to energy and resource conservation, since
embodied energy is preserved through reuse (which is the ultimate goal of
deconstruction). All of the resources and energy that went into manufacturing the
building materials are preserved in their original form.
29
Reclaimed or salvaged building materials are inherently valuable, based simply
on the energy and raw materials used to create them. Dismantling a building into its
components keeps the materials in service longer than will disposal. This in turn reduces
construction and demolition waste, which helps to preserve landfill space (Kilbert et al.,
200 1).
According to Kilbert et a1 (200 1 ), the immediate reuse of building materials
prevents items such as dimensional lumber from being downcycled (which results in
energy being lost) into things like oriented strand board, particleboard, or mulch. The
materials are less valuable because more raw materials and energy went into their
production and they serve no purpose except in their original form.
Figure 5. Waste Management Hierarchy
30
Wood as an Example of Waste Reduction/Diversion Potential
Wood is one material whose harvesting, production, transportation, and eventual
disposal all contribute negative ecological impacts, both nationally and globally. Since
the turn of the twentieth century over 3 trillion board feet of lumber and timber have been
sawn in the United States, with much of it still residing in existing structures (Falk,
Green, & Lantz, 1999). Although the United States accounts for only 5% of the world’s
population, we consume approximately 20% of the world’s wood. More specifically,
buildings account for 50% of all wood consumption in the United States (U.S. Commerce
Department, 1993). It takes approximately 40 to 50 trees to construct a 2,000 square foot
house (Environmental Building News Product Catalog, 1997). In North Carolina, wood
makes up approximately 28% of the construction and demolition waste stream (Markets
Assessment, Figure 5, 1998). This represents just one way that the industry could reduce
their negative impact and extend the lifecycle of valuable natural resources and existing
building materials (which contain large amounts of embodied energy).
Finding ways to creatively and effectively reuse wood products is an excellent
tool for resource conservation. This can be promoted through the proper implementation
of deconstruction. It can also provide one immediate solution to slowing down the
construction and demolition waste stream, a significant portion of which is constituted by
wood. By decreasing our demand for new lumber harvest we can prevent the species
loss, CO2 increases, and other ecological consequences of overharvesting. There is great
potential for both the reuse and resale of used lumber. It can be re-certified for framing
31
purposes, used in sheds and concrete forms, and for creative projects (i.e. furniture, coat
racks, etc.).
The advantage of deconstruction is that all the work of removing and de-nailing
lumber is done by hand, thereby preserving the quality and value of the wood. The
demolition process oftentimes results in lumber becoming contaminated, which results in
a loss of value. If the contamination is minimal then the wood can be used for boiler fuel
or finger-jointed into longer pieces and certified to use in load bearing situations.
Demolition
As opposed to deconstruction, demolition is the complete removal of a structure
through the use of sledgehammers, explosives, and/or heavy machinery (such as
bulldozers). This process is usually done to prepare a site for redevelopment. Demolition
is performed significantly faster that deconstruction, but the use of heavy equipment
renders most materials unable to be salvaged for reuse. Also, time constraints usually
prevent any on-site sorting of materials for recycling. Instead everything is co-mingled
and disposed of via landfill. As a result, there is the loss of great amounts of embodied
energy and the subsequent need for harvesting of virgin resources to produce new
building materials. One benefit of demolition is that it typically requires very few
personnel. However, that potential saving is offset by high capital, operation, and
maintenance costs for heavy machinery and high disposal costs (through tipping fees).
32
There are many negative environmental impacts that result from the demolition
process. The lifespan of existing landfills is greatly reduced by the disposal of large
amounts of construction and demolition debris that could otherwise be reused or
recycled. There may be hazardous materials (most often asbestos or lead-based paint)
contained within a structure that become mixed with other debris and disposed as if it
was normal waste. This hinders the proper remediation of potentially harmful chemicals.
Also, the heavy machinery negatively impacts the immediate and surrounding
ecosystems. This can be addressed through aggressive landscaping (which usually
involves non-native flora and large amounts of water), but will never return the area to its
original composition. Soil contamination and groundwater contamination are always
concerns on a demolition site.
There are several reasons that demolition is such a favorable alternative to
demolition for many contractors and developers. The process requires significantly less
time than deconstruction. Another problem is that disposal (tipping) fees are so low,
especially in North Carolina, that it is far more economical to simply bulldoze a structure
and throw it away. However, it is important that these benefits be pitted against the many
negative aspects of demolition. This way, we can see that the long-term gains are
drastically reduced and instead we incur many future costs that are indirect results of this
invasive procedure.
33
Figure 6. Deconstruction: Incentives versus Barriers Incentives Barriers
Tax write-off Time restraints
Discount building materials Low disposal costs
Preservation of embodied energy
Restrictive building codes
Job creation (especially for low-skilled labor)
Poor building design
Waste reduction (higher diversion rates)
Potential hazardous materials (lead based paint and
asbestos) Reduced ecosystem
alterations Salvage material and end use
market variations
Deconstruction is a complex equation of time restrictions (compared to
mechanical demolition), environmental costs, labor costs, disposal costs, salvage rates
and material types (Guy & McLendon, 2001). However, with proper planning and a
flexible schedule, deconstruction can provide a wide range of social, economic, and
environmental benefits that help to reduce the harmful impacts of traditional construction
and demolition activities. The following are some of the advantages offered by this
technique:
Environmental Benefits
Deconstruction provides many other environmental benefits: reduced
consumption of natural resources, reduced pollution, conservation of energy, reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions, promotion of reuse and recycling, and promotion of the proper
management of hazardous materials (such as asbestos and lead-based paint) during the
removal of structures. This creative alternative to demolition is driven by human power,
34
thus resulting in less ecological disruption and ensuring a less destructive removal
process. Also, deconstruction can address the large amounts of construction and
demolition waste going to the landfills and help federal, state, and local governments
achieve recycling and solid waste diversion goals.
Economic Benefits
Deconstruction provides the following economic benefits: the generation of
revenue through the selling of salvaged materials, a reduced need for costly capital
investments in heavy demolition equipment, avoided disposal costs associated with the
landfilling of demolition debris, and the creation of more skilled jobs (especially for low-
income and unskilled workers). Another important economic incentive comes from
potential tax benefits. A property owner can deduct the value of a structure and all
materials contained within it if the structure is donated to a non-profit organization.
Although deconstruction costs more than demolition in initial expenses, this tax
deduction can help offset these initial costs, thus legitimizing deconstruction as an
economic alternative to demolition.
Deconstruction also provides opportunity for the development of value-added
manufacturing businesses. This means increasing the value of used building materials by
repairing them or remanufacturing them into a more desired form. For example, salvaged
lumber is commonly reworked into flooring products. Also, scrap materials that may not
be useful in a building application can be used for creative projects (such as furniture).
This adds value to the materials and enables craftsmen and artisans to market products
containing salvaged materials.
35
Social Benefits
There are also many social advantages to using deconstruction. It creates
opportunities for self-employment, as well as small business development (Biddle, 2001).
Also, there is retention of historically significant buildings slated for demolition by using
components of old buildings either in new construction or renovation. Perhaps more
importantly there is containment of economic and physical resources within the
community. This supports the promotion of sustainable development and strengthens the
overall health and stability of a region.
Sources of Structures
According to the EPA nearly 300,000 buildings are demolished annually in the
United States (NAHB, 2001). As communities and governments become more supportive
of deconstruction, there are increasing opportunities for building materials to be salvaged
rather than disposed of in landfills via traditional demolition methods. One consequence
of a vibrant economy is the prevalence of new development, which ultimately results in
many residential and commercial structures being demolished for the sake of new
construction. As a result, there are many structures available for deconstruction that
present opportunities to salvage quality, used building materials either for reuse in
another project or for resale in a retail outlet.
A few examples of excellent and consistent sources of structures are HOPE VI
residential housing and military bases (especially barrack structures) that are being
decommissioned across the country. The Departments of Housing and Urban
36
Development (HUD) and Defense (DOD) are spending millions of dollars annually to
take down obsolete buildings.
Since 1993, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's HOPE VI
program has allocated almost $500 million per year to local housing authorities for the
demolition, construction, or rehabilitation of public housing. Another goal of HOPE VI
is to move public housing residents from the welfare rolls to living-wage employment,
which is one of the benefits of deconstruction (job training and employment opportunities
for low-income workers). In addition, HUD's section 3 requirements promote job
creation. It is estimated that nearly 200,000 public housing units will be demolished as a
result of HOPE VI (Leroux & Seldman, 1999). For more information on HUD’s HOPE
VI program, refer to Figure 1 in the appendix.
Another large source of structures for potential deconstruction is military bases,
which are being decommissioned throughout the country and either demolished or
converted to civilian uses. When a base is closed, it passes through a series of phases that
present opportunities for deconstruction. Also, funds originally budgeted for building
maintenance or site preparation and cleanup may be available to help offset the initial
economic costs of deconstruction (Leroux & Seldman, 1999). Because these structures
are owned and operated by the federal government and various military agencies, it is
imperative that they support such ventures.
The best area to do possible deconstruction projects on military bases is on the
residential barrack structures, which typically yield building materials that are commonly
used in construction (i.e. materials with common applications such as plumbing fixtures
37
and framing lumber). The Department of Defense introduced a 40% solid waste reduction
goal in 1999 and deconstruction would greatly help them achieve that goal (Kilbert et al,
2001).
Another potentially consistent source of structures and materials are colleges and
universities. Due to the constant renovations of existing buildings, as well as new
construction projects to accommodate growth, there is great potential for deconstruction
on campuses throughout the country. In North Carolina, Governor Jim Hunt issued a
Sustainability Initiative that requires all state schools to pursue certain environmental
goals concerning construction and renovation activities. This is discussed further in
Chapter 5.
Constraints/Obstacles to Success
There are several factors that currently limit deconstruction from becoming a
more consistent and prevalent tool for waste reduction and resource conservation.
Among these are the lack of governmental support, time restraints, and low disposal
costs. Historically, there has not been much support from federal, state, and municipal
governments with regard to the promotion of deconstruction as an alternative to
demolition.
The construction and demolition industry is primarily concerned with making the
most money as quickly as possible. Demolition has proven to be extremely effective at
helping them reach that goal. However, this approach ignores all aspects of sustainable
development, instead encouraging wasteful and extremely consuming methods. The
result is a great loss of valuable natural resources.
38
One of the main things limiting deconstruction right now is that the process takes
longer than demolition, which slows down an otherwise fast-paced industry. It is
essential that permitting processes be changed to accommodate some type of waiting
period, during which trained professionals have an opportunity to salvage as many usable
building materials as possible.
Another hindrance to the success of deconstruction is that design methods for
buildings typically do not address a future time when those buildings will no longer be
useful in their original form. Materials and techniques (such as adhesives and low-
quality wood products) prevent those structures from then being dismantled, with their
components either being reused or recycled. These obstacles to success, as well as
potential solutions, will be discussed more thoroughly in Chapter 4.
Case Studies of Past Projects
It is important that we look at past deconstruction projects for clues as to the
effectiveness of waste reduction, resource conservation, and financial savings. For this
reason, I will focus on various national projects and regional projects that all incorporated
different levels and aspects of deconstruction, with a common goal of reducing the
amount of construction and demolition debris that was disposed of in landfills.
The first project was the Bagley Downs Apartments in Eugene, Oregon. There
were originally thirty-two apartment units slated for demolition by the University of
Oregon. In response to overwhelming student opposition and a high demand for
affordable housing in the city, a company was hired to move the apartments to another
location and renovate them into public housing units. During the project, over 112 tons
39
of materials were recovered (86 tons through reuse/salvage and 26 tons through
recycling) and the city saved more than one million dollars by not constructing the new
housing units from scratch. Also, the University of Oregon saved $40,000 in avoided
demolition costs (Building Savings, 2000).
A second project was Stowe Village in Hartford, Connecticut. As an alternative to
demolition, the Hartford Housing Authority (HHA) chose to pursue a pilot project in
which they trained nine public housing residents to deconstruct six public housing units.
When they finished, more than 50% of all materials had been recovered (40% through
salvage and 10% through recycling). This project serves as an excellent example of how
deconstruction can provide job training for low-income persons, while also providing
economic benefits for the community as a whole (Building Savings, 2000).
This project was especially important because it showed how important financial
and legislative support from local governments can be with helping deconstruction efforts
become more widespread. HHA was the first housing authority to require a
deconstruction training program as part of development proposals (Building Savings,
2000). The HHA developed a request for proposal to target developers and contractors
that had experience with materials recovery and were willing to participate in training the
public housing residents.
Finally, a project was undertaken by the Center for Construction and Environment
at the University of Florida. They deconstructed six wood-framed residential structures.
The process included issues of historic preservation, demolition delay requirements,
licensed contractor requirements and environmental, safety and health certifications for
40
hazardous materials management (Guy & McLendon, 2001). According to project
leaders Guy and McLendon (2001), the largest percentage of time spent was the actual
deconstruction. This took about 26% of total project time. The next greatest step was in
materials processing, which averaged about 24%. Disposal and cleaning required an
average of 17% of total time, with demolition demanding less than 10% of all time spent
on the project.
According to Guy and McLendon (2001) there are various options for
partnerships between a building owner and a deconstruction contractor. These include
the following:
! Deconstruction as a service to the building owner and the owner retains
ownership of the salvaged materials. This can also be a guaranteed “buy
back” of the materials, with some consideration of the contractor’s costs for
processing and handling.
! Deconstruction with shared ownership of the materials, with a reduction in the
contract based on the contractor receiving materials as an in-kind payment.
! Deconstruction with the contractor retaining all materials, and charging a
price based on estimated revenues from the resale of salvaged materials.
! A nonprofit party performs a deconstruction for a fee and the owner donates
the materials as a tax write-off. (p. 77)
The aforementioned projects pursued these different partnerships to various degrees
based on the stakeholders.
41
There have also been some projects on a regional level with success at waste
reduction and financial savings. The Rural Advancement Foundation International-USA
(RAFI) recently purchased land in Pittsboro, North Carolina to build their new
headquarters. There was a 3,389 square foot house from 1830 already on the lot. RAFI
enlisted the help of Pete and Robin Hendricks, local deconstruction experts. A crew of
six worked with the Hendricks to dismantle the house, with all salvaged materials being
stored for use in the new building to be constructed. RAFI (2001) estimates that 70-80%
of all materials from the house were either stored for future reuse or recycled.
The Habitat for Humanity of Wake County ReUse Center removed all appliances
and fixtures (both plumbing and lighting) and brought them back to the resale outlet.
Chatham County Waste Management removed and ground into mulch 15 tons of wood;
and scrap haulers recycled an estimated 6,400-8,400 pounds of tin, steel, iron, aluminum,
and electrical conduit. RAFI-USA stored broken brick, block, and stone for future use as
rubble and fill in the new construction project. They will also incorporate much of the
salvaged lumber and flooring into their new facility (RAFI 2001).
The Habitat ReUse Center performed a whole house deconstruction on a 4,200
square foot residence in Raleigh. The house was 20 years old and three stories. The
owner wanted to remove the structure and rebuild a smaller house on the same lot. Two
full-time paid employees and countless volunteers performed the project. In Figure 7
below, Jacoby (2000) gives a breakdown of labor hours spent on the project.
42
Figure 7. Whole House Deconstruction Labor Profile
STAGE PERSON-HOURS % TOTAL STRIP-OUT Removal of cabinets, doors, floors, etc. 400 20.2 GUT-OUT Pull down drywall, insulation, wall paneling 220 11.1 ROOF Remove shingles, sheathing, framing 268 13.5 FRAME Interior and exterior walls, subfloor 246 12.4 SIDING REMOVAL 42 2.1 DENAILING 642 32.4 LOADING (FOR TRANSPORT BACK TO STORE) 95 4.8 DRIVEWAY REMOVAL (BRICKS) 32 1.6 SITE CLEANUP 34 1.7 TOTAL HOURS 1,979 100%
Whole House Deconstruction Site Profile
Size: ∼∼∼∼ 4,200 square feet Age: 20 years old Style: 3-story wood frame Reason for deconstruction: owner wanted to build a smaller residence
These different projects highlight the various and creative ways in which builders,
contractors, and local governments can provide economic benefits, waste reduction, and
resource conservation to community businesses and citizens. Although different
measures were taken to salvage and/or reuse building materials, each of these projects
shows the potential for materials diversion, economic savings (through reduced disposal
costs), and community involvement (through job training programs).
43
Current Deconstruction Happenings in the United States and North Carolina
Deconstruction is becoming a more commonplace industry through proven and
consistent economic, environmental, and social benefits. Programs such as those
previously mentioned are appearing across the country. Throughout the United States
and North Carolina there is a rising interest in this alternative to the demolition process.
There is an operation in Portland, Oregon called DeConstruction Services (DS)
that was initially formed in 1999 to increase the volume of materials coming to a used
building materials retail outlet. DS now has almost 40 personnel on their deconstruction
teams and performed almost $650,000 in contracted deconstruction projects in the past
year. According to Director Jim Primdahl, about 85% of the material from deconstructed
houses can be reused or recycled. He acknowledges that this percentage is so high
because recycling markets are fairly mature in the Portland area (Biddle, 2001).
According to Mr. Primdahl, DS gets a competitive advantage by giving each
client a project plan, a notebook with pictures before, during, and after the deconstruction
process, and an inventory of recovered materials. This costs them about $100 to produce
for each client, but serves as an excellent sales tool. It helps the donor to visualize the
entire process and provides an extra stimulus on top of the potential tax deduction
(Biddle, 2001). DS is continuing to partner with various municipal governments and area
companies to prevent structures from being demolished and disposed of in landfills.
Biddle (2001) goes on to say that such partnerships have enabled DeConstruction
Services (and its Rebuilding Center) to divert 300,000 to 350,000 tons of used building
materials out of the waste stream since they opened.
44
There is an ambitious partnership in Texas involving the Habitat for Humanity
ReStore, the U.S. Forest Products Laboratory, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the
University of Florida’s Center for Construction and Environment. The Fort Chaffee
Army Base (located in Fort Smith, Arkansas) is a BRAC (Base Realignment and Closure
Act) project with the first major new land use to be a Department of Energy facility. The
project calls for the removal of more than 120 wood-framed buildings (Guy &
McLendon, 2001). This is a pilot project, including extensive research, in support of
future military base deconstruction.
Pete Hendricks, who is widely recognized as the father of deconstruction in North
Carolina, has spent the past thirty years performing this process, while also actively
promoting its benefits to the general public. He dismantles an existing structure in its
entirety and then uses all the salvaged materials to construct new homes. He also serves
as a consultant on deconstruction training and projects throughout the country.
The Habitat for Humanity of Wake County ReUse Center had a deconstruction
program from 1997 through 2000. Initially funded by a Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR) grant, the program became self-sufficient and even
contributed approximately 15% of net sales through the ReUse Center’s building
materials supply outlet. Two full-time staff and a crew of volunteers would perform both
full deconstructions and strip-outs in different types of residential structures (typically
houses and old tobacco barns). During the last year of operation, the deconstruction
program performed one whole house deconstruction (where all material down to the
foundation were removed and either resold or recycled) and 44 partial strip-outs.
45
According to Jacoby (2000), this translated into nearly 120 tons of used building
materials that were resold and almost $49,000, through sales from the reclaimed materials
and the fee charged for the one whole house deconstruction.
The program is officially on hold until grant funding can be secured, though they
are still performing occasional strip-outs. There are several reasons why the program was
temporarily halted. The decision to stop coincided with a move to a new facility, which
was significantly larger and more expensive. Also, the deconstruction manager was
leaving. Although the deconstruction program was making money, ReUse Center staff
felt it was necessary to sink both physical and financial resources into getting the store
stabilized in its new home.
The U.S. Army is currently looking into the feasibility of deconstruction buildings
on Fort Bragg in Fayetteville, North Carolina. There are between 500 and 1,000
residential barracks that are potentially suitable for deconstruction. Work is being done
to establish a network of subcontractors, demolition contractors, resale centers, and
storage/recycling facilities to divert the maximum amount of usable building materials
out of the waste stream and back into surrounding communities. The intent is to extend
the useful life of these materials within the state of North Carolina, while providing
economic benefits (through job creation, small business development, etc.). All materials
that cannot be reused in their original form would be recycled (i.e. masonry products such
as brick and block would be used for road construction, clean wood scraps would be
converted into boiler fuel, and scrap metal would be recycled). This potential project is
46
being modeled after the aforementioned partnership in Texas with the Austin Habitat
ReStore and will draw from their successes and failures.
All of these partnerships and projects are important because they highlight the
potential for collaborative change concerning construction and demolition waste
reduction. As funding and research for deconstruction continue to grow, we will see
these types of ventures continuing to expand. As they do, so will their capacity to
effectively divert used building materials out of the waste stream and back into
communities.
CHAPTER IV
MOVE TOWARD SUSTAINABILITY
Though deconstruction can serve as one valuable tool for resource conservation
and waste reduction, the construction and demolition industry must make some changes
if they are to achieve sustainability. Some of these changes, including alternative
building materials and technologies, can also help to facilitate the deconstruction process.
This will create a synergistic effect that is characterized by minimal environmental
degradation and overall environmental stewardship. By viewing the construction and
demolition processes as a circle of events with many consequences, it is easier to see the
impact of development upon our ecosystems.
Architects, developers, government officials, and waste reduction practitioners
must implement these changes. They will require whole systems thinking and a new
understanding that human actions have severe and far-reaching environmental effects.
Another important concept that must become mainstream within the construction and
demolition industry is that of life cycle assessment, which will be discussed in further
detail later in this chapter.
47
48
Definition of Sustainable Development
The term sustainable development refers to a holistic approach that strives to
make both economic and physical growth less environmentally damaging, while also
preserving the long-term integrity and stability of the larger ecosystem. One aspect of
sustainable development focuses on making the construction, and subsequent demolition,
of structures as environmentally responsible as possible. This approach is applied from
the harvesting of materials to the construction of a building to the final disposal of
unusable materials or the reuse/recycling of quality building materials. A sustainable
structure uses resources efficiently and provides an atmosphere that is healthy for its
occupants. Such a structure is replicable and affordable.
The Center for Resourceful Building Technology performs and disseminates
research on many areas of sustainable development (CRBT, 2001). Among these are the
following:
! Sustainable resource management
! Adaptive reuse of buildings and building materials
! Job-site recycling and solid waste management
! Energy-efficient construction and alternative energy sources
! Resource-efficient building systems and materials
! Space-efficient and material-efficient design innovations
! Bioregionally appropriate construction
This list illustrates the broad range of environmental considerations that must be given to
the construction and demolition industry in order to make it more sustainable.
49
Life cycle assessment is another concept that is becoming increasingly relevant to
the sustainability of the construction and demolition industry. According to Ecocycle:
The lifecycle concept is a ‘cradle to grave’ approach to thinking about products,
processes and services. It recognizes that all product life-cycle stages (extracting
and processing raw materials, manufacturing, transportation and distribution,
use/reuse, and recycling and waste management) have environmental and
economic impacts. (2001)
Alternative Building Materials and Technologies
Sustainable buildings contain few or no chemicals, adhesives, or synthetic fibers
(i.e. vinyl flooring or siding) and are less destructive when their useful lives are over.
Alex Wilson (2001) says the following:
An environmentally friendly building material generates little or no pollution
during manufacture or use; has low embodied energy (from resource extraction,
manufacturing, and transportation); is made from waste or recycled materials;
does not unduly deplete natural resources such as old growth timber; and/or is
made from non-toxic and non-hazardous materials.
There are signs of positive change concerning making the construction and
demolition industry more environmentally responsible. Locally and beyond there is a
growing movement to use alternative materials and technologies. Straw-bale house
construction, the incorporation of Hebel block (aerated conclave block that is super
energy-efficient), and low VOC (volatile organic compound) paints and flooring
materials are all examples of improvements in the quality of building materials.
50
Sustainable building materials use resources that are harvested in ways that the
integrity of surrounding ecosystems is preserved. An excellent example is bamboo
flooring. Bamboo grows much quicker than traditional sources of lumber and requires
less water and nutrients for growth. Also, the dense root mass helps prevent soil erosion
and provides viable crop opportunities in areas where other crops cannot grow. The
mother plant produces new shoots every year with stems maturing sufficiently hard for
harvesting within 3-5 years, as opposed to traditional hardwoods (i.e. oak, cherry, and
maple) that take up to 100 years for sufficient maturation (WCFA, 2001).
Designers are also taking more drastic steps to make traditional construction
processes and the resulting buildings less demanding on the environment. Examples
include passive solar energy and water catchment systems, both of which help to make
the life of a structure more environmentally friendly. Passive solar design systems have
collector, storage, and distribution elements. However they do not use a mechanical
system of panels, pumps, and heat exchangers. This makes them easier to maintain and
less costly to install. South-facing windows collect solar energy, which is then stored in
the floors and walls (thermal mass). Distribution of energy into the living space occurs
naturally through radiation, convection, and conduction. Passive solar design is part of
the structure itself and does not require any external power. Standard building materials
can be used to design this type of system. To be most effective, it is important that a
structure be properly insulated and has good ventilation (North Carolina Solar Center,
2001).
51
A rainwater catchment system is based on collection of rainwater and gravity flow
pressure principles. The retrieved water is typically used for landscaping and irrigation
purposes. Unfortunately, many building codes do not allow for the use of catchment
systems due to health concerns. But when used properly, this type of system can greatly
reduce the consumption of water from municipal sources.
The following pages offer further examples of alternative materials and
technologies being used on construction sites. They provide environmentally friendly
alternatives to traditional methods of construction. Figure 8 highlights energy and
environmental advances in housing construction. Figure 9 focuses on specific advances
in energy efficiency, such as appliances and roofing material.
National and Regional Green Building Projects
These green building and sustainable design principles are being incorporated into
more and more construction projects throughout the United States and here in the
Triangle region. Many of these projects are subsidized to some extent by federal and/or
local government agencies, which are recognizing the importance of buildings that
minimize their ecological footprint and provide long-term savings concerning energy,
water, and other resource consumption.
Within the United States, the Adam Joseph Lewis Center for Environmental
Studies at Oberlin College in Ohio serves as an excellent example of how architectural
design may reverse the environmental stresses brought on by past growth and
development. One specific goal was to become a net energy exporter, producing more
energy through catching water and solar power than they require for daily operations. By
53
Figure 9. Energy and Environmental Advances in Housing Construction Continued
54
doing so, they are able to give energy out into the surrounding ecosystem, helping to
create and enhance livable habitats for other species. The building also includes a “living
machine” system, which is a natural wastewater treatment facility designed to promote
efficient water usage. According to McDonough (2001) this 14,000 square foot facility
was completed in 2000 and will serve as a working example of creative building.
The Aspect Communications Headquarters expansion in San Jose, California is
another project designed by McDonough and Partners. It attempted to redefine the
relationship between building and landscape to create an urban campus in the middle of
Silicon Valley, which is typically characterized by unlimited growth without regard to
environmental consequences. According to McDonough (2001), the goal was to have the
building draw on the region’s temperate climate, thus requiring minimal energy
consumption for a 100,000 square foot facility. Special attention was devoted to lighting
and indoor air quality to produce a healthy work environment.
Another example of national green building efforts is the 20-year project at Ford’s
Rouge complex in Michigan, which spans more than 600 acres. One intended feature is
the “living roof” system, which utilizes flora to enhance rainwater collection, as well as
temperature control. McDonough (2001) believes this project is a combination of smart
fiscal and ecological efforts to produce an office complex that restores surrounding
habitats, while also producing a work atmosphere that nourishes Ford’s employees. This
is achieved by producing a work environment with quality air and lighting that helps to
increase the productivity of the company’s workers, while also alleviating many typical
55
workplace stresses (such as headaches due to fluorescent lighting) that often plague
industries.
In the Triangle, NC region there are several recent commercial projects that
incorporated many aspects of sustainable development, including comprehensive solid
waste management plans that maximized recycling and reuse in efforts to minimize
landfill disposal of surplus materials. The new EPA facility in Research Triangle Park
(RTP) identified, evaluated, and integrated multiple environmentally friendly features
into the design during each step of the design process. These features include energy
conservation, pollution prevention, indoor air quality issues, and life cycle environmental
assessment (EPA, 2001). Some specific examples of this include the use of low VOC
(volatile organic compounds) paints, sealants, and adhesives; the incorporation of
recycled content materials such as carpet, extensive daylighting, and aggressive recycling
of surplus building materials during the construction process. According to the Triangle J
Council of Governments (2001), this project recycled 75% of all construction waste,
incorporated 25% recycled building materials, bought 20% of all materials from local
sources, and used 50% of all wood-based materials from certified (as harvesting in a
sustainable fashion) growers.
The Durant Road Middle School in Raleigh was completed in 1996 and was
oriented physically (on an east-west axis) to maximize daylighting and winter solar gain.
It also contains special material that forms a radiant roof barrier to help control the
temperature inside the school and reduce energy costs. They also used low toxic finishes
56
(such as adhesives and sealants) throughout the entire building. The TJCOG (2001)
estimated that the total reduction of energy use at the school is 50-60%.
The Durham Solid Waste Operations Facility is housed in a renovated solid waste
incinerator building. Durham deconstructed the existing facility down to the frame and
then rebuilt, thus utilizing many of the existing materials in the skeleton of the old
building. As was the case with the middle school, this facility was oriented on an east-
west axis to maximize the sunlight for power and temperature control. The designer also
included a radiant heat barrier on the roof to help control the building’s climate. Many of
the building materials used in this renovation project were purchased locally and chosen
for durability and repairability. They even contracted with a janitorial service to use
environmentally friendly cleaning supplies (TJCOG, 2001).
Designing for Disassembly
Buildings are constructed, and on average, demolished twenty-eight years later
(Kilbert et al, 2001). One component that all of the projects mentioned above have in
common is that the architects, builders, and other consultants all factored in the
decommissioning of these facilities. Decommissioning refers to the time when a
structure no longer serves its intended purpose and must be altered or demolished. In
doing so, they used materials that have a long life span and will also be easily reused in
other buildings or recycled when they become obsolete in their current applications. This
is a vitally important concept that has until now been missing from the design process of
building construction. Designing buildings with the long-term outlook of minimizing
57
waste generation and ecological devastation is a necessary step in all sustainable
development ventures.
Designing for deconstruction is also known as designing for disassembly, which is
especially common in European countries. There it serves as a response to Extended
Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws that require companies to take back and
recycle/remanufacture their products in order to decrease waste disposal. Designing for
disassembly considers buildings as a future source of raw materials. Material durability,
desirability, and adaptability are all factors in this process. Unfortunately, this concept
has been slow to catch on with many architects and builders. The common approach is to
perceive a building as being timeless and so they typically do not plan on a building
eventually being torn down. As a result, buildings are normally designed so that all
contained materials are useful only in their current application and will frequently be
damaged beyond use upon removal (Kilbert et al, 2001).
According to the University of Florida’s Center for Construction and the
Environment, the following are the four basic elements that Kilbert et al (2001) feel are
crucial to the idea of design for disassembly:
! Reuse existing buildings and materials (i.e. use the shell of an old building for
the framework of a new structure)
! Design for durability and adaptability (factor in material life spans)
! Design for disassembly (use fewer adhesive and sealants)
! Use less materials to realize a design (p. 219-220)
58
As far as the economic costs of these new construction/renovation projects are
concerned, the up front costs may be a bit higher than if they had used tradition
construction methods and materials. However, the residents of these buildings will
recognize significant long-term financial savings through reduced energy consumption.
Equally as important are the wide-ranging environmental benefits of alternative
technologies that strengthen and enhance the surrounding ecosystems.
As these materials and technologies become more common, they will also become
more affordable. This will help green building to become more widely accepted and
utilized as the general public accepts the economic costs and better understands the
positive environmental implications. With a growing emphasis on the types of materials
used in construction, as well as the processes for building, it will become more feasible to
perform deconstruction on these buildings at the end of their useful lives. As buildings
are constructed with fewer adhesives and better methods, the physical process of
deconstruction will become even more effective at supporting materials reuse and waste
reduction.
CHAPTER V
Ways to Facilitate Deconstruction
If deconstruction is to become a more prevalent economic and environmental
alternative to traditional demolition practices, then governments and municipalities will
have to become more supportive of this process. This support can come in the form of
new legislation, contracts for deconstruction projects, or financial support in the form of
grants for pilot projects. There are a number of other steps that can be taken to help
facilitate the success of deconstruction ventures, in terms of being competitive
economically and effective with regards to waste diversion. These include the
development of more flexible building codes (thereby encouraging the use of more
recycled/remanufactured building materials) and end-use markets (which will help to
stabilize the deconstruction industry), as well as establishing a stronger network of
partnerships and institutional support for this process.
59
60
Policy- Making (Support by Federal and Municipal Governments)
One of the most important arenas for encouraging deconstruction is policy-
making. Snyder (1999) gives the following as possible steps for policy-makers to take in
promoting deconstruction:
§ Support salvaged materials collection centers to enable deconstruction as an
alternative to demolition and landfill disposal of debris.
§ Target deconstruction projects for expedited permit reviews.
§ Subsidize warehouse space to support the collection and distribution of
salvaged materials.
§ Conduct outreach to construction and demolition contractors on the
importance of deconstruction and solid waste management/recycling
programs.
§ Publish job site recycling and materials salvage guides and distribute to
contractors.
§ Create incentives for deconstruction, recycling, and the use of salvaged or
recycled content materials into construction procurement contracts.
§ Develop and/or fund training programs designed specifically to build
deconstruction assessment and planning skills. Subsidize training costs for
participants (p.11)
61
Leroux & Seldman (1999) with the Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR) cite
the following as positive ways to promote deconstruction:
§ Pass ordinances requiring deconstruction to be considered in conjunction with
or as a replacement for demolition through the use of building assessments.
§ Inventory and assess abandoned buildings and those scheduled for removal to
identify potential candidates for deconstruction projects, and make this
information available to the public.
§ Require redevelopment projects to review building components in structures
scheduled for removal to assess their reuse potential.
§ Use government contracting processes, such as Requests for Proposals, by
including materials recovery requirements, requiring a salvage and reuse plan,
and/or awarding points in bidding processes for high recovery rates.
§ Require the complete removal of hazardous materials, and separate bids for
this work, for all demolition and deconstruction projects, to level the playing
field on this expensive issue.
§ When reviewing bids, allow a price preference for hitting deconstruction
targets (i.e. low bid plus 10%).
§ Tie approval of and fees for local demolition permits and environmental
reviews to maximized materials recovery (i.e. more recovery, lower permit
fee)
§ When reviewing requests for demolition permits, do not allow “negative
declarations” to take the place of an environmental impact review that
62
considers the environmental impacts of demolition and how those could be
mitigated using deconstruction.
§ When possible, separate the permitting, contracts, and/or financing for site
clearance from the design/build phase of construction projects to allow
adequate time for deconstruction.
§ Publicly acknowledge the training benefits associated with deconstruction and
be willing to pay for them.
§ Support used building material companies and other end markets for salvaged
materials.
§ Assist deconstruction service providers with resolution of issues surrounding
lead-based paint and asbestos remediation.
§ Develop a network of deconstruction service providers who can work together
to overcome local barriers to deconstruction.
§ Convert HUD public housing demolition program funds (HOPE VI) to
deconstruction program funds focusing on community enterprise
development.
§ Require a minimum content of used building materials in local government
construction and renovation projects.
§ Train and license deconstruction firms to perform hazardous material
abatement and/or develop parallel, but specialized, abatement ventures. (p.21-
22)
63
The federal government has shown some signs of support for deconstruction. The
U.S. EPA provided a grant to the National Association of Home Builders Research
Center to fully document the deconstruction of a 2,000 square foot residential building in
Baltimore, Maryland. The EPA also provides technical assistance to a variety of
community-based deconstruction projects and has posted resources on their Smart
Growth website.
The EPA and the Department of Health and Human Services both provided
funding to the Green Institute in Minneapolis to start its deconstruction business. The
Department of Defense (DOD) provides support to communities that have military bases
closing in the near future. They are encouraging deconstruction as a means of removing
these outdated structures, while providing some economic and environmental benefits in
return. DOD awarded a grant to the East Bay Conservation and Reinvestment
Commission (EBCRC) for a deconstruction pilot project at the Naval Air Station in the
San Francisco Bay Area. According to Leroux & Seldman (1999), the U.S. Department
of Agriculture’s Forest Products Lab conducts research on the recovery, reuse, and
recycling of paper and wood as a way to extend our nation’s forest resources.
As mentioned earlier, one example of national support for the proliferation of
deconstruction is the Institute for Local Self-Reliance. ILSR is a non-profit organization
that has been instrumental in the development of recycling coalitions (such as the
National Recycling Coalition and the Grass Roots Recycling Network), while becoming a
leading source of information on deconstruction and how it relates to economic
64
development. In an effective partnership with Hartford (CT) Housing Authority, ILSR
drafted a Request for Proposals (RFP) that required the contractors bidding to take down
public housing to train public housing residents via deconstruction, to employ trainees
upon completion of their training, and to purchase all recovered materials at market
prices. Taking it a step further, the Housing Authority also established a joint venture
company owned by the workers, the Housing Authority, and a private demolition and
construction firm.
Ordinances
There are other forms of policy that can require or encourage builders to reduce
the amount of materials they are disposing of in landfills, though they do not necessarily
require deconstruction to be performed. The city of San Jose has been developing a
Construction Demolition Debris Deposit (CDDD) as a means to encourage
the reuse and recycling of building materials. This deposit requires an initial deposit
based on estimated waste generation from a project. The deposit is returned upon
successful completion of the project (which includes documentation of reuse for
distribution or transfer to an appropriate recycling facility of 50 percent of the generated
waste). This approach combines the demolition permit with an economic incentive to
reuse and recycle demolition debris. It also encourages the development of the local
reuse and recycling business sector to provide infrastructure and markets for contractors,
without them having to directly subsidize them (Guy & McLendon, 2001).
65
One example of a local government mandate is provided by the town of Chapel
Hill, which is currently developing an ordinance that would require all developers and
builders to submit a comprehensive waste management plan before attaining all
necessary permits. This plan would address waste generation through all phases of
demolition, construction, and/or renovation and identify means to reuse and recycle a set
percentage of materials (Orange County, 2001). The proposed ordinance is in response
to declining local landfill space and the recognized need for better recycling and
redistribution of building materials in order to address this problem. Failure to meet pre-
determined waste reduction goals would result in significant financial penalties, and
potential difficulties receiving future permits.
Loudoun County in Virginia serves as an example for smart growth principles to
be incorporated into the construction and demolition industry. The elected Board of
Supervisors recently approved a comprehensive growth plan aimed at preserving natural
resources and enhancing overall ecological health. This was done in part because county
officials and concerned citizens are worried that builders and businesses would quickly
consume vast amounts of undeveloped land. The plan reduces the number of homes that
can be built in the county by 33%. It also recognizes that environmental diversity and
stability are assets that help to strengthen (directly and indirectly) the local economy
(Loudoun County, 2001). The plan also focuses on conservation and preservation of
natural resources, while recognizing the growth is necessary and inevitable. Any future
construction, whether commercial or residential, will need to increasingly respect the
thresholds of ecological integrity. Deconstruction could serve a valuable role in
66
efforts to make development sustainable, while providing a myriad of economic and
environmental benefits that would enhance their smart growth efforts.
Building Codes
Existing building codes tend to be static and inflexible, thus slow to change along
with the construction and demolition industry. As a result, they hinder the incorporation
of used building materials into new construction or renovation. Codes also need to be
more bioregionally appropriate, factoring in climate and other environmental factors
(Florida Building Commssion, 2002). For example, greywater systems should be
allowed in desert areas where water resources are extremely limited. Codes need to
encourage and allow the use of more reclaimed and remanufactured building materials.
This will encourage more contractors to salvage materials for eventual reuse and/or
resale, which will also support used building materials supply outlets and companies that
remanufacture these items (i.e. wood products into flooring).
Policy-makers must work with community organizations such as Home Builders
Association and American Institute of Architects affiliates, as well as builders and
developers, to develop codes that will successfully support the use of salvaged building
materials without compromising the integrity of new construction. The state of Florida is
working to develop a unified building code for the entire state that factors in
environmental concerns, as well as the quality, durability, and function of all buildings
(Florida Building Commission, 2002). To highlight the potential for reusing quality
building materials, all government buildings that undergo renovations or new
construction should be required to incorporate some percentage of used building
67
materials. They should also have a comprehensive solid waste management plan in place
to deal with all waste generated during the process.
Deconstruction Permitting
One of the biggest obstacles to increasing the popularity and successful
implementation of deconstruction is the additional time required compared to the
demolition process. Given the importance of time in most projects, two actions must be
taken to reduce this discrepancy. One is to put applications for deconstruction permits on
a fast track for approval. Such a process would decrease the amount of time needed to
perform a deconstruction project, thereby alleviating the concerns of many developers.
Another step is to require all demolition permits to contain a comprehensive solid waste
management plan aimed at reducing the tonnage of materials disposed via traditional
methods (i.e. landfill).
For example, Portland, Oregon passed an ordinance on January 1, 1996 that
requires job-site recycling on all construction projects with a value exceeding $25,000
(Building Savings, 2000). This type of ordinance can be tied into the application process
for demolition permits and would help to ensure that builders take measures to divert
materials out of the waste stream.
It would also be helpful for permitting offices to require some type of waiting
period for demolition permits to be issued. During the waiting period, the structure
should be made available to properly trained and insured deconstruction personnel to
salvage as many materials as possible before the eventual demolition. Gainesville,
Florida has a unique demolition permitting process that allows the city to place a 90-day
68
delay on any residence that may have historic value (older than 45 years). During this
delay, the structure is posted as free to anyone willing to pay the costs of moving (Guy &
McLendon, 2001). Another incentive could be to provide discounted permit fees based
on established levels of recycling and tonnage diversion on a demolition site. This would
encourage demolition contractors to incorporate deconstruction because of the potential
for savings through reduced tipping fees.
Tipping Fees
Local municipalities must establish significantly higher tipping fees in order to
encourage builders to divert materials out of the waste stream. As long as tipping fees
remain so cheap (currently $33.50/ton in Wake County), it makes more economic sense
for builders to quickly dispose of surplus materials rather than reuse or recycle them.
Demolition and general contractors must be given an impetus to divert waste away from
the landfill; something that will ultimately be accomplished by setting expensive disposal
costs. This is evidenced by states such as California, which has tipping fees near
$120/ton, where deconstruction is much more prevalent and successful.
Educational Programs
It is imperative that there be educational programs in place to begin changing the
mindsets of people. A more holistic view is required, one that recognizes the harmful
environmental impacts of construction and demolition. Then we must actively and
aggressively seek alternatives that are environmentally sustainable. Education will prove
to be one of the most effective tools at diverting usable building materials out of
69
the waste stream and ensuring that future development is undertaken responsibly, while
also conserving valuable natural resources and preventing them from being depleted.
This can be achieved by designing programs for a wide range of audiences, from
school children to general contractors to solid waste management practitioners. A key
seems to be providing resources that help people to make smarter choices, or choices that
demand less from the natural environment and protect the long-term well being of our
natural resources. This will be achieved by changing our consumption patterns, our
disposal patterns, and our understanding of how these actions affect the greater ecological
systems.
Partnerships and Institutional Support in North Carolina
The North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources’ Division
of Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance (DPPEA) has been a leader in this
state at promoting and advocating the benefits and potential of deconstruction. They
have consistently supported both commercial and non-profit businesses whose primary
goal is to effectively reduce the construction and demolition waste stream in the state.
This support comes in the forms of financial assistance (i.e. grants) and, perhaps more
importantly, technical assistance from previous case studies and grant summaries.
One example of such a partnership is the Triangle J Council of Governments
(TJCOG) is a voluntary organization that represents 18 municipal and county
governments throughout the state of North Carolina. TJCOG has conducted several
research projects to identify construction and demolition waste reduction options and
70
then produced subsequent reports on end use markets and demand for recycled materials.
One of its biggest projects was the development of WasteSpec, which is a manual to help
architects and engineers specify waste reduction and recycling measures before
construction projects begin.
Also, as mentioned previously, the Orange County Solid Waste Management
Division is currently working to develop an ordinance aimed at promoting sustainable
and responsible development. The ordinance would mandate that all construction and
demolition projects submit a comprehensive waste management plan before necessary
permits would be issued. Any failure to comply with predetermined waste reduction
measures would result in fines.
Another creative partnership that Orange County has helped to develop was with
the Habitat for Humanity ReUse Center in Raleigh. Orange County had a full-time staff
person (who was initially funded by a DENR grant) whose job was to sift through
incoming materials at the county landfill and set aside usable building materials. He
would then contact the ReUse Center and they would come pick up the materials, take
them back to their retail outlet, and sell them to the general public.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) routinely demolishes
houses that are in the way of planned road construction. These “right-of-way” houses
contain many salvageable building materials and represent a great opportunity for salvage
and reuse. The DOT has developed a partnership with the ReUse Center, in which a
deconstruction crew will come in and salvage as much as possible before eventual
demolition. So far this has been extremely successful and resulted in the NCDOT and
71
Habitat for Humanity receiving a national environmental excellence award for their waste
diversion efforts.
The City of Raleigh has worked in the past with the Habitat ReUse Center to
salvage materials from condemned houses, which were primarily located in the lower-
income areas of downtown Raleigh. Many of these houses had homeless people residing
in them and so many materials were unable to be salvaged. There were also health
concerns due to the presence of feces and drug paraphernalia in some of the structures.
However, the deconstruction crews were able to salvage some of the doors, cabinets, and
flooring from some homes and resell them to the general public.
Important institutional support needs to also come from the North Carolina
University system. With so many colleges and universities in this state, there are many
new construction, renovation, and demolition projects that take place on campuses. One
of the potential benefits is that the students provide a labor source, whether as a job-study
program or to fulfill requirements in an environmental class. Either way, the labor pool
is large and the schools stand to benefit from decreasing their disposal costs. They can
also save money in construction costs by incorporating used materials into renovation
projects, as long as existing building codes allow it.
This support should be strongly motivated by Executive Order 156 (North
Carolina’s Sustainability Initiative), which was signed on July 21, 1999 by Governor Jim
Hunt. One aspect of this initiative requires all sixteen schools in the state university
system to pursue the following: environmental sustainability, reduction of solid waste,
and procurement of environmentally friendly products. The order goes on to specify that
72
“agencies shall reduce and recycle material recoverable from solid waste that originates
from the construction and renovation of new facilities (Sustainable NC, 2001).”
As mentioned before, a great deal of potential exists for productive partnerships
between deconstruction practitioners and military bases and housing authorities. These
two agencies stand to contribute the most structures for materials salvage, thereby
decreasing the amount of construction and demolition debris that goes to the landfill.
With all of the HOPE VI housing units and military facilities that are being demolished, it
is vital that these two agencies work closely with governments, developers, and
community groups to ensure that these projects are undertaken in the most
environmentally friendly manner possible.
The aforementioned agencies and municipalities represent some of the major
stakeholders in this region with regards to solid waste management and resource
conservation. If aggressive waste reduction goals are to be met and deconstruction is to
become a consistently viable alternative to demolition, then this network must continually
be strengthened and expanded.
Development of End Use Markets For deconstruction to be an economic and environmental success, it is necessary
to further develop end markets to ensure that building materials are either reused or
recycled. This will obviously translate into higher waste diversion rates. It will also
require continued efforts by the DENR, in cooperation with local governments and
municipalities to strengthen existing networks and create new ones.
73
There will also need to be expanded funding opportunities for small business
development to facilitate the growth of used materials being recycled, remanufactured,
and reused for new construction or renovation projects. In turn, these activities will
provide economic vitality and stability to communities, as monies and natural resources
are kept local.
There are some promising developments in the Triangle region. Several new
Habitat for Humanity restores have been created to focus specifically on the salvage and
resale of used building materials. At the same time, the D.H. Griffin construction
company recently opened Material Reclamation, Inc. to recycle as many construction and
demolition scrap materials as possible. The facility has been open for about a year and is
already diverting more than 300 tons per day. Both for- and non-profits are realizing that
this industry has enormous economic and environmental potential.
There are existing markets for many recyclable building materials throughout the
country and here in North Carolina. While the infrastructures may be relatively weak and
small at this point, the potential is great for these markets to strengthen and further
develop. Materials that are already being consistently recycled or remanufactured
include the following:
§ Gypsum can be ground up and used as a soil amendment (this does require a
permit).
§ Clean aggregate materials (such as brick and block) can be used as fill
material at construction sites.
§ Asphalt shingles can be recycled into material used for paving roads.
74
§ Wood waste can be used to make a variety of composite wood products, new
pallets, furniture, and other remanufactured items.
§ Carpet can oftentimes be sent back to the manufacturer to be recycled.
§ Ceramic tile and broken mirrors can be used for art projects.
As building codes are relaxed to allow for more recycled content/remanufactured
building materials to be used in new construction and/or renovation, then we will see
more businesses being developed. These will include resale outlets, re-manufacturing
companies and other businesses with a focus on waste reduction and materials reuse.
However, this will only happen as funding of these companies (at least for their start up)
increases and municipal support in the form of grants develops.
CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSIONS
We are able to see that the construction and demolition industry has undergone
changes in the past 100 years that have contributed greatly to natural resource
consumption, ecosystem degradation, and excessive solid waste generation. These social,
economic, and technological changes are the result of a capitalistic society pursuing
growth (both physical and economic) in a manner that is far from sustainable. All too
often, society’s economic goals and material desires override the well being and stability
of the worldwide ecosystem. The construction and demolition industry has become a
devastating force, consuming many natural resources and valuable ecosystems in its path
toward financial profit.
Issues of declining landfill space, loss of embodied energy in existing building
materials, pollution, and various forms of ecological devastation are all problems on both
a national and regional level. For this reason, it is imperative that we begin to seek
creative solutions to our ongoing environmental problems. Deconstruction can fill a vital
role in resource conservation, while also serving as a model for progressive thinking with
regards to sustainable development and growth.
75
76
It is obvious that the construction and demolition industry must make some
drastic changes in philosophy and practice if they are to become sustainable. It is an
industry that has traditionally been characterized by waste generation, resource
consumption, environmental degradation, and economic motivation. And yet it is an
industry that is slowly learning about and committing to protecting the environment.
Within Wake County and the Triangle region, there are positive signs of
deconstruction becoming a more widely accepted and applied process. There are people
in both for and non-profit sectors who have demonstrated the financial and environmental
potential of the alternative to demolition. This will hopefully result in significant
decreases in the amount of construction and demolition debris that is currently being
disposed of in landfills.
Through consistent and proven results, deconstruction is able to effectively reduce
the amount of disposed construction and demolition debris. This is achieved through
sound solid waste management (consisting of both reuse and recycling), partnerships
between deconstruction contractors and government agencies, and the creative
development of end use markets that encourage the reuse of existing building materials.
By reducing the tonnage of quality used building materials that are disposed of in
landfills, we are able to conserve declining landfill space while also providing economic
continuity on a local basis. This will help to preserve declining green spaces and prevent
many of the ensuing community battles that result from placement of new landfills.
77
Another important benefit is the proper handling of hazardous materials. The
demolition process involves a structure being knocked down and disposed of in its
entirety, including any hazardous materials such as asbestos or lead-based paint, which
may be contained within it. These materials can contribute to groundwater pollution
from landfills. By following a series of planned steps, and relying on physical labor,
deconstruction helps to ensure that any potentially harmful materials are removed and
disposed of in a manner that reduces the potential for eventual contamination.
The most important function of deconstruction is serving as a tool to preserve the
embodied energy that is contained within all existing building materials. This is achieved
through the reuse of materials, incorporating them into either new construction or
renovation projects. By doing so, the need to harvest virgin resources can be greatly
reduced; thereby conserving precious natural resources that are already being harvested
quicker than natural regeneration occurs.
In the process, deconstruction helps create jobs, especially for low-skill and low-
income persons. This occurs through the creation of manual labor jobs that require
minimal physical skills (such as removing nails and operating a pry bar). It also provides
overall economic continuity and stability within a community by keeping resources local.
There are also excellent opportunities for small business development, as well as end use
market creation.
Deconstruction is by no means a panacea for the problems associated with
construction and demolition activities. However, it can serve as a valuable and effective
tool with regards to resource conservation and solid waste reduction. This is vitally
78
important for an industry that has traditionally demanded enormous amounts of virgin
natural resources for the production of building materials.
Deconstruction is a viable alternative to the traditional demolition process that
generates excessive solid waste and results in the loss of enormous amounts of embodied
energy. It has been proven to be successful at reducing the tonnage disposed of in
landfills, while also providing financial savings to donors, developers, and city
governments. And yet if deconstruction is to truly have a profound effect upon the
construction and demolition waste stream, then other forms of support must occur.
One necessary step for architects and designers is to begin following the Design
for Disassembly concept. By viewing a building as having a non-permanent lifespan in
its current application, and containing raw materials that can either be reused later in
other projects or remanufactured into other materials, architects and designers can begin
to build in a more sustainable manner. This understanding of the building process and its
many long-term consequences will help to facilitate deconstruction in the future. By
using fewer adhesives, using materials that are more durable, and incorporating more
recycled-content materials, construction projects can dramatically lessen their negative
environmental impacts. As these new materials and technologies continue to be
researched and developed, and become more commonly accepted, the initial costs will
decrease and will pale in comparison to the long-term savings.
We can use the proven success of deconstruction, as well as the enormous
potential for positive environmental change in the future, to begin shifting the overall
mindset of industry leaders and practitioners. In doing so, development can still be
79
pursued, but in a manner that positively contributes to the overall vitality and stability of
our ecosystems.
While the construction and demolition industry has been historically damaging to
the environment, there are many positive changes now underway. It is important that
legislators, practitioners, and community members continue to collaborate on
development projects. By doing so, economic and environmental concerns can be
addressed in ways that will contribute to the overall vitality of communities.
We have seen the introduction of green building materials and technologies on a
national scale within the past few decades. As this sector continues to grow and develop,
construction planning will more closely align itself with ecosystem management and
stability. We must continue the aggressive development of alternative materials and
technologies that are more environmentally responsible and factor in the long-term
consequences of construction and demolition.
There have been positive developments with regards to federal, state, and local
government support of deconstruction. Through grant opportunities, technical research
and dissemination, and creative partnerships we are beginning to see a new industry
develop that has widespread support.
As waste disposal fees continue to climb and building codes become more
flexible (to allow the incorporation of more used building materials), we will see a
synergistic effect that drastically increases the benefits of deconstruction. It is vitally
important that all applicable fees and codes be used as tools to divert quality used
building materials out of the waste stream and back into the community.
80
Deconstruction needs to become more permanently established as an alternative
to demolition, and should also be looked at as a basic principle of smart growth.
Governments, practitioners, and members of the solid waste management industry must
continue exploring ways to support the expansion of deconstruction in efforts to increase
all of the positive benefits that we’ve seen can result. This can continue to be
accomplished through sound research, as well as pilot projects and case studies that serve
as a learning tool for future endeavors.
Over the next decade we will see a more comprehensive view of sustainability as
it relates to the construction and demolition industry. This view will encompass the
many social, economic, and environmental factors that all play vital roles within our
society. As techniques such as recycling, green building, and deconstruction are all
further developed, we will see them used in concert with one another. The end result will
be a move toward sustainability (both economic and physical) with regard to the industry,
as well as a significant reduction in the construction and demolition waste stream.
It is my sincere hope that members of the construction and demolition industry
continue to align their economic goals with the need for aggressive protection of our
natural resources and systems. By incorporating many of the physical changes and
policies that have been addressed in this paper, the construction and demolition industry
can lessen the negative environmental impacts that result from traditional development.
These changes will ultimately contribute to long-term environmental, economic, and
social stability.
Appendix
CASE STUDY IN PUBLIC HOUSING
81
82
Figure 1: Case Study in Public Housing for Hartford, CT
Case Study: Public Housing Location: Hartford, CT Since 1993, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) HOPE VI program has disbursed approximately $500 million per year to local housing authorities for demolition, construction, or rehabilitation of public housing, as well as for planning and technical assistance. In FY 1998, the HOPE VI budget included $550 million, of which $26 million was allocated for demolition and for revitalization of public housing designed to meet the special need and physical requirements of the elderly. A secondary goal of HOPE VI is to move public housing residents from the welfare rolls to living-wage employment. In addition, HUD’s Section 3 requirements promote job creation and business development for public housing residents. Recognizing that deconstruction provides communities with a unique opportunity to combine removal of structures with job training/employment, the Hartford Housing Authority (HHA) is the first housing authority in the nation to require a deconstruction program as part of its HOPE VI program. In 1998 HUD agreed to allow recipients of HOPE VI grants to re-invest demolition funds for deconstruction projects. If deconstruction were employed in conjunction with demolition to remove public housing across the country, as well as other public and private sector structures, communities could reap substantial environmental, economic and social benefits for their residents. Cities can look to deconstruction as a way to address their abandoned housing problems while creating job training. The city of Hartford, Connecticut has set aside funding from the state to deconstruct 350 abandoned buildings as part of a program to develop deconstruction service companies that train workers for skilled employment. Kilbert & Languell, 2000, p.22
REFERENCES
Alexander, C., Ishikawa, S., Silverstein, M., with Jacobson, M., Fiksdahl-King, I., &
Angel, S. (1977). A pattern language: Towns, buildings, construction. New
York, Oxford University Press.
Augenbroe, G. & Pearce, A. (June 1998). Sustainable construction in the United States
of America: A perspective to the year 2010. Retrieved September 12, 2001, from http:www.arch.gatech.edu/crc/cibw82survey. 6.
Bamboo overview. (n.d.). Retrieved on November 14, 2001 from
http://www.wcfa.org.
Barnett, D.L. & Browning, W.D. (1995). A primer on sustainable building. Rocky
Mountain Institute, Snowmass, CO. 59.
Bender, Tom. (2000). Building with the breath of life. Fire River Press.
Biddle, David. (Summer 2001). Deconstruction industry “demolishes” the alternative.
In Business. Vol. 23, No. 5. 27-30.
Build green today! (n.d.). Retrieved on September 2, 2001 from http://www/CRBT.org.
Chapter 2: Planning approach. (n.d.). Retrieved on October 8, 2001 from
http://www.loudoun.gov/bos/docs/boscompplanrevi_/generalplan_/Chapter2.htm.
83
84
Daly, Herman & Townsend, K. (1993). Valuing the earth: Economics, ecology,
ethics. Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 91.
Energy Resource Center (1995).
Environmental Building News Product Catalog. (1997). E Build, Inc. Brattleboro,
Vermont.
Executive order 156-Environmental sustainability. (n.d.). Retrieved on November 14,
2001 from http://www.sustainablenc.org.
Falk, R.H., Green, D., & Lantz, S.C. Evaluation of lumber recycled from industrial
military buildings. Gforest Product Journal, Vol. 49, No. 5, May 1999.
Florida Building Commission. Retrieved on December 31, 2001 from
http://www.dca.state.fl.us/fhcd/thecode/1_thecode.htm.
Franklin Associates. Characterization of building-related construction and demolition
debris in the U.S. (Report No. EPA-530-R-98-010). A report to the US
Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste and Energy Response,
Washington, D.C., 1998.
Guy, Brad & McLendon, Sean. (July 2001). "How cost effective is deconstruction?"
Biocycle, Vol. 42, No. 7. 75-80.
Jacoby, Ryan (2000). Final report: Solid waste reduction assistance grant for Habitat for
Humanity of Wake County ReUse Center, June 1, 1999 through March 1, 2000.
Retrieved on November 9, 2001 from http://www.p2pays.org/ref/05/04201.pdf.
3,9.
85
Kilbert, Charles, Chini, A., & Languell, J. (2001). Chapter 9: Implementing
deconstruction in the United States. In Overview of deconstruction in selected
countries. CIB Publication 252, Conseil International du Batiment, 2000.
Retrieved on October 12, 2001 from
http://www.cce.ufl/affiliations/cib/5_2000.html. 183,185,189,206,214.
Kilbert, Charles & Jennifer Languell (2000). "Implementing deconstruction in Florida:
Materials reuse issues, disassembly techniques, economics, and policy."
Retrieved on October 15, 2001 from
http://www.floridacenter.org/publications/Kilbert.pdf. 9,22.
Kirsten Chiles, Loken, S., Milner R., & Mumma, T. (1994). A reference guide to
resource efficient building elements, 4th ed. Center for Resourceful Building
Technology. Missoula, MT.
Leroux, Kivi & Neil Seldman. (1999). "Deconstruction: Salvaging yesterday's buildings
for tomorrow's sustainable communities." 2,6-7,22.
National Science and Technology Council, 1993.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources’ Division of
Pollution Prevention and Environmental Assistance. (1998). Construction and
demolition commodity profile: Markets assessment 1998. Retrieved on August
16, 2001 from http://www.p2pays.org/ref.02/01622.htm. 1-2,7,15-18.
Population and natural resources. (n.d.). Retrieved on December 28, 2001 from
http://www.ourplanet.com/aaas/pages/natural01.html.
86
Proposed regulated recyclable materials ordinance information. (n.d.). Retrieved on
December 3, 2001 from http://www.co.orange.nc.us/OCCLERKS/01110113a.pdf.
Quinn, Daniel (1992). Ishmael. New York, Bantam Books.
RAFI-USA’s green headquarters underway in Pittsboro. (n.d.). Retrieved on October 8,
2001 from http://www.rafiusa.org/whatsnew/bldg.html.
Roodman, D. & Lenssen, N. (March 1995). "A building revolution: How ecology and
health concerns are transforming construction." (Worldwatch Paper 124).
Retrieved on November 11, 2001 from
http://www.worldwatch.org/pubs/paper/124.html.
Snyder, Robin. (1999). Building deconstruction and material reuse: Opportunities in
Washington, DC. Retrieved on September 14, 2001 from
http://www.smartgrowth.org/library/Dcdeconreport.html.
Sustainability program ecological footprint. (n.d.). Retrieved on December 30, 2001
from http://www.rprogress.org/programs/sustainability/ef.
The problem with paving. (n.d.). Retrieved on December 30, 2001 from
http://www.culturechange.org/factsheet1.html.
Triangle J Council of Governments. (1995). WasteSpec: Model specifications for
construction waste reduction, reuse, and recycling. Retrieved on November 12,
2001 from http://www.tjcog.dst.nc.us/cdwaste.htm.
87
United States Environmental Protection Agency. (June 2000). Building savings:
Strategies for waste reduction of construction and demolition debris
from buildings. (Document Number EPA-530-F-00-001). Retrieved on
September 21, 2001 from http://www.ilsr.org/recycling/buildingdebris.pdf.
5,7,17.
US Census Bureau; Retrieved on December 4, 2001 from http://www.census.gov.
U.S. Department of Commerce. (1993). Statistical Abstract. Washington, DC.
What is American Farmland Trust? (n.d.). Retrieved on December 30, 2001 from
http://www.farmland.org/what/who_what.htm.
What was iron used for? (n.d.). Retrieved on December 31, 2001 from
http://www.swanseahistoryweb.org.uk/merthyr/iron7.htm.
Wilson, Alex (February 2001). Building materials: What makes a green product?
In Environmental Building News, Vol. 9, No. 5. Retrieved on January 6, 2002
from http://www.buildinggreen.com/features/gp/green_products.pdf. 1-6.
www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/popclockw
www.ilsr.org
www.nahb.org