Is a Ton of Material
Worth a Ton of Work?
Stephanie Boyd, Williams College, sboyd@williams.edu
Charley Stevenson, Integrated Eco Strategy, charley@integratedecostrategy.com
Agenda
• Overview of project
• Three scenarios
• Methodology
• Analysis of findings
• Financial analysis
• Transportation impact
• Lessons learned
Kellogg – Originally the
President’s House and
currently one of the
oldest structures
(1794) on campus
2011
1919
1872
1794
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXS6HcKXJ6o
Before…
Deconstruction…
1
2
3
4
Deconstruction…
Moving Kellogg…
Video of Kellogg House Move
Waste hierarchy
Landfill
Avoid for LEED
100% Diversion LBC
Energy
recovery
Avoid for LEED
Recycling
Perform for LEED
Reuse
Perform for LEED
Source reduction
Scenarios we considered…
FOUNDATION REMOVED and RECYCLED
BASE CASE
(Theoretical)
ACTUAL STORY
MOST Material Landfilled
SOME Material Landfilled
Some Relocation
MAXIMUM REUSERECYCLE
(Theoretical)
Most Material NOT
Landfilled
Some Relocation
Weight of Materials Removed
800
744.93
700
600
Tons
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
0.12
0.15
0.39
1.11
1.17
1.27
1.35
3.77
6.9
9.04
25
45.3
46.91
Weight of Materials (no Foundation)
50
45
40
35
Tons
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
EPA’s: WAste Reduction Model
Range of Emissions Impact by Material
METALS
Source: www.epa.gov/climatechange/waste/calculators/Warm_home.html
Base Case
• Metals and concrete
recycled
• Other materials
landfilled
Weight
Material
Aluminum
Fiberglass
Other
Copper
Glass
Wood Flooring
Carpet
Asphalt Shingles
Drywall
Steel
Scrap Wood
Mixed C&D
Clean Wood
Concrete
Total
% of Total Emissions
Tons
0.12
0.15
0.39
1.11
1.17
1.27
1.35
3.77
6.90
9.04
25.00
45.30
46.91
744.93
887.40
Disposal
Reuse
Recycle Combustion Landfill
Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions
Tonnes
Tonnes
Tonnes
Tonnes
Tonnes
-1.47
0.01
0.00
0.00
-1.47
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
-4.96
0.05
0.10
0.06
0.18
0.93
-14.60
-26.94
-13.97
-50.55
-7.63
-118.79
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-4.96
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-14.64
0.00
0.00
0.00
-7.63
-28.70
0.24
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.05
0.10
0.06
0.18
0.93
0.04
-26.94
-13.97
-50.55
0.00
-90.09
0.76
The Actual Story
Processing/
Reuse
Recycle Combustion Landfill
Weight Transport
Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions
Emissions
• Higher reuse
• Higher recycling
• Some landfill
Material
Aluminum (recycled)
Fiberglass (reused)
Other
Copper (recycled)
Glass (reused)
Wood Flooring (reused)
Carpet (recycled, reused)
Asphalt Shingles (recycled)
Drywall (recycled)
Steel (reused, recycled)
Scrap Wood (landfill)
Mixed C&D (landfill)
Clean Wood (reused, recycled)
Concrete (recycled)
Total
Tons
0.12
0.15
0.39
1.11
1.17
1.27
1.35
3.77
6.90
9.04
25.00
45.30
46.91
744.93
887.40
Tonnes
Tonnes
Tonnes
Tonnes
Tonnes
-1.63
-0.07
0.00
-0.07
-1.63
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-5.51
-0.69
-5.18
-4.21
-0.31
0.35
-21.07
-19.06
-13.97
-105.57
-7.63
-184.57
0.00
-0.69
-5.18
-2.49
0.00
0.00
-9.37
0.00
0.00
-41.65
0.00
-59.46
-5.51
0.00
0.00
-1.71
-0.31
0.35
-11.70
0.00
0.00
-63.93
-7.63
-92.08
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-5.59
0.00
0.00
0.00
-5.59
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
-13.47
-13.97
0.00
0.00
-27.44
By weight, most material was recycled.
Significant portion of non-foundation
materials was landfilled.
Materials by Disposal
Strategy
Non-Foundation Materials
by Disposal Strategy
100%
100%
80%
80%
60%
60%
40%
40%
20%
20%
0%
0%
Maximum Reuse and Recycling
Weight
Material
Aluminum
Fiberglass Insulation
Other
Copper
Glass
Wood Flooring
Carpet
Asphalt Shingles
Drywall
Steel
Medium Density Fiberboard/Scrap
Wood
Mixed Construction and
DemolitionDebris
Dimensional Lumber/Clean Wood
Concrete
Total
Disposal
Reuse
Recycle Combustion Landfill
Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions Emissions
Maximize Reuse Recycling Assumptions
Tons
Tonnes Tonnes Tonnes
Tonnes
Tonnes
0.12
-1.63
0.00
-1.63
0.00
0.00
0.15
-0.07
-0.07
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.39
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.11
-5.51
0.00
-5.51
0.00
0.00
1.17
-0.69
-0.69
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.27
-5.18
-5.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.35
-4.97
-4.33
-0.64
0.00
0.00 80% reused, compared to 46%
3.77
-0.52
-0.36
-0.16
0.00
0.00 50% reused, rather than recycled
6.90
0.35
0.00
0.35
0.00
0.00
9.04
-21.07
-9.35
-11.71
0.00
0.00
25.00
-61.47
0.00
-61.47
0.00
0.00 100% recycled rather than
combusted, landfilled
45.30
-25.20
0.00
-25.20
0.00
0.00 100% recycled rather than landfilled
46.91
744.93
887.40
-114.41
-7.63
-248.00
0.00
0.00
-19.99
-114.41
-7.63
-228.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00100% recycled rather than reused
0.00
0.00
Emissions Savings by Scenario
Emissions Savings (tonnes)
Emissions Savings For Each Scenario
50
0
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
-300
Excavation of Foundation
Demolition/Deconstruction
Transportation
Material Processing/Disposal
Base Case Demolition
3.2
3.1
1.8
-120.6
Actual Story
3.2
2.9
2.0
-186.6
Maximum Reuse
and Recycing
3.2
2.9
2.6
-250.6
0.00%
Concrete (recycled)
Clean Wood…
Mixed C&D (landfill)
Scrap Wood (landfill)
Steel (reused,…
Drywall (recycled)
Asphalt Shingles…
20.00%
Carpet (recycled,…
30.00%
Wood Flooring…
Glass (reused)
Copper (recycled)
Other
Concrete – lot of
weight, small
benefit.
Fiberglass (reused)
….and metals.
Aluminum (recycled)
Most emissions
benefit due to
wood
100.00%
90.00%
80.00%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
% of Total Weight
% of Total Emissions
10.00%
Financial Analysis
Costs
Demolition
Actual
Maximum
Foundation
$
10 000
$
10 000
$
10 000
Deconstruction/Demolition
$
40 000
$
155 000
$
155 000
Total
$
50 000
$
165 000
$
165 000
$
-1 744
$
-889
$
186
$
186
Cost per tonne emissions
Cost per ton of material
$
56
How far should you drive?
Example: 130 miles to Boston
Reuse
(Miles)
Aluminum
111,000
Copper
53,000
Wood Flooring
29,000
Carpet
28,600
Steel
26,400
Medium density Fiberboard
15,900
Dimensional Lumber
14,400
Glass
4,300
Fiberglass Insulation
3,600
Drywall
1,500
Asphalt Shingles
1,400
Mixed C&D
Concrete
Recycle
(Miles)
97,000
35,000
Landfill
(Miles)
Combust
(Miles)
4,000
17,000
13,000
18,000
18,000
2,000
200
700
4,000
80
8000
8000
11,000
3,000
3,000
2,000
2,000
1,000
Lessons Learned
• Reuse or recycle as much of the wood as possible
• Concrete has minimal impact on emissions
• Are we measuring/evaluating the right things?
• Transportation not as important as we thought!
• Planning, planning, planning
QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS
Stephanie Boyd
Director
Zilkha Center for Environmental Initiatives
Williams College
sboyd@williams.edu
Charley Stevenson
Integrated Eco Strategy
Williamstown, MA
charley@integratedecostrategy.com