United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(5306W)
EPA-530-F-00-001f
June 2000
www.epa.gov/osw
)
Stowe Village
Hartford, Connecticut
50% Reduction of Demolition Materials
As an alternative to demolition, the Hartford Housing Authority undertook a
demonstration project that trained nine public housing residents to
deconstruct (hand-dismantle) six public housing units in Stowe Village.
Upon completion of the project, the workers had recovered 50% of the
materials from the buildings (40% through salvage and 10% through recycling).
Project Description
I
n fall 1998 the Hartford Housing Authority
(HHA) tested an alternative to traditional
demolition for removing obsolete buildings
from the Stowe Village public housing
complex. The complex, built in 1953 and
located in the northern section of Hartford,
Connecticut, comprised 31 residential
buildings (598 units) and related support
structures. In this pilot project, staff trained
public housing residents in deconstruction
techniques (hand-dismantling) while
removing Building #28, an 8,250-square-
foot building containing six housing units.
HHA's primary project goal was to extend its
Family Reunification and Employment
Program, which encourages parents to
assume their responsibilities as family
members and community residents. Because
of this goal, the HHA was the first housing
authority to require a deconstruction
training program as part of
development proposals. The project
general contractor, Manafort
Brothers, Inc. worked with the HHA,
Self-Reliance Inc., and the Laborers'
International Union to recruit and
train nine public housing residents in
deconstruction techniques. The
general contractor entered into
partnership with the HHA and the
nine resident workers to form the
Hartford Community Deconstruction
Service Company.
in materialsforreuse.
Prior to building removal, a skilled examiner
reviewed and documented all salvageable
materials. The crew members of the
Deconstruction Service Company then removed
the plumbing and electrical fixtures, windows,
floors, non-load bearing walls, ceiling, roof
rafters, and sub-flooring. Crew members
dismantled the windows and aluminum frames,
and removed, denailed, trimmed, and stacked all
salvageable lumber on site. Then a demolition
crew, using heavy equipment, knocked down
the outer walls and remaining roof components,
and removed the foundation. Deconstruction
Materials Collected
Recycled
metal (copper, aluminum, ferrous);
cement, aggregate, wood
Salvaged for Reuse
lumber (flooring, roof rafters, floor
joist, wall studs); cast iron radiators,
sinks, aluminum frame windows, bricks
-------
workers finally gleaned the piles of rubble
to recover usable bricks and wood. When
finished, the deconstruction crew had
recovered 109 tons of materials from
Building #28. The remaining materials
were removed by a demolition firm for
processing (27 tons) and disposal (136
tons).
Costs/Benefits
Because the deconstruction of Building
#28 was a pilot project that involved
training, the cost of deconstructing the
building was higher than normal. A great
deal of planning and development was
necessary to implement the program. The
recovery of materials (such as plasterboard
Project Summary
Date Started
October 1998
Date Completed December 1998
Project Square Footage 8,250
Total Waste Generated (Tons) 265.5
Disposed (Tons) 132.8
Total Materials Diverted (Tons) 132.8
Recycled
Reused
Total Materials Diverted
26.6
106.2
50%
Hauling and Disposal Costs ($/ton) $23
Net Deconstruction Costs $72,107
Planning & Development $20,000
Labor ~ $60,400
Hauling and Recycling Fees $617
Disposal Tip Fee $3,083
Materials Sales ($300)
MateriabSalvaged ($8,610)
Avoided Disposal ($3,083)
Net Cost per Square Foot $9
Potential Net Deconsbuction Cost $4,700
Labor $10,000
Hauling and Recycling Fees $600
Disposal Tip Fee $3,100
Miscellaneous $3,000
Materials Sales ($300)
MateriabSalvaged ($8,600)
Avoided Disposal ($3,100)
Potential Net Cost per Square Foot $1
Notes: SRI calculated potential cost and
revenue/savings based upon the following
assumptions: (1) at least 30% deconstruction of a
building equivalent to Building #28 in size, location,
and materials composition; (2) the deconstruction
performed injoint-venture with an established
demolition company; (3) $23 per ton hauling and
disposal costs; (4) $600 for hauling and recycling tip
fees; (5) miscellaneous costs including 15% of total
for overhead, equipment, and cost of sales; and (6) a
crew of five fully-trained deconstruction workers
receiving wages and benefits of $200 per day.
I
and small wall studs) for
training purposes greatly
increased the cost of labor.
The one-time planning and
development cost ($20,000)
included the costs of
organizing meetings, training
deconstruction workers, and
recording and reporting data.
Once trained, deconstruction
crews working in collaboration
with an established demolition
3
firm could deconstruct the
same square footage for an
estimated $10,000 in labor.
This would reduce the labor
cost on future deconstruction projects by
83%. Therefore, trained crews could
deconstruct buildings of similar square
footage and materials composition
as Building #28 at a cost of $2 per
square foot, $1 less than the
general contractor's estimate for
traditional demolition.
Deconstruction costs of Building #28
were reduced by $300 in revenue from
metal recovered for recycling, $8,610 in
revenue from sales of salvaged materials,
and over $3,000 from avoided hauling and
disposal costs. The potential net
deconstruction costs on future projects
would be reduced to a total of $1 per
square foot if these revenues and savings
were combined with reduced labor and
planning costs.
Overall, the project coordinators
believe that the Stowe Village Project
achieved the HHA's primary goal and
proved to be a cost-effective training
program. The project coordinators
estimated that deconstruction training
cost only $5,600 per worker. The
industry/government standard cost for
training a worker is $15,000.
Tips for Replication
• Use the request for proposals process
to identify a developer and contractor that
are experienced with and/or are willing to
practice materials recovery.
• Use the Laborers' International Union
to train workers in materials recovery
methods.
rew
uMing#28atStoweV,llage.
• Carefully track all data on materials
recovery and communicate the results to
all involved parties.
• Involve city agencies to gather
political and financial support.
Client
Hartford Housing Authority
475 Flatbush Avenue
Hartford, Connecticut 06106
Contact: Greg Lickwola
Phone: 860-275-8421 Fax: 860-233-7820
Web site: http://www.hartnet.org
Project Manager/ Sustainability
Consultant
Self-Reliance Inc. (SRI)
2425 18th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20009
Contact: Neil Seldman (President)
Phone: 202-232-4108 Fax: 202-332-0463
E-mail: ilsr@igc.org
Web site: http://www.ilsr.org
General Contractor
Manafort Brothers, Inc.
414 New Britain Avenue
Plainville, Connecticut 06062
Contact: Modesto Rey
Phone: 860-229-4853 Fax: 860-747-5299
------- |