Salvage operation: a deconstruction project in Philadelphia concentrates on salvaging materials for resale and recycling.

The Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR), Washington, D.C., in cooperation with Penn State's Hamer Center for Community Design (Hamer Center), University Park, Pa., has conducted a deconstruction pilot project to determine cost-effective methods to remove lumber and other materials from a Neighborhood Transformation Initiative abandoned house. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) funded the project and the city of Philadelphia provided the house for deconstruction.

Kevin Brooks Salvage (KBS), a Philadelphia contractor, performed the deconstruction work on the 3224 Susquehanna unit, half of a residential twin building. ILSR and the Hamer Center selected KBS to do the work because the firm provided the lower bid and the more complete bid package.

The project work took place from March 27 to April 7, 2006. At the Hamer Center's direction, the KBS crew experimented with the use of a mechanized, panelized approach of removing lumber. The dismantling process involved cutting the roof and floor panels into sections and removing them to an off-site location for processing. The project diverted bricks, lumber, metal and architectural features from disposal.

GETTING STARTED

Brad Guy, Hamer Center associate researcher, prepared the project's request for qualifications (RFQ) using language and concepts from several model green building documents.

The RFQ stated up front the project's overall purpose of deconstructing and recovering building materials from one or more row houses condemned by the city of Philadelphia.

The project's specific focus was exploring innovative techniques for dismantling urban row houses to reclaim the maximum amount of roof and floor structural materials in the most cost-effective manner for reuse and recycling.

The RFQ outlined:

* Services to be required

* Submittal requirements

* Additional considerations for evaluation

* Schedule.

As basis for award, the RFQ stated that the contract would be awarded to the contractor offering the most favorable terms, and with the following factors being considered:

* Price

* Qualifications and capabilities

* Proposed techniques to recover materials

* Waste management strategy

* Disposition of recovered materials

* Personnel

* Schedule.

In January 2005, ILSR distributed the RFQ to 17 prospective salvage and deconstruction companies identified by the Hamer Center, as well as to the Board of Directors of the Delaware Valley Green Building Council. As a result of the outreach effort, ILSR received two submissions by the March 11, 2005 deadline. ILSR and the Hamer Center carefully reviewed the materials and determined that both firms were qualified and would be invited to submit a bid proposal for the designated buildings.

The Hamer Center chose Kevin Brooks Salvage (KBS), a Philadelphia-based firm, as the deconstruction contractor because the company submitted the lower bid and the more complete bid package.

KBS's total bid amount for deconstructing both properties fell within the project budget and ILSR officially requested permission from the city to deconstruct the two Susquehanna houses.

GETTING RESULTS

The project diverted bricks, lumber, metal and architectural features from disposal. Most of the bricks were used for onsite backfill, and additional recovered materials included:

* Eight hundred and forty linear feet of hemlock joists were sold to a broker for remilling ($1,680).

* Finished pine floor was sold ($500).

* Five hundred linear feet of recovered lumber were provided to a local source ($250).

* Two tons of metal (radiators, oil tank, duct work, gas lines, plumbing lines) were sold to local scrap dealers ($600).

* Architectural features have been marketed through KBS's architectural salvage business, Found Matter. Two decorative tin pieces and one wrought iron gate have been sold to date ($500).

* Kevin Brooks decided to keep the turret ($3,000 value) for his own use.

* In addition, $800 worth of brown stone and two $200 worth of decorative tin pieces are still for sale at Found Matter.

To summarize, the total value of the recovered materials is $7,530, and, as of December 2006, $6,530 of materials have been sold or directly used by KBS. The remaining $1,000 worth of materials is for sale in the Found Matter store.

At this point in time, there is very little, if any, deconstruction occurring in the removal of abandoned housing in Philadelphia. Mechanized demolition is the process for removing larger numbers of buildings at one time, and deconstruction is much more labor-intensive and costly than this form of building takedown. However, in Philadelphia, there are many units of housing attached to other structures in a row or twin, and these houses are often removed using a combination of mechanized and hand demolition, a more labor intensive process that safeguards the structural integrity of the adjoining house or houses.

Table 1 (left) compares the current Susquehanna cost data with average costs for both hand and mechanized demolition. All labor costs are based on current prevailing wage. The Susquehanna project data demonstrate that deconstruction can be cost-competitive with hand demolition when there are sufficient recoverable materials with market value to offset higher labor costs. The $8.94 net cost per square foot for the Susquehanna project falls within the range of the average hand demolition cost ($7.75-$9.30).

ILSR and Kevin Brooks Salvage, the Susquehanna Project contractor, believe that the costs could be even lower in future projects based on the following factors:

* On-time dumpster placement, removal, and replacement procedures as delays in placing and removing full dumpsters resulted in additional labor costs because workers had to handle some waste materials more than once.

* Better onsite efficiency using improved removal practices based on lessons learned from the pilot. For example, the panelization work was a first-time effort for the crew and likely would require less time with more experience.

* Improving the economy of scale by removing more than one house at a time.

The original goal was the deconstruction of two adjoining housing units that would have resulted in a lower cost per unit than from removal of a single unit.

Also, the final 3224 Susquehanna data may show a lower net cost if additional recovered materials are sold.

CONCLUSIONS

The project's supporters see many successes in the Susquehanna Deconstruction project.

First, the pilot project demonstrated a cost-effective approach in removing lumber and other recoverable materials from abandoned houses. Current market development efforts will likely create more incentives for contractors to recover the materials. For example, architects can gain LEED credits (the U.S. Green Building Council's (USGBC) Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design green building certification program) for use of recovered materials. Habitat for Humanity Philadelphia has been working with ILSR in exploring the possibility of using reclaimed building materials in the Stiles Project, the city's first LEED-certified affordable housing.

In addition, it introduced panelization as a viable consideration for deconstruction contractors. While Kevin Brooks admits that the panelization process was more costly than using his regular disassembly methodology, he attributes some of the added expense to his inexperience in using the new approach. He is open to using panelization in future work, especially for commercial and industrial buildings where there are no adjacent properties that can be damaged. He believes the technique is "cleaner," can require less onsite time, and allows for the disassembly of materials at an offsite location.

The project also supported the development of the emerging restoration industry in Southeastern Pennsylvania by increasing awareness of deconstruction and architectural salvage among the green building community, local architects, city officials, and the general public.

This growing awareness is contributing to the non-profit organization, Second Chance, in its current efforts to open a major reuse retail yard in Philadelphia within the year.

The new retail yard is expected to greatly increase the demand for used building materials in the region.

And finally, it assisted KBS in obtaining additional deconstruction and architectural work and publicity. The Philadelphia Inquirer article about the project helped Kevin Brooks secure two additional jobs, provided more work leads, and resulted in publicity in a Philadelphia weekly newspaper. One of the projects is the interior deconstruction of 70,000 square feet of warehouse space and the full deconstruction of two warehouse structures in Phoenixville, Pa. In the second project, KBS removed dimensional lumber and the truss system from an 1850s structure in the Germantown section of Philadelphia. Three thousand board feet of hemlock were recovered and sold for reuse in a restaurant renovation project.

A secondary benefit of the project is the fact that owners stepped forward and reclaimed three of the buildings that were designated for demolition: 3947 and 3949 Aspen Street, and 3222 Susquehanna Avenue. It is always preferable to reclaim rather than deconstruct buildings.

Finally, ILSR acknowledges that the project success is due to the teamwork of all the participating partners, and trusts that ongoing partnerships will build on the project momentum and continue to support the emerging restoration economy in Southeastern Pennsylvania.

The author is Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR) senior program manager and can be reached through the ILSR at www.ilsr.org.

Comparison of Susquehanna Pilot Deconstruction vs. Average Demolition
Costs

                                                Hand
                               Deconstruction   Demolition

Gross costs/unit [1]             $ 23,823      $15,000-$18,000
Salvaged materials
  revenues/unit [2]               $ 6,530           $ 0
Net costs/unit                    $17,293      $15,000-$18,000
Square footage/unit [3]             1,935          1,935
Net costs/sq ft                   $ 8.94         $ 7.75-$9.30

                                  Mechanized
                                  Demolition

Gross costs/unit [1]           $ 14,500-$15,00
Salvaged materials
  revenues/unit [2]                  $0
Net costs/unit                  $14,500-$15,000
Square footage/unit [3]             1,935
Net costs/sq ft                  $ 7.50-$7.75