<%BANNER%>

Life Cycle Analysis of the Deconstruction of World War II Army Barraks at Ft. McClellan in Anniston, Alabama

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101209_AAAACS INGEST_TIME 2010-12-09T15:54:23Z PACKAGE UFE0014324_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 1053954 DFID F20101209_AABPJF ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH obrien_e_Page_090.tif GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
b782e068e5ae54274b04d3c06a2f4fcd
SHA-1
c381c485eec7af1755ff246df9370caac173c619
10620 F20101209_AABPIQ obrien_e_Page_085.pro
a25a056150fc9028ede806535540a122
e8e18bee5b190564b77555a82b89074064b958b4
74206 F20101209_AABPJG obrien_e_Page_064.jpg
13293860c0fc2b4d1dd6d9c76d35461c
d902bf8ba4e9fb1929776f5803113e327d399174
5097 F20101209_AABPIR obrien_e_Page_074thm.jpg
1a7705ef932389a57784562e85d5f67b
5caaefdf94838e3217b08a43e73d6d8384e6c233
126724 F20101209_AABPJH UFE0014324_00001.mets FULL
e185f9e01e89994558a4c96ee29ea6a1
c44f47e187c359e859b9409a411dd2593b2be290
56578 F20101209_AABPIS obrien_e_Page_106.pro
a05b4ccecc3569cefa9f464eba2c5c36
829b054534a5a3e45266dd1a23d27d50ba402407
16382 F20101209_AABPIT obrien_e_Page_004.QC.jpg
8731f0258a97a900ec9cb02fae71365a
fb0edbc566c32021fa06a80756941f02811563fe
20630 F20101209_AABPIU obrien_e_Page_013.QC.jpg
1265d52a074d760a9dd31caa6ee5f8f2
812ada95132ddcea95548dfa634238a8a5e18754
76446 F20101209_AABPIV obrien_e_Page_043.jp2
f1fb7679b5a82e7b7fc5822e34918fad
db1928e89b28aa58485303c2fae65802b40dc2ef
64462 F20101209_AABPJK obrien_e_Page_004.jpg
7e9fb64d42675bd7af56a359bd6b7866
2b8bc7b275836b665262ed4dfe599a8a49d4dbcb
20869 F20101209_AABPIW obrien_e_Page_011.QC.jpg
a787e4e5cd178bd570dabb7c6505dbe1
b550994694b9cc5d6860a0f25421129ff3363d14
76554 F20101209_AABPKA obrien_e_Page_032.jpg
f7183d07c64433145b6b8888b61bb623
52a3b875c37f953473049e3d687640fb49a67cc0
93411 F20101209_AABPJL obrien_e_Page_005.jpg
28f0a0035b8f9f7ebdf23b3b6f5cb59a
1b3211a682aecefedb99ed3c12ad276631fdeb18
50168 F20101209_AABPIX obrien_e_Page_055.pro
aaaac0e909ead8c27568cdad7d87e6d8
07ea8b144511c94c56f2cb2838a747092b394ef5
66573 F20101209_AABPKB obrien_e_Page_033.jpg
f67bc2580ab9d7353a74a2ed00d00d27
8b41e5bd0e79fe7cb012b03f4ae0474910d16420
54109 F20101209_AABPJM obrien_e_Page_007.jpg
a1401ec625731996e54feb77086c2719
a57faedd7046b863f898da9239dcb6906d55740a
69101 F20101209_AABPIY obrien_e_Page_021.jpg
c4c010bef8a8abff17c03bb3e173911a
4e28ec25a0f700f89349ee55caac4c49df180f49
67159 F20101209_AABPKC obrien_e_Page_034.jpg
724433cb6ca68292cf5abcf379f11384
e0c2e97ff8422d5f934791c2e6cfa4eba9959baf
14534 F20101209_AABPJN obrien_e_Page_010.jpg
1e0dc53b9376951c194d5ac332456bab
44b9c00ed103634bc7cbc1489ceaacd5ca359436
931 F20101209_AABPIZ obrien_e_Page_082.txt
235bb804395f823efdcf9ce8172a88f0
b18891dc0d1366e7ba310074e910ff6ed243aa18
72255 F20101209_AABPKD obrien_e_Page_039.jpg
cd0c57c716436eb528da52959b67bd24
9b28ec31738c3b903d716e8a4e5c8e32c83ac2de
65229 F20101209_AABPJO obrien_e_Page_011.jpg
f917cfb39e804cced686d96e60750699
7051771f7a02bf0f5dc2bc10fb5e51946c0317c5
73205 F20101209_AABPKE obrien_e_Page_041.jpg
dd7d809f2b66c5b897bc647f9373dec8
2dda5f2511e3cf4b9c8ce1664353804fc2da519a
65434 F20101209_AABPJP obrien_e_Page_012.jpg
231c1a730b5de11680f0f26644ed91d8
c741b2c0eeee125a5b343068665410f7b504d3cb
43421 F20101209_AABPKF obrien_e_Page_042.jpg
c40a47d21d76b2de0817ef7e731a09a5
d1f916264ab9fea3f5a862024a54de587583d4f5
58890 F20101209_AABPJQ obrien_e_Page_014.jpg
02b64ac00eb7b1b09779ef332d83cda2
06c554beefff055f5f6a6a390ac13b4928b7977f
52579 F20101209_AABPKG obrien_e_Page_043.jpg
1804093d412d8c7ecc4355adf4e88d26
9ed46544501008788ae9ecbffa17063f8fb88dd0
70199 F20101209_AABPJR obrien_e_Page_019.jpg
2f1989eb36c14c294d7d9d0a24cf18c8
c9c1e189b0b58ee2edae4c5685ef2d146ea58df9
71658 F20101209_AABPKH obrien_e_Page_045.jpg
317be77c06afd2b22b4237efb325276a
79dd3f9098e02cf4325bfe146d02a7f658e5dae9
79968 F20101209_AABPJS obrien_e_Page_022.jpg
23592fa5f73feb424fb52a1a2e83bbac
8e193e085161d092eb3ded83bcb4fd5fb553dd7b
66644 F20101209_AABPKI obrien_e_Page_046.jpg
af8e69d7f497156e7d77fba44e9189e8
20c5e61bb21f18120854b238f0a648cc1cf5682f
69593 F20101209_AABPJT obrien_e_Page_023.jpg
dd1a401df5116192e1052622a86fc209
5a21396e9448000bc0e3b36cf751bd965fce8b36
71217 F20101209_AABPKJ obrien_e_Page_048.jpg
8d3516a8a00dc8293a00da80907f16a5
aa6ad3c1e969c2a3402f1fefa97f6d177cfa0bf1
73741 F20101209_AABPJU obrien_e_Page_024.jpg
71468dd1eddea4ab4768ae7b1faacf67
1c2158dee9740c4e6ac8be115cde85565f94e215
80060 F20101209_AABPJV obrien_e_Page_025.jpg
cdeb721b032c1137a066e60d6c3dbc00
204e6a1421fad2e3dc742a1e00f240030e304570
72428 F20101209_AABPKK obrien_e_Page_050.jpg
ef691949c51027e1284879c89bdda7e9
5e4c702c844391688f06dd6f90616c73fb22c6a9
58811 F20101209_AABPJW obrien_e_Page_026.jpg
2724671611fb6c54d49f3b67243becd8
e4eb6191121d7da8d806c5096fb95364a6fd8063
71377 F20101209_AABPKL obrien_e_Page_051.jpg
a9eb50cba7f4fd1236cdec2a44338330
d069b8e2815af25e93265b62baa057f80b610a66
66322 F20101209_AABPJX obrien_e_Page_028.jpg
f040e12ffdc923ed6a73117d2d6010f4
44cfaa22d4004bc119cdea12014c08bca81266ce
49882 F20101209_AABPLA obrien_e_Page_079.jpg
77b098f2df68a23b56c05ecd08bfdc7f
0782e0af2a20ed7c9b923d519013f44951eff1b3
63769 F20101209_AABPKM obrien_e_Page_052.jpg
d0e75e1291d1f1320b960276c23a2a52
069d5be18155e3deb9f7a99bd63b0bf84958a38a
68436 F20101209_AABPJY obrien_e_Page_030.jpg
d2bc48effd41e64f7a207d3f7b041386
2533114f6f5b759838c6d115a4e0fdf1595abf99
28457 F20101209_AABPLB obrien_e_Page_081.jpg
0e6252c63e88d352a094411fea8a30c2
53ce767e8cf409537a66eee989b4b36f9f742ae0
63341 F20101209_AABPKN obrien_e_Page_053.jpg
b4326b748dc5ad7b587445d63810c86f
e14f5e5db34f98469a3240c5ef985da36087e2f8
80237 F20101209_AABPJZ obrien_e_Page_031.jpg
866ee4c0eb20787d2d21ed0ee9685512
09426988339d5a96acae231643e41143bb8cc192
34270 F20101209_AABPLC obrien_e_Page_084.jpg
653fe953ab4708de3883bd5d7f6caefe
2e8ef411109a9050d0a703c714f98eac8ee618ab
73507 F20101209_AABPKO obrien_e_Page_055.jpg
5f29a93d305a76a7612cf04509c78214
d21672424f9894396ceac0ebb6bbcad06926acef
20252 F20101209_AABPLD obrien_e_Page_090.jpg
e9c57be10d41e185c58c590bda48c138
29ace76cf5c11adfaab7cb4b89bb0df1c9505f21
70856 F20101209_AABPKP obrien_e_Page_056.jpg
d7ad8fa7f275760dcab6ed2000c9a772
1bf859153a4417c48e4859945867306344daf888
25017 F20101209_AABPLE obrien_e_Page_092.jpg
13bb657b2217c7525f5cbdcb99c11b42
eb67d672e62bbaeaa6a81eded17e3e6d4211c6bf
67675 F20101209_AABPLF obrien_e_Page_095.jpg
c8b7704834009bb0e021df45c1f769cc
6a7cf82ace60fa94783e87cd9a8806d8034a80ba
65880 F20101209_AABPKQ obrien_e_Page_058.jpg
9789a1d7853398a342545acd0c21a2c1
b7368a4ec6a39ef526ff91b0ab0a5625acbd8de8
65161 F20101209_AABPLG obrien_e_Page_096.jpg
f6307fba2c7ac0e14a6b7dc042d21477
e0426181d89acb71212bef4e4d1640922fc592cd
73771 F20101209_AABPKR obrien_e_Page_059.jpg
78395b48d4ca1107aa2c4c3bb5f4f310
02d975210d6e2d063b450e46e86c24602ef631f0
49123 F20101209_AABPLH obrien_e_Page_098.jpg
66d2c75b915d55ac5878f21bcc9de68d
c5dad9ba0d18dcc0bc6689400b16e7ccc6d4885e
72900 F20101209_AABPKS obrien_e_Page_062.jpg
7f691d8a0074715e4b1e0fe00d8f9ff3
9a6d2233eb66651c811743b944d916ef361a24be
44525 F20101209_AABPLI obrien_e_Page_100.jpg
4968383f77cf6bc359c512899a55f6b8
2bbc241e66234f63e1fa33ef1431d213ec27563d
68949 F20101209_AABPKT obrien_e_Page_065.jpg
f542292169c3797f4d26e168d1dbb6a9
c5890258c24c2564c53e5bdfdc45aaa47a829bf7
57017 F20101209_AABPLJ obrien_e_Page_102.jpg
8fc21f3a9769473bf69fc3f30e4cf1c2
b2b3de967188bd7f02958f3e8ce2e12dcb7c16cc
68356 F20101209_AABPKU obrien_e_Page_066.jpg
f025a734a7d8d99e5d3689754ccffa0d
eb87ce070f607d90fcc0fd33cbf7ce70423e6ba8
31514 F20101209_AABPLK obrien_e_Page_109.jpg
7cfefb2ba85b138d0be296665637901e
948754ffb188cae099f1d1e9057fe123b618687e
73944 F20101209_AABPKV obrien_e_Page_067.jpg
b25e4f5d41a88a167af170b80999a9da
e84299646d450e06b4d6857e20c348d94c68213f
42417 F20101209_AABPKW obrien_e_Page_071.jpg
f1bb0c3ee760c8447d30e496203664f3
a9afda8d42707892f4074d54b67cb8b7cf3a38a2
97934 F20101209_AABPMA obrien_e_Page_030.jp2
019bb7c7c0c34bf0020d0f4077e235c0
3fbf9051cd44e2f68f4648694ed05a1134f94fae
57246 F20101209_AABPLL obrien_e_Page_003.jp2
526b67412ce375eda9cb399f27c70a42
e2e332bf3a46e46bf3494543d6cc2faa77bab152
52602 F20101209_AABPKX obrien_e_Page_074.jpg
03fe61850779772c7daf4b8fc7b465d4
c0f74a62c8a3e003dddcc2f151dfb71535d2490f
1051951 F20101209_AABPMB obrien_e_Page_032.jp2
5c009ce56936ff465a4d7ca244209ec0
c731bb28490857616371c9ee6844cbdd40b1a511
1051986 F20101209_AABPLM obrien_e_Page_008.jp2
9c637ae46a923b1c9ab9aa6828f0ff9e
e840e541af4ff11d35aea06d2f0c69535f644474
56381 F20101209_AABPKY obrien_e_Page_076.jpg
ce094ee1e57422fe54451aa147854cb4
59ea2feb4cfa07b77abedb4be58ee25b04864dae
100959 F20101209_AABPMC obrien_e_Page_033.jp2
42f3dbb961474028c6a85618e666960d
1b10b452d9ddaf9d55033f431fb7bf6bec1cd494
13578 F20101209_AABPLN obrien_e_Page_010.jp2
93d974a06e829342f9115bbb259dc9a6
40f6e62914e1673dba489ba7bd75d8bc71447a14
39284 F20101209_AABPKZ obrien_e_Page_078.jpg
69c9a40b59cf38c682fc664555d5359e
50b938a31154754941131f1510d2b3242c4ee1de
101622 F20101209_AABPMD obrien_e_Page_034.jp2
78f25cb7db2e66bb9b456ca19b7b9cf5
b724604dffbb6b7fa69b5b6a05d72509495137e8
94892 F20101209_AABPLO obrien_e_Page_013.jp2
07b11f570aa900ae7cfa423cd5d95706
47fe55c6e87ea575119f147621f00e1e471c4fa4
736776 F20101209_AABPME obrien_e_Page_036.jp2
b1493ffa11a7d53065840c531243265f
113f14eb1613f06a21cd679aa386b78c794d2636
104419 F20101209_AABPLP obrien_e_Page_017.jp2
0e5af8c5bdf5f0bcadf3e83ef76a0ed0
fc1e24475ffd5d5a7c53d89eaa25ea56b657e35a
93614 F20101209_AABPMF obrien_e_Page_037.jp2
39debd7ae5ed157b701087ed211e5cb0
a3e4fc79007131fb00aa0ac34b78ac883618d8b0
1051966 F20101209_AABPLQ obrien_e_Page_018.jp2
a51ec8a9757ffe9e3f9fec9e390acfcf
8f0dbaeb5ca920c5efe0f28bc0b1976088eb7656
1007662 F20101209_AABPMG obrien_e_Page_039.jp2
4561f8146c81168479a69237c7d2db70
702e3489a0a05d67867280bfa0bcaec499e54b54
104558 F20101209_AABPLR obrien_e_Page_019.jp2
f4facd5af89cd7cc40aeb32b131dddab
7db5f3072830c6a14a90c9b34931db9a4e7ab2e0
111470 F20101209_AABPMH obrien_e_Page_041.jp2
d0943592ebfcbb61e07a262b6147ae66
39981427568251663524946dca5f41f982e20229
105427 F20101209_AABPLS obrien_e_Page_021.jp2
27118180db33302df8c8d0971e00de3e
c71deaa0a5bea16ecf1d6936ece65fec7bdcb503
62269 F20101209_AABPMI obrien_e_Page_042.jp2
35e82ac3c8ee3762da5fa2728592e929
b6f3ae1079cd791fca378a44c0694698f4763bd7
1051936 F20101209_AABPLT obrien_e_Page_022.jp2
47f1920c07ad7adcf03dcaa096bfaf27
429214e596544ead0a45445e0a2ed45a2d38b6ac
109089 F20101209_AABPMJ obrien_e_Page_045.jp2
b3e302eae1aabdfc5a142b0b7c97d97f
2d4fd3c8f150824bd6e0c97bf8129340b4c59ea3
103487 F20101209_AABPLU obrien_e_Page_023.jp2
85947172eb38a773828ac581c61761ac
347f0e79e473291aa470adced40a2aa9c4b09c74
104335 F20101209_AABPMK obrien_e_Page_047.jp2
70ba42bd7c43f75c52a5fc3615a861d9
7d0d2fdd8b96322625d7dd40531f432a72f77457
1001528 F20101209_AABPLV obrien_e_Page_024.jp2
e808c5b81c9383013fcb344aad360bdb
c68d6eb49c9f104e59587af1bd586d854e10b971
106886 F20101209_AABPML obrien_e_Page_048.jp2
9abb4f4328543a609635b731a932aeec
9bb62d18aef75a6ac211df9090096aaa5a14be0d
792070 F20101209_AABPLW obrien_e_Page_026.jp2
d7b12abbc54f7062acba536d2594ed9d
effb69d867650c8e8bec73334b4da986aaf1442e
105958 F20101209_AABPLX obrien_e_Page_027.jp2
5fed43a09e6d420f62238e6721279d18
1255475739f849a77ab6cce1ac4d01f2fe8e6cc3
96785 F20101209_AABPNA obrien_e_Page_096.jp2
3d370dec544dbdec3acddbbc76ff727b
4843ffc1ab2969158dadfa8f15224f6ad593ced0
107907 F20101209_AABPMM obrien_e_Page_051.jp2
328f6841ec8d2dd752cfa63141ead332
da915ad02ba93b7856e54fe412cf3e06fadff07d
100760 F20101209_AABPLY obrien_e_Page_028.jp2
8a5d0454e523c7c6ec476a5631d08d13
64204255bd163424264706643664fcb208520675
96365 F20101209_AABPNB obrien_e_Page_101.jp2
4a8f04798f517ba8f5ccf8eea8a57e08
ca30cad357b0725cb6bf6bc999c251538fa3d2d3
95230 F20101209_AABPMN obrien_e_Page_052.jp2
327161d0279a509f0fb9cc386cca4c3f
46d886d7d933b462b537778d6db43c008c11adaf
1051973 F20101209_AABPLZ obrien_e_Page_029.jp2
aaf508f4b0822c1e4130061555362d80
13b8a771db729f077e501daef9a359ee053002a1
124160 F20101209_AABPNC obrien_e_Page_103.jp2
0371b322294f1e32433a5b41fe1c11d6
e8733f8d20c57bc866a7069ea8587d3dccf16581
107085 F20101209_AABPMO obrien_e_Page_056.jp2
9d8c3b6a5d65b4dd2e8c3190274947a1
a6c0fdd16431c372005f6675c452d6e131377c99
120579 F20101209_AABPND obrien_e_Page_106.jp2
4848f6d87c43ed2930a0797979d61dde
f7dc7555c74c872adac22f9e59561ceb9b966026
108594 F20101209_AABPMP obrien_e_Page_060.jp2
b6b798d8ec2ff875c6e99cc674f0b29d
5820cf8ede1f3922d77e54e5658a9d309c187816
134661 F20101209_AABPNE obrien_e_Page_107.jp2
0272a041f779e159fa540b3cdbc81285
da574cc3c702bfd2718cda901cfa9df4712c6415
111857 F20101209_AABPMQ obrien_e_Page_062.jp2
1d83cb823cb9b216f26c9dc1aa17660b
5b32de06be338fae36297b03b110499389490d1b
41386 F20101209_AABPNF obrien_e_Page_109.jp2
230867aa126e74e664358e1fcc3271e6
fbe0298dcba5c3ab502a09b687693f52ad259d40
111528 F20101209_AABPMR obrien_e_Page_067.jp2
a75cd33db95a60d8d4594151f138cec8
dcdc77bdb4d24e65763fc0b4c9fa1a2cd71459b2
F20101209_AABPNG obrien_e_Page_001.tif
735aa26390a550009a47f75a486e2dc4
acdb83d42903cc181a3866e28056526efcafa680
41090 F20101209_AABPMS obrien_e_Page_072.jp2
3397853f2c43492d6e8f7d9ac287081f
a64801a25f3516b38b1e5e3c1dee2a22f1ad1b12
F20101209_AABPNH obrien_e_Page_002.tif
027f85fe4a454e1b0d946187e8d7dcfc
2ab97a27e6e0ca794564809565da9758054a127e
739774 F20101209_AABPMT obrien_e_Page_074.jp2
3928f33390c8fa73f2d560a5b1624a78
335c0058ce462cfb0b678171afe08594f194faa2
F20101209_AABPNI obrien_e_Page_003.tif
00518d1774e4f701c0f1fa2c8821de5e
8bcbc4964623d53c73b0be164567312397a9f93a
744459 F20101209_AABPMU obrien_e_Page_075.jp2
8ae5cba4a49779fbcc4138ffc537fd23
b7a575a38e80ea6fb64271cace81ca772c39a919
25271604 F20101209_AABPNJ obrien_e_Page_007.tif
bce8ed5e57788070971084940c37a620
4b7c175572be84a7836859d7eaaa5d91b4a72c3f
1051800 F20101209_AABPMV obrien_e_Page_078.jp2
c73436479e3a9b176ec484040df13ae2
d9f8830b819d788b489c3c2f397daf54b218a923
F20101209_AABPNK obrien_e_Page_008.tif
5560fc902d7400d64130fc4effcac43a
0a88eb53d05726c132a77a2064919bcb0433ab95
545068 F20101209_AABPMW obrien_e_Page_080.jp2
904a2d3977302304ffccf345e8ec2c78
408879a90818355f20d1a44755a08614d265d1b3
F20101209_AABPNL obrien_e_Page_009.tif
b442489a0183884cfba6f4d093f598d0
9f0076ef64ffa32f5cedd648b056a007a62ffea7
418158 F20101209_AABPMX obrien_e_Page_082.jp2
da497dba15bf771c773201b1c3e4ed86
60e5eee36d15cfe47ce518d68ebdf468122b291f
F20101209_AABPOA obrien_e_Page_040.tif
31ee5682cbb2e260f7ecb0a0b5bbc9ab
6b992b6c69125945544392616d77d9973bdc95fc
F20101209_AABPNM obrien_e_Page_011.tif
2ad8dfd818e006f5394750fd6f8e29f4
4d814ca1d48d08651a86c0faf5a5390eac69d59f
1051956 F20101209_AABPMY obrien_e_Page_087.jp2
25047dc7c164a52cd7c6df61660a6bbe
3391d5a59b2c1386ebdc957f0bad9c78e2c1d12b
F20101209_AABPOB obrien_e_Page_045.tif
2ef820e9493eff294371f25377dcd385
902f6ebc836000c25bffd99b23eb07e9b5bb12f0
23657 F20101209_AABPMZ obrien_e_Page_090.jp2
bfa974843aa94115e6fd420ddbc62a6e
5ff364d7db9f2b9786f07b5c460987127d3a804a
F20101209_AABPOC obrien_e_Page_052.tif
feb0c6ddf85578c1f67bf5a1ffcbc3b1
fe12c87649c9a53054b475b6a2db87299acd597d
F20101209_AABPNN obrien_e_Page_015.tif
8c34f23be88208937983f63447c2850c
a0e5f6327eeb2174cdfc486f87751f4921c174da
F20101209_AABPOD obrien_e_Page_055.tif
e32ecfefb6099b5e747a9da327553bb3
b892d5366a4a32d85aab30601acf33c52e932efd
F20101209_AABPNO obrien_e_Page_020.tif
3e7cd798e9771c6aa9c497f33116e240
80b189c05b638c0d7744ec81e4859965b44a36fb
F20101209_AABPOE obrien_e_Page_056.tif
be3ffa8c9875221dcf0f4b551a866af7
196bd08e3ce2de9705708ae3f5cb3647aca815ef
F20101209_AABPNP obrien_e_Page_021.tif
5536c35ff2869e319cf533d0061d8b54
8154d59ed2923484a5d0d9935d35546d86e92440
F20101209_AABPOF obrien_e_Page_059.tif
1e88c4c1695f23bce6aa45f3adfdca21
d62e28419fa9c28655fdc841294fc83b0b097f9f
F20101209_AABPNQ obrien_e_Page_025.tif
a061090622f89b9350bfaa2da353f688
51399ade57ad3bc966ef93936176bd6c0685d391
F20101209_AABPOG obrien_e_Page_063.tif
20834813245ac5c99331eedef57d2560
79955d2b35f978512aa57d0f28038ef2b9701b1b
F20101209_AABPNR obrien_e_Page_027.tif
88bc1c8fa5886620df34b333dc1b8e58
00397b2d93dd3192943e622615a0ca98a2b51385
F20101209_AABPOH obrien_e_Page_070.tif
542bf505d38817dc797b7256756e34ee
23671858caa793530d2a999ecb944d4f048936fb
F20101209_AABPNS obrien_e_Page_028.tif
f1175a46656520e9d354ff41b894307a
ab1677557aca24a58c42793d7bb118d25f11df26
1054428 F20101209_AABPOI obrien_e_Page_072.tif
03431fd92b0c85ca018b251a3f81813f
dd271cd92ae3e477eaeaf3b0058b45fe94101754
F20101209_AABPNT obrien_e_Page_029.tif
deb135e7cb8eab3196b897b64d956a34
d30389891d0767f5f64f5be68744f52db1ae3484
F20101209_AABPOJ obrien_e_Page_073.tif
867be54c79f5bf8e4ca9152e84b38aa4
504cd226868d98b5d11b2c60986e46284d7bbbe9
F20101209_AABPNU obrien_e_Page_030.tif
76d593cd7c42fe50d0c844c9f93f7f2d
d1034ca716b85ef7f01346b4aa9ba662a3a6134a
F20101209_AABPOK obrien_e_Page_075.tif
a02f47913f333143d2d31e883cfadd52
551ac35a4b9437a57a54d9d8a725960b4b49c78c
F20101209_AABPNV obrien_e_Page_031.tif
a61c252483da5a076fb098b7fb936358
fe0f6c4b645bf6d3bd27d639c768388efb0ed7f5
F20101209_AABPOL obrien_e_Page_078.tif
96d340e7c4f86ee8371a747d554b6c8c
a19edede32eb5477790a97f971d0d8feb80771fd
F20101209_AABPNW obrien_e_Page_034.tif
f77c0c741c00b23bf125aced5a324ed3
6df60489e1758e0b801bcfb2f75b72cb54d9a0d4
F20101209_AABPPA obrien_e_Page_106.tif
0cfd2a884b05b4a53e3f46264b3bd364
2abd4b25ca04d9a01c16e5e401b1565d43797473
F20101209_AABPOM obrien_e_Page_079.tif
fb2bf6fc44a5b8935d72195aeb84a8e3
242acc685d32e41d11f8b676b6b73209f2a5600c
F20101209_AABPNX obrien_e_Page_036.tif
84668ce59994a43b34dae21c5425ef68
5e2f7d6910b9ca187a15dabbc7d6b86d8d06a543
F20101209_AABPPB obrien_e_Page_109.tif
914b0c83da75628870001b3a68bbf55c
b658fbebb6c5b30a8576c35a717f9cafde2c2ea2
25265604 F20101209_AABPON obrien_e_Page_080.tif
70c5ca01cf3785f694f16507daddd3fd
99b7e06eb10fc6e2a3c424d4ef5130d51f64fb5a
F20101209_AABPNY obrien_e_Page_038.tif
530b18b587626cdb96db46f8156cb5df
53ac401f11687a8a2fe2631e7216f3dc9c913819
25194 F20101209_AABPPC obrien_e_Page_003.pro
a0d98f2d04dd296ea68af9761112bd9c
5eeee74125785a5b638dc851bd67145d253b8c2d
F20101209_AABPNZ obrien_e_Page_039.tif
bc2678e8e7fa4a3d557918080c0b7722
7fad14955077898a99ca3a757324d4651471288d
44885 F20101209_AABPPD obrien_e_Page_011.pro
c12f61a258b0b72ba9d96d5bad65641c
f5774e8e52334c098f275a3d49c96065c80199d6
F20101209_AABPOO obrien_e_Page_081.tif
0f3f484d54755bda9c9aa6a5c867fa7e
2dcb010c0899fdd0d20cd5ea5232f49bcbe806e1
44273 F20101209_AABPPE obrien_e_Page_013.pro
9063d9869e6daca55d04d82ff2688f53
35d97111c676defbf357ce740e2c52c0ddb478e0
F20101209_AABPOP obrien_e_Page_083.tif
cb40dd9f103c3544dc5d27ca03ef1b55
d86460cf678a1143b8002b0807218744a1a1f1db
46078 F20101209_AABPPF obrien_e_Page_015.pro
9a02236c4ef0d2db11c69ffeda458ce6
90f23d62a09444250c93cea9cdefc33b6415f7a3
F20101209_AABPOQ obrien_e_Page_084.tif
4aacb0e5b21bf0171a5d829c2adaeae5
913ad505e772868137368462deaf6e44b27dbde3
35065 F20101209_AABPPG obrien_e_Page_016.pro
8ddaaea1cd9f4946b852e6766bb1572e
f195f1a214de6c8f9e05f5bd5ad09a271bf45651
F20101209_AABPOR obrien_e_Page_088.tif
53f44b171f13092429ff64d2b3f421cf
de1bac0889e809457b3942a59da8d48ed0dc4d20
48362 F20101209_AABPPH obrien_e_Page_019.pro
440500acfc64150fcc430dc17ffac959
27cb8a770ec39fa93dfae0c38f3b0b171ef24433
F20101209_AABPOS obrien_e_Page_093.tif
c081f5602f3346f66a5c3a00939cbf0a
fac434efda9a2b9813093f5889d705b9687b252b
47848 F20101209_AABPPI obrien_e_Page_023.pro
c292c7ac90b59c3dd195506c8125754d
a5aa407211f5a4935cfe456f6e051f934aa175c1
F20101209_AABPOT obrien_e_Page_094.tif
20077ff73aac3c5e2057b8114f364f20
6df73c54981a5f2a7de67dce81c3f472b8296bba
36221 F20101209_AABPPJ obrien_e_Page_026.pro
689a8884b21ea9129dd302cab53e8a9f
20414936762af57b450946535d683bb4531915e8
F20101209_AABPOU obrien_e_Page_096.tif
a35a9d75cecc0ac581985b40eb475fb9
672211dbde5e4f90154aa5445363d33b3f9feefe
45499 F20101209_AABPPK obrien_e_Page_030.pro
aecdedeb88034f03a21fbb63791e43ac
9957a6b14c36fc5dc5350ecd7ceb8a96373b87ed
F20101209_AABPOV obrien_e_Page_097.tif
5faca27bc21659222f043f6726caecff
bd8306ee833f00b40b76230162c269ba596dfeac
49091 F20101209_AABPPL obrien_e_Page_032.pro
3d8155eac373668dcd14fc09c4654f34
3e5af55caddb3557d0c2f3d2093d522b138991d9
F20101209_AABPOW obrien_e_Page_099.tif
847bc2547a8995ee80ab567d62549800
4e7ebbfabc391615056b34040953e4b1ba0e3bbd
47245 F20101209_AABPPM obrien_e_Page_034.pro
2cb9ff2ed889c57312b9a0b1ad0d5f3e
17c2c23c3cc4064b99e49a76ebf8f946be54faeb
F20101209_AABPOX obrien_e_Page_100.tif
5cdf88de3298cfc3c005e56ad749853a
8b794b9396782dae779e4726b9bea2ec71bedbc1
47393 F20101209_AABPQA obrien_e_Page_065.pro
d399a8a38e33e7031043dd6252a64449
a1628743ea7a3f37c227eae5970af5082085d7ed
31535 F20101209_AABPPN obrien_e_Page_036.pro
9022d20d92822532e2876434a58c2241
ec07b6bcca9fef5114f52cab5a26d2c3e11e1f3d
F20101209_AABPOY obrien_e_Page_101.tif
e5166ab09a4f2250235b12d5464b84e4
e53fcce227fcc3a585ded68c27311bc018f83504
46785 F20101209_AABPQB obrien_e_Page_066.pro
024a4874c089ddf7bb06e0a84d9ef889
d678aec92acadf52f8a6dfe769a9f349e806fd79
F20101209_AABPOZ obrien_e_Page_103.tif
03c220be34182e793ad68858576528d0
a8422ebdae02b7afd8219519a12a98e5ce5560b2
49174 F20101209_AABPQC obrien_e_Page_070.pro
23434e28d0c2398598d10f87dadfc9b4
874508822091e4020575a43e7878aa4a62546dc9
47288 F20101209_AABPPO obrien_e_Page_038.pro
2b1251db4955de485c2a46782bb9e0f2
41ce490d047443bf45cd7c37c41921ccc1e9672e
17504 F20101209_AABPQD obrien_e_Page_072.pro
35c17c2a058e92b2007a468d59d4b942
3503df80c5fd5bbaa7577192547bc7704496c90c
46678 F20101209_AABPQE obrien_e_Page_073.pro
33e22e0d583030e6d2f892ebb9f1d970
a7004923c4311303e347e78ff823fc23f51c679c
45454 F20101209_AABPPP obrien_e_Page_039.pro
d7b15149dfdc076dcec0125fcdbe7345
5b7483cfc89117dba2d620d01a28f0bceafc3d16
32421 F20101209_AABPQF obrien_e_Page_074.pro
7cd22a5c09a9c19dce918a10d3623237
ec5db8a3ff9f5f7a4e6a60ada112f7185c0cc102
39256 F20101209_AABPPQ obrien_e_Page_040.pro
17d9d6d9f77b6b4f2aab979206a77a4c
a312024d19d206fea2b7bcec551bcf14ed40e103
32573 F20101209_AABPQG obrien_e_Page_077.pro
94f68ae970c3c0e01084c6378be8188f
2f0af79fefb11c074da5b4f693490691ff3fa2b9
51313 F20101209_AABPPR obrien_e_Page_041.pro
b5ece30c339389bd9b7baa1b5173b3bd
c24a4331b548ff305ff9dbdf41125f0aebfb65e9
6089 F20101209_AABPQH obrien_e_Page_079.pro
e95e68b39365adc010187703339cd2c3
6897387bf8106ef549824c91ccf6ab19fbc77ac2
27690 F20101209_AABPPS obrien_e_Page_042.pro
25a4ceffadabb19319b187c2127353af
d980e4d0c61169d1d76d93836893a5291ac4991b
8999 F20101209_AABPQI obrien_e_Page_080.pro
a42384acc77f3269db6fe8669de4e589
2133a2820bc8b31464bf433c77a18e569b7b1371
33608 F20101209_AABPPT obrien_e_Page_043.pro
8a0154fe3f9a5ae6992108aec32b3b29
33daba668d1a4242efe8a9ca415eaa61e51b73f5
13095 F20101209_AABPQJ obrien_e_Page_081.pro
1010f2ba84ced6582d6e76350522a1be
ccbddef97a323deb1425fa3715976d203a12e03d
49660 F20101209_AABPPU obrien_e_Page_044.pro
0c22cf297e6dc42b1f2688d5aa5c0c57
5d988c3951aebf7e74db3818c6d4f12b287c034c
14510 F20101209_AABPQK obrien_e_Page_082.pro
46af7e8332a52168604e015a35c8d83d
aa41c20035c72161faefbae35c97d7d6a85b53d9
45306 F20101209_AABPPV obrien_e_Page_046.pro
e0993dddf89392583a4f133707f36a0b
0590f3c4dd31027cb1bf1d766de552aa0d797b2d
11785 F20101209_AABPQL obrien_e_Page_083.pro
1d2de7987f635ff400449882e3579b58
3000bc910a1db5dc3ecd279526fcb1de9477154d
51398 F20101209_AABPPW obrien_e_Page_050.pro
fe7b602750d87a0f4a4808076a597e7e
3a20ed48cee411c86ba8f3af4f7a86c66fc10b7b
2016 F20101209_AABPRA obrien_e_Page_018.txt
1a12b6f0b08eb3ba2a95d721e98bfc7d
26ec0deec3db78433fbb0af4087045231299d7ed
41186 F20101209_AABPQM obrien_e_Page_086.pro
74705759c341c7dd4947e7036d5933bd
65568a8423bfcf34d6f8f76d6602cbc6aca2b187
48342 F20101209_AABPPX obrien_e_Page_051.pro
2e5572be2c075c7bcf64b83b9475d336
3933eb9e1b8d280acc0485d3aba14cf35f9e5d96
1887 F20101209_AABPRB obrien_e_Page_023.txt
9f68daaa81b089ab7293b649892a8a99
f08684a0cac991a797c84b587fc75e59dbb73db6
9377 F20101209_AABPQN obrien_e_Page_090.pro
aba3543289920d13047916ddc15b031a
18c5e5bd729c5997d8620ee3ef469d7729a688ba
43566 F20101209_AABPPY obrien_e_Page_053.pro
38cfc8f30b045bc0e5c680fcde560bc9
698d4c4c8fa77d23a1986d3db8192f50134053c0
1843 F20101209_AABPRC obrien_e_Page_024.txt
7f0d7bab0253a338d72d773d269c9eb7
4331b68dee2649fea1a5e531f94da10a3994dd83
40578 F20101209_AABPQO obrien_e_Page_094.pro
91222765a7841e7d3a7251a18a7a5f87
b7039747f0b37ea7afd54ff45783cad1f881fbf2
49902 F20101209_AABPPZ obrien_e_Page_056.pro
38ad32c5a52eb74838eb0bf6723d2049
4279e28a3bcb81b330206bbfcd9169ebcf9f9287
2009 F20101209_AABPRD obrien_e_Page_025.txt
2c8cb2fa86164cf9af1e7bcb31e9353e
5bc687fac38b41de4f8402a728f36c20c9c5e768
46457 F20101209_AABPQP obrien_e_Page_095.pro
7a5f1094d142eef10467b7884948a119
27dcb2f8fe05c5cec3a90b715fd22f368d1f35ef
1926 F20101209_AABPRE obrien_e_Page_027.txt
2bfd290595ebcc1df3beef54ba8bc007
04ecf52e179795c87aaca711a1fe42fe39cf8cab
2139 F20101209_AABPRF obrien_e_Page_029.txt
ed5df0702e58479e2588aca7fb901df5
ca82dac0c613113387bdf29f2bd6559416c1728d
40299 F20101209_AABPQQ obrien_e_Page_097.pro
0c12a11c5085c824ecfa8d450e0770b8
628d54976050fedbf9250b63343e46862db46aec
2024 F20101209_AABPRG obrien_e_Page_031.txt
faff78be05e45114cff743d9eb2bdf7a
d3ab1f9d71c6a9f93d8a9349322b5bc01280d11e
32425 F20101209_AABPQR obrien_e_Page_098.pro
b1ee4d39aebedea1733da7f892637f19
0f03ede3c3b15d353aa2a08cc79cbb6b2421477e
1941 F20101209_AABPRH obrien_e_Page_032.txt
22e9a025b1e77bd4507837dfe2f038d8
80a07b80c62d764a1a04c07e0f4dea9a821f740a
30989 F20101209_AABPQS obrien_e_Page_102.pro
82bc2248eac4a05fa14ac4c552d263d0
c7d9053185f91ce3a4e52d0ada2f15eb0c0c218d
1927 F20101209_AABPRI obrien_e_Page_033.txt
69b0c87e1c2da875e029fe7304222a46
61b342e6477f7703062d4a7dc168064b50f1ef6e
59811 F20101209_AABPQT obrien_e_Page_103.pro
ae600545c8994a192a22ad632b9ab54a
3798803de6487540d0f520ba84e2d8d8fa477964
1913 F20101209_AABPRJ obrien_e_Page_034.txt
b4284992e79f96d025e65fd1eda02aec
76bf20f640ec1dea1a53b108e16c00ec983abfc7
1055 F20101209_AABPQU obrien_e_Page_003.txt
15b7238c97ec1f1f60162c3f3e20bf60
3905f613d30c629be08fc940f72d7fa24d8a4fa0
1598 F20101209_AABPRK obrien_e_Page_040.txt
333bd6813d3c278a919926ce77ae0963
601bb88ef71e206dd52b5e5669ba6bc8229ad062
4219 F20101209_AABPQV obrien_e_Page_005.txt
590ed3e7ffeea564bdeff70c4aa9b622
893383542ab116648f3ba96fce18390e81c57abe
2025 F20101209_AABPRL obrien_e_Page_041.txt
7b629bd20746e999bcbea8347bff9cb3
bf44b97ffe8546b5f579626f14b352c4c6ac17d2
1760 F20101209_AABPQW obrien_e_Page_007.txt
0181c2ce9d8edc046148a023c23beabb
075b4fa4e23b350f24a87210a0979a96a75ef475
1100 F20101209_AABPRM obrien_e_Page_042.txt
16f4bf6a907b60da4da3dd762a7017a2
719f3d75b6dab3c03e3df8d0e8cc6295d89bc1fd
1848 F20101209_AABPQX obrien_e_Page_013.txt
e7b87c75c5284c8bae16bc85549947fe
f9753a5ea0136ec950be5662a80a12913b6d355c
1998 F20101209_AABPSA obrien_e_Page_063.txt
4fb046bd1df33a301c95301274790353
861f05de63f9a63472dc15dc27da2a982cc0c09c
1996 F20101209_AABPRN obrien_e_Page_044.txt
562cf293f2d225961e46cc183291ca75
f3ea1421bfd093add1bd78da00d827bdeaefc5d2
1695 F20101209_AABPQY obrien_e_Page_014.txt
4cbc16dd52726265ac3cbab492ef076b
ace509cfab8303b6f7530b18ca7e8ec149611edd
1864 F20101209_AABPSB obrien_e_Page_066.txt
4aca85dc5d374ac0383cd0cd4a3550ec
e9c4990f3c75dc29e3c1f682058ffef50cba8f1f
1991 F20101209_AABPRO obrien_e_Page_045.txt
9e0f57a8c2101ea203bbb827d10eea6e
58986ba3c37e54df4a89a768654fc88ad3da3e36
1459 F20101209_AABPQZ obrien_e_Page_016.txt
c1cb80530aa8bb3ad6b9950f6d69c8fc
8d4c4b33a99ba0acd3cd0dd1d3766ddfc593e571
2037 F20101209_AABPSC obrien_e_Page_067.txt
de2bd50731b17ea2c8e7bf1bde983f3b
83187e53dae6eaa055df84a562c605d8e095b112
1949 F20101209_AABPRP obrien_e_Page_047.txt
00eeb47d75ad2c8925b8119ff18856f4
7138bee82bd059ba001b825f54df1515553992b7
1752 F20101209_AABPSD obrien_e_Page_068.txt
740318d56820fa0bee23ddd792720a88
e2946108ef038867da64bf39cd288d5c7deec9e6
F20101209_AABPRQ obrien_e_Page_048.txt
727729626a247c7c49aeb9f068499edb
825044dc9db8894f09187e24bb2800a0153ce7ee
1937 F20101209_AABPSE obrien_e_Page_069.txt
72588f16309d27e06addfdb8ba8c205e
d07585c65ab32900f95a258d26c712ed30df8d0c
F20101209_AABPSF obrien_e_Page_070.txt
416c7fa73570bd64beb59f314b54e929
d2374805ed36b33c52d8a8e8e75ef72ae8ce4821
F20101209_AABPRR obrien_e_Page_050.txt
d8012eb91362b2265223c959e64d6173
753902b2ffe4d38ff9a1f96778e808465c4d7b4c
1972 F20101209_AABPSG obrien_e_Page_073.txt
873d969523caaa1b530bc281b348e418
8c751db51e15b53605d7c612901996d3a9baa882
1903 F20101209_AABPRS obrien_e_Page_051.txt
d09bdb7e6377b881fc8042e26bee325e
fd5c31aa14cd42fd58eafc1695f8abfb2eff7895
1406 F20101209_AABPSH obrien_e_Page_076.txt
c57e35c4b18194cddd1f44864a1938cb
a2b1a9f26c971008712e5d32b52e9c80b1084746
1740 F20101209_AABPRT obrien_e_Page_052.txt
e2687e8b411e009c7a08b3f9404fb428
7e1f710d836173ac13a42fb9e9c34ef65a2a6f91
411 F20101209_AABPSI obrien_e_Page_079.txt
e7f7a21a7ad61e4d7c38a24617f489e4
dc93ea9ac35ddcfecbf305f656b535f6c56dcdc5
2071 F20101209_AABPRU obrien_e_Page_057.txt
1966bc5134eed1fa310e5e3bc4f903ec
a58038bf26a88175b9335a34adc972e355d2c145
475 F20101209_AABPSJ obrien_e_Page_080.txt
30120927f0d37a78f802ed02461a73e6
629d62442379759955e2d0b87ee866e1908aabeb
1790 F20101209_AABPRV obrien_e_Page_058.txt
e78efbdbda23c87e8dd6c3b6e4605cff
a44baec48a2c8dac45d1a1aaa681372c696994e8
880 F20101209_AABPSK obrien_e_Page_081.txt
4722109b7f0c7f2f6ab75405a26fbabd
06301b091026e216101f9b0c8743e0be63f276c8
2014 F20101209_AABPRW obrien_e_Page_059.txt
6efb92e59c8b7218b9b31d8da2979bba
1b8b4c17aa883dc14c83a4566f0822089d21d786
588 F20101209_AABPSL obrien_e_Page_083.txt
52d7dc91c932f3c5225140c8fa4322b5
eff8a3269667729eb0373c4583e2d57787f0b53c
1970 F20101209_AABPRX obrien_e_Page_060.txt
4a31195a9f44dc7b2361d9bfe0b1fcd1
7644ec392bec15a5ad881da16a34b00c3a962f35
4708 F20101209_AABPTA obrien_e_Page_007thm.jpg
81c4430b5cd7c3b4afda21f4182d93f2
8fc2e7d6c4d3b32fee8723b5ade93f501fbfa583
544 F20101209_AABPSM obrien_e_Page_084.txt
63d9a7129bcf781e0fb6cd9d643f48fd
144f23dcc53aab4953f1e136af5e6540aa6df6ea
2090 F20101209_AABPRY obrien_e_Page_061.txt
5c037775e88eeb659f5c76167333c3c8
008d2fa9882eacf3ce1bc87e400f11fe3752df0e
23595 F20101209_AABPTB obrien_e_Page_055.QC.jpg
147a155f0aaa221f103713bc92d990b2
b3867d2705de245b892d93173660dd01551d4a98
547 F20101209_AABPSN obrien_e_Page_085.txt
b0ee3ee211740381204189c5938269ff
05a0c67476ad2ea0ef5423b6dddee05fd4e9a3fb
1993 F20101209_AABPRZ obrien_e_Page_062.txt
90cd14d5afd522cb1937310096282c2d
f955ddfb13f8aea640a6cd702aba27dfa899f081
3091 F20101209_AABPTC obrien_e_Page_083thm.jpg
10f0aa44dbb6098fd0357fbf89245785
cd91f735b3149bce15895924f8fd97326acadedf
1748 F20101209_AABPSO obrien_e_Page_086.txt
b56c5c293157c80ce74d7c3c780225de
ee9152e639120fd956fc894fbfdcc22c11e2a330
15883 F20101209_AABPTD obrien_e_Page_008.QC.jpg
c18f4b66f80f228856ec3b5471707745
4733e01bd8b2d213855f8f06531318c73730600b
F20101209_AABPSP obrien_e_Page_087.txt
9828211420c4443f7b3f4f803fda3388
3684f5f7f8af4c1243feecb596cc96d05a96a350
5162 F20101209_AABPTE obrien_e_Page_093thm.jpg
a478508b7e997791acb7232eba16bef4
e9b1d29c035788d5693eade5b88b2bef0866e88e
318 F20101209_AABPSQ obrien_e_Page_092.txt
19c24a9fc7a7e782b62aa3d29da3bc02
aa6f5936c06a42f1d8e234225285dfbc94557ac9
5624 F20101209_AABPTF obrien_e_Page_073thm.jpg
7e88fd21bfb03571b80dbc58b173ff1f
e1ec75509746295a4cf74795c0a1db8379d833e1
F20101209_AABPSR obrien_e_Page_093.txt
4f0e20f0ceca49054213b427d2d1d4bb
62833ac7bf8b8dd1748fdd6c6c4b4fcea1158883
5128 F20101209_AABPTG obrien_e_Page_035thm.jpg
3a883517531c9a86749b106a101ab330
c5b0dd12290ff1b89232dbef005e348b7228b491
6587 F20101209_AABPTH obrien_e_Page_059thm.jpg
0e00000f83e58bbfd63dd06e271ab6d6
10f2e72e0e83b84b438db8ca35615dfbe9843167
1931 F20101209_AABPSS obrien_e_Page_095.txt
d1ed52f4fa32622af919f0509d0b308c
f6599fb880d7f1063cb37c80effb65151bd29bd1
22957 F20101209_AABPTI obrien_e_Page_024.QC.jpg
6e071f2295317ed7ea8fffdb3aba3dab
912ae8bc3cad1ca74116ae404e1da8389e8a4a71
1392 F20101209_AABPST obrien_e_Page_098.txt
b0c37efed0ea0dacc09f58fe5389d513
ec809cc6e052b68fefbb25e84daedf3148a2599b
1770 F20101209_AABPTJ obrien_e_Page_010thm.jpg
2110bdf3ca0fb07c63b48b62802c3dc1
58797a7133b37642c3c2035792d0b629be750025
2169 F20101209_AABPSU obrien_e_Page_101.txt
d185fb48a988ad03ce3db1fe5fee0205
a47d2f7e51e22801addcf92215763b4aaa18a314
6360 F20101209_AABPTK obrien_e_Page_051thm.jpg
95dd9231f728cd7d35be01d9748efaa9
e8674f2e978d7cd860f712484cf7507d809a520b
1981 F20101209_AABPSV obrien_e_Page_105.txt
e6e47b33b94acca36ad1d4b9cb9e3aed
60477fb5515225c89dc5e7e18a7176c94373c637
5915 F20101209_AABPTL obrien_e_Page_086thm.jpg
0a735ffd8eff51cd9a72fb5354c13d93
c38c630212526c3d757f295ed65f4b3c73b8e039
254 F20101209_AABPSW obrien_e_Page_108.txt
acc372d5aaa7145cdce11a6790e0022c
2c0c8510a3c2e295e09c1187e6cdff8157f01258
5639 F20101209_AABPUA obrien_e_Page_014thm.jpg
c8dc958014baaef89dc38cb3a72b8ca5
41d4e17baed146eb3a12f7b3e105b8e9b7461483
6588 F20101209_AABPTM obrien_e_Page_090.QC.jpg
86efbbc59711611af17f3711f401cfea
165fd26c1293bd306db2aa99cc808e653b657b65
21144 F20101209_AABPSX obrien_e_Page_012.QC.jpg
af07501b7c879abd9f6a269d358f5bbb
4774ecee7d5b62f5b99c7247e0cfd1e39437290c
17882 F20101209_AABPUB obrien_e_Page_016.QC.jpg
0772097144b3c893f72d3b99b19adb04
5e6f071404d6442dca5d738c39f28c0b7729d121
5367 F20101209_AABPTN obrien_e_Page_040thm.jpg
f03a010f0fb98c635d9f251c08a24de9
e8f0312071c23c3a1e49f4ddf193b5b074d515c9
5999 F20101209_AABPSY obrien_e_Page_046thm.jpg
820fd3e1d628d57cca9d6fb2e8635654
b3007064410eb1b151469ddf47a07f248e8877ec
22660 F20101209_AABPUC obrien_e_Page_017.QC.jpg
b35eede9af6fa160058ac385b144ee8f
f73d6114ea226f26b5e11f1a30306533266969a1
5377 F20101209_AABPTO obrien_e_Page_036thm.jpg
099a8cacd31c883b9a5f3002aa1a2964
46260d638397e75bb058239ed54daa1513bd59b2
5518 F20101209_AABPSZ obrien_e_Page_101thm.jpg
3fd5601601fca233e62edc97c579808f
1767345551bf21c579cb313b740908ee56f7430b
6523 F20101209_AABPUD obrien_e_Page_017thm.jpg
693beaa001db0fe167a5f76a58e64c86
499452958555d5ea871ec027a4ba0ea3a1a93e43
8720 F20101209_AABPTP obrien_e_Page_081.QC.jpg
9fb4f8c43a9cf210c5f4b682e5b70017
5e41a0a2ad711a5316200d2836c44062eaaed77b
22794 F20101209_AABPUE obrien_e_Page_019.QC.jpg
e08b80eaf79f05e6ad4f03313234c21b
31063fad2bec675944fd857b56dbe04a048c80c4
18825 F20101209_AABPTQ obrien_e_Page_075.QC.jpg
d3ad213c0410db0d8725d863d1c49c98
24763ced7b5f847efef81878382ee8e3427a0b53
6411 F20101209_AABPUF obrien_e_Page_019thm.jpg
f2db2d205f082d3852313ffe9bc0a0c9
789920638e33e7d6079307e20d407044470d1162
6453 F20101209_AABPTR obrien_e_Page_038thm.jpg
8202f07b5bef37aecaca981cdcc290bc
12ad1ebef4c935101b38031e6481d99b3cc934e7
22389 F20101209_AABPUG obrien_e_Page_021.QC.jpg
9fb9836de157cb11c3ceb61f8abbbda6
85b95ae5e6fd03ef34d84dd7c2b95e356cba4a63
6518 F20101209_AABPTS obrien_e_Page_045thm.jpg
0574eeb018b8f89e75b49f5a1f3f2ff9
66c269141e50a1e4d81c57cd01ad9dd4ec059b75
6399 F20101209_AABPUH obrien_e_Page_021thm.jpg
ed9beb491c76169852ec37552eb4e567
7ecad82f15530de14b88fa03860d33fb68a61080
6280 F20101209_AABPUI obrien_e_Page_023thm.jpg
f3020718a83b4bcbde20fa08aade1856
348d5aea1c6f9d91f58fca8d6b021e4752700fd0
20066 F20101209_AABPTT obrien_e_Page_073.QC.jpg
b1190a6417513de3832f7f23c3daa7d6
8d1c2fb4d983074e41253d44da6ebfce2ed719f4
23473 F20101209_AABPUJ obrien_e_Page_027.QC.jpg
3d606025db8bd54c101c4ac8ba9370a3
dd5d2ee5631802043e7eb1a16856a3e62ef80f64
19475 F20101209_AABPTU obrien_e_Page_094.QC.jpg
dca3a9dc805f14dbaae3b85ff11244be
e9cfaf1d73f5ab8afc43e50f38b59c70dcf9d809
21910 F20101209_AABPUK obrien_e_Page_028.QC.jpg
1e242f4277f9f68747624acc0c438adf
e911759f6f98a00c575fbac7b2f6a29655ded6be
163976 F20101209_AABPTV UFE0014324_00001.xml
0c1f8ee88dce15b2289c5cf32dc72b83
cf872caaf1b95566921f732998f43ff4be4d078c
4431 F20101209_AABPTW obrien_e_Page_004thm.jpg
85714d744d96111da3c07921d5428a1c
995562863743ad5cdf05b89ab00e13d1917d06e6
24450 F20101209_AABPUL obrien_e_Page_029.QC.jpg
3d7991164913850e8797709aab8ac93d
f226cd1d417f3572ad99890ea930c4f9896c0c29
23886 F20101209_AABPTX obrien_e_Page_005.QC.jpg
6b9109914afd7540e276ece0a0d0bebc
9d4d3bab30236d4965a43e5fbaefc649da35425c
5719 F20101209_AABPVA obrien_e_Page_053thm.jpg
9055cbe6371f4abcf6da7a87d6a04460
695773e89f215ebb34eb0560e6650e5eaafbb602
25100 F20101209_AABPUM obrien_e_Page_031.QC.jpg
703706ae59de5d9087e5069ff2e9128a
36ba6d144e3d84ba0c843f08d4883e64bf31c596
18993 F20101209_AABPTY obrien_e_Page_009.QC.jpg
764743e10fe33ed8d1f48d278064288c
44281e1774f3847e261cc57afa5427c658b8f48f
21124 F20101209_AABPVB obrien_e_Page_054.QC.jpg
48c468f7bfef60460f8b0aac22e1e179
cc26cb5b4334f1a82c79076a06cde5d255bc1267
7118 F20101209_AABPUN obrien_e_Page_031thm.jpg
9308e929d144abec96dd6547c0a2adad
b240598010bfd5e04917bb2b2bdda8d72e7dea9a
5970 F20101209_AABPTZ obrien_e_Page_013thm.jpg
db6c9d6711d8865ba32de257843e2b06
fffc17f2a12adbe249883069b925993fe02a66bc
6599 F20101209_AABPVC obrien_e_Page_055thm.jpg
f127c8069c187d6581474750d08fc611
fbf029969b13963c6123e9326176786919a3ef67
6316 F20101209_AABPUO obrien_e_Page_034thm.jpg
91b1b51c180cbf20f3d08b0599907d9a
1aa3c858b92b21e1891ef9f53a28465b1f16392e
6614 F20101209_AABPVD obrien_e_Page_056thm.jpg
064c4dd373d60ee6398d45a78a470f6b
9cc4aa4db1843427240099c8d01ce730da7eed64
18748 F20101209_AABPUP obrien_e_Page_035.QC.jpg
79fa0effd8ac67f5ff2e629eee3fbaa6
a56325394813240d55076d653485beb06d06109b
24560 F20101209_AABPVE obrien_e_Page_057.QC.jpg
fb92489cfe632560d44634574f0cf279
3acbf5712a3c693467a8c66580095a0cad28d506
23949 F20101209_AABPUQ obrien_e_Page_038.QC.jpg
54c2c5378bdeddccb79bf61ed4a59426
5c95ba5c1eec92c86f798a89a2588f915b5b83f5
6331 F20101209_AABPVF obrien_e_Page_060thm.jpg
9c109e90847c31c1cac17f5115306186
342cd741c9faa044703b35d152a8d2929ee65d7a
14355 F20101209_AABPUR obrien_e_Page_042.QC.jpg
69c1eb45e30d0042b7a26fabb1d4d629
c3078b3b5ddd902c461755316127f91d2bebd44b
24413 F20101209_AABPVG obrien_e_Page_061.QC.jpg
bb85aedf42be53e0838ce81a68d76091
4e84279682bf9eb2fc88e98d92b432641177f375
4066 F20101209_AABPUS obrien_e_Page_042thm.jpg
ee11630d421356ec6645c30067e2c092
7bfdbb8d7e7021a1a2a81ba56f82d7709b1285da
23760 F20101209_AABPVH obrien_e_Page_062.QC.jpg
f45f6ed441dc4642df8529cc0794e2da
055d89b3ca84e2569d5e9f62b9a51bbe000f53d1
4896 F20101209_AABPUT obrien_e_Page_043thm.jpg
863c3353c2d21250aa9df35b1a64e734
5a40f6af5b1dddd40a46ed518a5f67121767b68a
6605 F20101209_AABPVI obrien_e_Page_064thm.jpg
5db1efb1568c08f9ec65353aaf9d45ff
5ab2e236e7ede07c375433fb1be2d44500a9e4f1
22429 F20101209_AABPVJ obrien_e_Page_065.QC.jpg
28a12792f2198bdcae0bfaa8c2d03d8c
5662c91a8a6701776cd6f10ce59facb2490cc43c
21658 F20101209_AABPUU obrien_e_Page_046.QC.jpg
de6d4c686a42e9a71fee3480d5122802
cc1b3ec22d8e0c62571ce80e56defbaa5ff1f332
6437 F20101209_AABPVK obrien_e_Page_065thm.jpg
fe0ffd2f3887bc5521628d082a956d8c
e72a2edfe68dc1d1bdd2582b42245a5323a5a436
22909 F20101209_AABPUV obrien_e_Page_047.QC.jpg
c49d209eabe4ec8a4ac3828b18cfce53
08750e863b694b6d93b889abd30677fb448ae730
6301 F20101209_AABPVL obrien_e_Page_066thm.jpg
766709fdb06d3c834f3be45258dfff49
21d95350240f927c27a60c1e797adf8a0e1f5dae
5926 F20101209_AABPUW obrien_e_Page_049thm.jpg
cbfd90f37c4bc3fb5222d79ea6282133
edf8e1afc477d6863f2b08e351befddafb10594c
23043 F20101209_AABPWA obrien_e_Page_088.QC.jpg
f5c9e21322637ad67a490ef87f70949e
f832d1e6b471285cf97b9a3f731440354e646f3d
6432 F20101209_AABPVM obrien_e_Page_067thm.jpg
0f83b5b59cfe1d853724e03a57cbab25
00a40967546a497afd7d1fdc1e1431c43f5876e5
24020 F20101209_AABPUX obrien_e_Page_050.QC.jpg
591e22912c8ff9f75d2708c78cecf622
fc33528c35ebbbfc44e7e33d4245387f508afa6f
6720 F20101209_AABPWB obrien_e_Page_089thm.jpg
cea154853d2893cc176706c79f7a9924
d4b83ea32ce807634e7a2abb916e55e2976bfdbe
20937 F20101209_AABPVN obrien_e_Page_068.QC.jpg
5cfc2824209bed084de8a0d7448bfbaa
cba5551581073c4ad5f6db984a99dbfc2f83b2fe
20864 F20101209_AABPUY obrien_e_Page_052.QC.jpg
f94f70880ea26edd00a98849a75d285d
5e8d8ce191d8db6ecd7b6289f9a409cf76a61bdd
2292 F20101209_AABPWC obrien_e_Page_090thm.jpg
7371d8a8b054eeb755b86f706fee764a
318673588acc4fd6a392c3b507cb176574effc2e
22807 F20101209_AABPVO obrien_e_Page_070.QC.jpg
4dec10e763d96fb51c0dd42519f9c2a0
18a4d44fb096d63c7bb510ac9b686cedf3d86d39
6087 F20101209_AABPUZ obrien_e_Page_052thm.jpg
622bdbf9bcc477936088919f95043e3a
756a9de09368188958bd0884488104305ffe7667
9291 F20101209_AABPWD obrien_e_Page_092.QC.jpg
99de9488c7a3975a7468411fe34a86d2
151a48fa3d7b4f83c7f2c9960bc9e8da7a6b2e20
3651 F20101209_AABPVP obrien_e_Page_071thm.jpg
778acd6b268304c579732f06e07432f7
77c68b679ef46eb38e8870dfb02e128c5ec9412b
2844 F20101209_AABPWE obrien_e_Page_092thm.jpg
2f609565fc2745b36b730034c845b748
3a0aac56278d0edc4d6787941eb08b36ec55cb58
6888 F20101209_AABPVQ obrien_e_Page_072.QC.jpg
41ed7eeafbaa672b0b4ce8d3a658bc6e
8c00803898aba45456d6ee5876ed71be2dcc856f
5877 F20101209_AABPWF obrien_e_Page_094thm.jpg
ca9686e1925ed1cd1b4b856e78e6a692
8e8c429090ca4ee6572359e6dfd10bd82b7a622b
15814 F20101209_AABPVR obrien_e_Page_074.QC.jpg
ddfc4a72d037816bf63d3caaa3ed5c59
afdfca08b51be570dba23779b7b9d45d1e4e5b14
21751 F20101209_AABPWG obrien_e_Page_095.QC.jpg
801e39e2b4da8baf9fbc9f70e0cebeca
6b6ae36f7701285e067abc0d0aa045d84a96d0e2
18336 F20101209_AABPVS obrien_e_Page_076.QC.jpg
762fafb8da9f74ae86ef4a20b6598f93
fddac51e686be07a4718ebd7816dd016fd9f996f
F20101209_AABOTF obrien_e_Page_082.tif
88a7bc3673282524f3ab2a6037fa126c
0586ec2cf58a77d609a3b536fad72047c7d8a253
21378 F20101209_AABPWH obrien_e_Page_096.QC.jpg
aef9b3fad7ba7d0566ba48147b9b7400
46897a0af3ac6633bb997212ae2a525bcd7a6e43
18074 F20101209_AABPVT obrien_e_Page_077.QC.jpg
ac691551c0dc8510aa5813f720bc3f63
5d111a5027c6765cd981a15d909b3f9fd416b40d
415 F20101209_AABOTG obrien_e_Page_090.txt
e9e809a3bf855bf40e5a7789a9c594ee
66ad27d0d2b3fac4b891b798ff3cebcec4805131
5872 F20101209_AABPWI obrien_e_Page_096thm.jpg
e208a6020af1b1bb9a50882b9f538302
e6de9442a5e3a198c8537a797e5d8769b4082e45
11502 F20101209_AABPVU obrien_e_Page_078.QC.jpg
fdc7b6bc6e335f5523cde9078541c159
96997cfeb79aed8e65f3b781dffc21ac3cc3174b
10208 F20101209_AABOTH obrien_e_Page_084.pro
a5aa39e00487f54dbf73b05e927a4156
b410d1635641a211b24a642b0a20b7c41c3342cf
19438 F20101209_AABPWJ obrien_e_Page_097.QC.jpg
cef5cf1003e0cef134e9cd9000e98f31
0d66e958ba0e141ae5d4bd1e13e1c9b3745d2ece
45086 F20101209_AABOTI obrien_e_Page_058.pro
5321239ae35e6502d6f5457851d32640
6f5cb3162f7b7e2c85c2bf7bc060a21b5e5e431d
9926 F20101209_AABPWK obrien_e_Page_099.QC.jpg
b67a70653b34a0e661ec9f79bb37a1a8
71469f1a4a6022e626c50125191ef13f876de7b5
4933 F20101209_AABPVV obrien_e_Page_079thm.jpg
8b2f86bba329c6f57668939cbe990e90
db47623b1b8f5da8702bdb338cf4f3272ee1bd7d
23270 F20101209_AABOTJ obrien_e_Page_060.QC.jpg
b6920ef4399729e06b28822525254a0d
050dc5d57ebb58eeea953efc4b01c2b2f4b27b1f
3542 F20101209_AABPWL obrien_e_Page_100thm.jpg
bc458497c527c8abdbf48d0156ea11d5
50f4e51e198c764d0a67daf727efdd9cbb05d8c5
11012 F20101209_AABPVW obrien_e_Page_080.QC.jpg
25f92eee7f576e83a882a6e7cc51d4fa
4e719444513ef6b0932f59ce2dab76ffc0007691
F20101209_AABOTK obrien_e_Page_064.tif
3b1b395a95c9ec9bcba7bbf431e6b4ab
62b01eafff1ce13fba7e6b4d13b4f43a9db7ae52
23519 F20101209_AABPWM obrien_e_Page_101.QC.jpg
09047576f3869ba95cafe835a9aaf311
d4ae093f2b857ed592419be7c7e68a17e191aca6
3644 F20101209_AABPVX obrien_e_Page_080thm.jpg
71f4dc7674418da4740da67ad081fd85
e924df70124170057f9c488cd13f3d3a277c1b1c
50425 F20101209_AABOTL obrien_e_Page_025.pro
e4a211384e09d7fea6bad165ec8ba65a
57017839aafa505e712b0d32b21afc12138fff64
25338 F20101209_AABPWN obrien_e_Page_103.QC.jpg
a68d73d159aa35d72a7a95f5458d12e3
0a3b34b24a6a9426ac403b329585f73f32d12f00
10774 F20101209_AABPVY obrien_e_Page_085.QC.jpg
a433722bdb3b8bcfb497859367edfaa8
25ca73f964863eb31a39b256c07f0a1d2d09ed03
24365 F20101209_AABOTM obrien_e_Page_059.QC.jpg
0d353a36fd668e44744cd8791209be09
362db48940b3f1f1f409ded632bde295836be1d1
7578 F20101209_AABPWO obrien_e_Page_104.QC.jpg
5cb8d0b55891221483fe5bf052e8656b
30ee45e1c9a36ff1f900a0cf44f69d6544a7ccb1
25703 F20101209_AABPVZ obrien_e_Page_087.QC.jpg
f7dbca08fac974ea6aa1ab6ccd8fd249
8a0a5b97ef046b1184337f53dfa9280ecc0aeb3d
22922 F20101209_AABOUA obrien_e_Page_100.pro
4340a95c67e4fea53d4c32d47ddd96cb
74e47d1a5851efedc09291d8701bdc66fd890ea4
52723 F20101209_AABOTN obrien_e_Page_057.pro
f156cc6880e55c6378f9f09f2d647b7c
aacebea21641d37486390cec9a6ff9ff5a0cb14b
6513 F20101209_AABPWP obrien_e_Page_106thm.jpg
c10f6fa819605e41be5c118c8133c474
9aa61d58ca8af4b7a4347f2e6b8012d0c0667d5d
F20101209_AABOUB obrien_e_Page_026.tif
ba59339b5a6d8ffb728a4e2f2779a7c2
528e97bc9147802883fe1cc2218a5904bb6fc674
7197 F20101209_AABOTO obrien_e_Page_022thm.jpg
b9c2675f51d0f5f528e1820f6ce400fd
c7daefe7fc18fb46882b83efb04b8aad4004388a
25678 F20101209_AABPWQ obrien_e_Page_107.QC.jpg
c2c778b8947b8f2e3c93c71bf75456cd
e415c0199b685208e42f84547fdb71e71ab4e6c2
40500 F20101209_AABOUC obrien_e_Page_014.pro
317e47f6d67635f5301994c10dcf2465
21628a7d1530858071987a7addae771fe2eb12f2
F20101209_AABOTP obrien_e_Page_098.tif
0815777e7cd951441c4595b293133054
55c357cb3d1c9a1ead373f5adf42a32303dc21f3
6637 F20101209_AABPWR obrien_e_Page_107thm.jpg
c5be0a133d510fd5aa7898e840f64f9c
93772bb338facc01964d78d76d598eb04af2421a
F20101209_AABOUD obrien_e_Page_102.tif
73fa176a71394918146b84e676205fa7
6ece18591a2b2177da72303a8b0f15c74e375ba9
21619 F20101209_AABOTQ obrien_e_Page_037.QC.jpg
6774fe4e875e33ad05177e4f7f4c5bd6
b9417735b0db4c4e9b02bfec9d1f5b6e9e879449
3153 F20101209_AABPWS obrien_e_Page_109thm.jpg
34d15ef0a2a2f277619a348a494029e6
190ad21cd85a24061cbbd75ab7a98aaeb8abb3e7
48761 F20101209_AABOUE obrien_e_Page_021.pro
6f088f782aa052543fbaa0e6c2230848
50d28e3f65c5d23e63bbb3a03be6db4f72acc1b0
F20101209_AABOTR obrien_e_Page_085.tif
87fcf6e92c09083308ea53b59ce959f5
3c91ded0b614d5969bb6e6e157f187f950ba9769
1433 F20101209_AABOUF obrien_e_Page_102.txt
e959985c7a5c739e358f49c5a27a308d
82020a022767f44fba9e14293f65faa5b85c0efb
F20101209_AABOTS obrien_e_Page_065.tif
31f515ef9c2978a2e54425eeada338fb
066841a47c10725ba99b8d35ece8a09e5f219634
109347 F20101209_AABPAA obrien_e_Page_055.jp2
9fe81e38150dd47c0b439382108e33a7
35267c20a5475500af81098d66b8ad1f8c5dc930
F20101209_AABOUG obrien_e_Page_017.tif
8bf6ebab83993ac9c6d80ffe3025feff
bd8019ea49f112e40621f7f721ae8021a0e2e2b8
108512 F20101209_AABOTT obrien_e_Page_044.jp2
76a80710197c5b1fd3b524724e5e193c
84509870c5b7f7f5ab19d78aa9729b381a290253
71140 F20101209_AABPAB obrien_e_Page_088.jpg
3865b9147ba0a44c8e1f6dce616ae0d8
e56f9703dc551e4e2c687abc90acf6e28a30d034
24926 F20101209_AABOUH obrien_e_Page_018.QC.jpg
90d7470b0ed36fc6201eabd5825569a6
8f7d6d5451d40c2916d9532e8263eae47520d70f
F20101209_AABPAC obrien_e_Page_058.tif
e9c59ededb5cbbb9c490ac52bd37ce27
8dc788fbd34d1bc89e26c4104c4514014bb12abe
37463 F20101209_AABOUI obrien_e_Page_035.pro
ea5e76f42fdc3cffbbd47df5b3262171
b9d4f25e81ba301f0ff69e1ac2fa41296dcdd92f
F20101209_AABOTU obrien_e_Page_087.tif
1f1531568d7384e8a38a6bb05ddd1ae3
a1d775cad2669bbe867583978078772e5a6e8e25
F20101209_AABPAD obrien_e_Page_019.tif
16f04584be3bb7af97efb76b4fd78be7
b855bacf096a925df106cad52739ecb6409ebe2c
49883 F20101209_AABOUJ obrien_e_Page_088.pro
eec8f15c007af6c3fafbe87f926e6f11
4bebbafec7995a1f2857653943ca15b3b22da671
107369 F20101209_AABOTV obrien_e_Page_069.jp2
4729bee9f60afb8992cb9aab275b6c71
6236f8df14ad31346a7bb74ba438c22eb3abc2d6
92569 F20101209_AABPAE obrien_e_Page_086.jp2
e4d2aed66c28a53b3174e511105b7617
24cff9b2224928d485412f8c62637755c12292db
3475 F20101209_AABOUK obrien_e_Page_085thm.jpg
ea0e7657c492397c70bf541186a1b4a8
ed93752e1fb1b0fcca2ee05edcbd5c63bb0b1d16
4947 F20101209_AABOTW obrien_e_Page_010.QC.jpg
5c9a45e4059141dd445027babdcdc82c
80c7ffd3a3268b19d941723a9df0d52ef90548c6
22430 F20101209_AABPAF obrien_e_Page_020.QC.jpg
0ae8f2882028fdbc444898b6aae94fcc
d2974b6b3c8b33f28fe744b0ef1742f6b431cf85
464361 F20101209_AABOUL obrien_e.pdf
22d549408e1af313d480e89466298192
4c33d2369694d20e13d13c6a0cd90a84c045691b
F20101209_AABOTX obrien_e_Page_066.tif
459a9fb982260a1190b58dbad9cf191f
f8284005fb6c1883e079050f965a291858d5aef4
59404 F20101209_AABPAG obrien_e_Page_097.jpg
209af9829c52278a5e3bc4efb54953b6
2165425d7560d007e67d8331f841cb815742b17f
19097 F20101209_AABOVA obrien_e_Page_026.QC.jpg
cd0a4cf97c26b6b4e811e0170f3c87b0
1ac7008c20d9accae0e5ba4053374191bb17a18c
1051985 F20101209_AABOUM obrien_e_Page_007.jp2
249b6a505d10cdf70911ef43cadc1eb2
974edaf5dd97bc8d802fe6ef0610dc22384784ae
49195 F20101209_AABPAH obrien_e_Page_017.pro
c404873645fa5c7ae936f6e46c8eed85
7abfaee6c4d658faa105c46c4f41a6ed5f10cda5
76781 F20101209_AABOVB obrien_e_Page_038.jpg
31f2129c1a19ba18bcdf866360e9332c
e1b25311dcb35a9e875e30e2a6075a289937d9e7
12085 F20101209_AABOUN obrien_e_Page_104.pro
968acdc3c9442d3054b5d1873d3c4d13
bece55cfb9a31c147bd23b6e779ca8fe6bf75b2b
F20101209_AABOTY obrien_e_Page_005.tif
7532d4c7798411563c808c64d929ca57
86c8223a3854ba44ae2bae5b6dcc5c7c088e4b0d
6685 F20101209_AABPAI obrien_e_Page_061thm.jpg
9eb514f66a79c73fef45aeae9e59d957
e97482c18138af9fc83175c7405b44b70af9bbd8
42633 F20101209_AABOVC obrien_e_Page_052.pro
b6ded0f3964844ee4493e80d36a1fc83
567ca5555252dd7da4a24e4c0579889c97c444d4
104355 F20101209_AABOUO obrien_e_Page_066.jp2
cc3d98c3670fa75c88d10e6964576a18
148b75662e0e27fc1656de67d7309d0b8c676ccb
26866 F20101209_AABOTZ obrien_e_Page_082.jpg
36ce0e5bd955d041cc1e7996a858c7e1
0636fcbb2b5fd396983d3c1bd3fa6a32665d644f
1623 F20101209_AABPAJ obrien_e_Page_008.txt
290211dde2265f7effef6cd1da6f141f
37d007c2f9444d9d44146fea4337c3dfd63e449f
77903 F20101209_AABOVD obrien_e_Page_089.jpg
99ba50be398522c085f5c0f64a616412
e674c6e8e13ad8e450fa8bd53bf0796fcd325ab7
19691 F20101209_AABOUP obrien_e_Page_014.QC.jpg
3f091850b7670f6df395233be6903cbe
cae33bbad725d75940b09f527df0d82a10aecaa6
87294 F20101209_AABPAK obrien_e_Page_014.jp2
1fccdf344cbe7b7954c7b6fc084770dc
f4d9acd5482bba9aed0078c883a1561f193fe3aa
70966 F20101209_AABOVE obrien_e_Page_063.jpg
b595c018da3c8b83038bfadadd88b9d2
da5b37e3542bfe58410a41eefbbe62c896c7cddb
F20101209_AABOUQ obrien_e_Page_044.tif
f96c6f47f9a5b6fd5f18cf4b4218dd19
f10976335a8741291de6387faecd90eb258c65dd
F20101209_AABPAL obrien_e_Page_035.tif
16df369ef44211ecbee167f539fc8c23
110d96ec0c50b7bd5d20ced52a4bb7c064c8f0ab
F20101209_AABOVF obrien_e_Page_105.tif
1550210b94e30f5c1cf505317238aed1
41f6275c99c12aa106910cb9f7e884867dd42824
25412 F20101209_AABOUR obrien_e_Page_022.QC.jpg
bee10266115594a3418603d94722d1bb
51809e34f4e28b34a3b49bb517bc28c11909e0d4
15685 F20101209_AABPBA obrien_e_Page_091.pro
9b0ff3a9bfc06dde524ec554c5d1df60
a3cff338c4c9d85d522fd451120b8e19c29d4edf
3115 F20101209_AABPAM obrien_e_Page_099thm.jpg
c793b59828cdfc67e757f5c3a2482ae8
4bdeed30520ea08003dc1856d9216848874aba47
F20101209_AABOVG obrien_e_Page_053.tif
e2bd25367195f69c91d46f2b80f5fc04
1d49f48bca62ebd5b7a6d0064f2378b395561cf9
1866 F20101209_AABOUS obrien_e_Page_028.txt
9a4607d782109f939b3a668066b7f5e5
2fe41cec27928854beaa98df3fd4b935689a777e
50840 F20101209_AABPAN obrien_e_Page_067.pro
114baf0dd16d4834fd19487dd5978c54
a191c674c0631a16f5b99b4619c21b9328948e8b
F20101209_AABOVH obrien_e_Page_004.tif
d6974e34cac3f31f4a5bf9e1bcafd710
a6848d667c3a4b49b41ae8b77662ca49a2c59fd0
1964 F20101209_AABOUT obrien_e_Page_056.txt
36b2c51bb348ab331152f39f881f1324
c61c85daefbbb0c423894545d250325d6c44b8e8
6308 F20101209_AABPBB obrien_e_Page_020thm.jpg
6774a0fcd154c553336efb3912cce246
03df408c198dae9e32aa9aeab2bb5a1f0e2cfea9
10520 F20101209_AABPAO obrien_e_Page_002.jpg
bd038e6129bd51a02126f4bbe551d980
8483531c6495fb6c49167669ae48e6e067439b63
15955 F20101209_AABOVI obrien_e_Page_007.QC.jpg
9a8c829964f356d8f8954fffc22ed076
1fa3c281c1a8872b9fbda2f0f18dab87f576c9c8
63721 F20101209_AABOUU obrien_e_Page_049.jpg
e35aaf738af400594e46eee0bc8a7c24
f5ef90c7180856889561316c5ee5a4d6d256ffcc
6472 F20101209_AABPBC obrien_e_Page_088thm.jpg
04f820054328bde7b1a0ffdb548595e2
5d3696954855ba39200e4c26da25948ad7844a3a
81912 F20101209_AABPAP obrien_e_Page_087.jpg
368b22004521325d0ed9bb9bd4d1c191
69cf75663fd235543772b93bc0855329b8f0b784
47361 F20101209_AABOVJ obrien_e_Page_006.jpg
de05624f7d32dd6696623baa2d744a5b
8453b1b4e32590c6d8a9cacf11a8eca5c4a113ca
63825 F20101209_AABPBD obrien_e_Page_013.jpg
6acce6083aa1849d4bbd89c0596ecf28
f7e02f38bc9b4f5f164a3f642f5e1ad69e99505c
6018 F20101209_AABPAQ obrien_e_Page_033thm.jpg
6341fbd959acfdb5d56635537332b0f1
0bebb92d94ddaee45d36e46ebda359737dadd77a
17125 F20101209_AABOVK obrien_e_Page_109.pro
50d4544cfeeb4af5f6783b5e03596c4d
cd63d7cd8aeae3bc4731aed5394d1c31d76ea4c6
65326 F20101209_AABOUV obrien_e_Page_015.jpg
9bd4388b26e493d4d55e80086e256667
de0433586bf4cc7b8d39228da1d9e637d1f369c7
2026 F20101209_AABPBE obrien_e_Page_064.txt
38d44a44062e303bccf75f0c1230281b
b5601da015fad38066bbb13878080e36b76b1fa5
98787 F20101209_AABPAR obrien_e_Page_046.jp2
9bbd056448a98e9df863bdb508fc145b
20e5095065f94eced13c0c5c1f2a9c5803a884bf
71959 F20101209_AABOVL obrien_e_Page_060.jpg
25734edead7a8602dedf093ba05e2ee8
ecbe8091dcd828aa9289063c57a71562e9cbfe94
F20101209_AABOUW obrien_e_Page_092.tif
ce86c62eaaac11eb31beae5c52b4cc4f
ab7ed4ba6d727159f07ad4393bc5f7ea0c3b9c13
369234 F20101209_AABPBF obrien_e_Page_083.jp2
584c2da76b1731f03d8490fce9fa31ab
32b9723ca4a792cbb268e9cfaa59dd602ce65c30
2307 F20101209_AABPAS obrien_e_Page_106.txt
e2e9d64f05a845fbbdb1f4fcb05cfee4
da74e460e5534be14a68abba4217a75acc16b775
3336 F20101209_AABOVM obrien_e_Page_002.QC.jpg
634f3596611fb14b8b00344fd4ff3af7
8609da7ad0bf105d501fcfb376b6e7bff4e32f94
1861 F20101209_AABOUX obrien_e_Page_039.txt
11b2785030704aa99b462bd5285ff952
f073f458ed66cdd5fed72779b80a5bb5fce662d3
F20101209_AABPBG obrien_e_Page_091.tif
7029c96c66b1c3c0b8bb3231f8b60bc3
2789a709aa49c67d640684177bdaa3531047d5ce
742562 F20101209_AABOWA obrien_e_Page_076.jp2
21ebb0b4fe4078660d66c839527a3bb9
d96c81ac4ddc9bc09aabbf25f964f778d0d2de66
F20101209_AABPAT obrien_e_Page_095.tif
4744f8e296a546d2c8f1af4665e719c1
5258b2a9242b52aae286e659f0d83dc109e97a26
44638 F20101209_AABOVN obrien_e_Page_054.pro
3d202af6c75c503f2c7330781402a7df
5aaf501aecf1f91bd4eb3503952f4df294e39da9
97370 F20101209_AABOUY obrien_e_Page_011.jp2
d03d5f2200a272bc079e8fa279401585
15e68c321dd97c4f544826cd5c3de1212355d4d3
91325 F20101209_AABPBH obrien_e_Page_107.jpg
1f374716b2fb793e303d13a1195b31cc
b8a8d7c3145a30dc332605a7c34627121170710b
740176 F20101209_AABOWB obrien_e_Page_077.jp2
dc5f7a99b384b28f5151e029e7e00c7c
d83e64d2a331a9728c4a94b8b0fdbcdcc7d6849d
F20101209_AABPAU obrien_e_Page_041.tif
f27fe5dca4c3ce8602e3af2c9c65b049
7f5a520c06ac460426b726a67e412ce49ecd46fa
11963 F20101209_AABOVO obrien_e_Page_006.QC.jpg
43660b9abec4449cbd0a3886601d4fcd
907f0886167d199d8aead0b26a139aaf39ea769c
22273 F20101209_AABOUZ obrien_e_Page_033.QC.jpg
a3671edfae963092bf88d22dc9b73172
15bbfa7994436fb4415dde32ba528dca6c20a8e9
35280 F20101209_AABPBI obrien_e_Page_093.pro
d1d962da075836b6c8a3e641ba563410
5476031c92104692c633eff1b9c01ed3c2c86df2
87172 F20101209_AABOWC obrien_e_Page_097.jp2
5c8569368becc8bac4e099e3634699f6
d41b1e621eb1b5eb1a1de4f29bd417e3d417571a
1829 F20101209_AABPAV obrien_e_Page_012.txt
23fd1100d9553eb7905afc2e26557d8a
5c28b86c5dd95753b97b33d69ce00c3922d43f6a
13788 F20101209_AABOVP obrien_e_Page_003.QC.jpg
a13be93c85c72178cc6bab3c71f4ebb8
59b0c4e9a2f88fda0c64da2fd4f274a1b309139f
F20101209_AABPBJ obrien_e_Page_037.tif
9cdd9810bca6e35cd0efefd67f31324c
7fce4bd1dae60c4cbc8a9ef9a04c50fdde6f0a4a
6412 F20101209_AABOWD obrien_e_Page_039thm.jpg
9295949231bdcc17240f65589740d3d4
72bb695e72b90b93933843d34ba40f61b38774b6
F20101209_AABOVQ obrien_e_Page_033.tif
5f12e0af459d84fe42fc57b0e5a9764e
a6d6b5f2d4bc49a80330836c2dcb8941ce6c91d1
F20101209_AABPBK obrien_e_Page_069.QC.jpg
143f26342c0cff9d0da554beb973da9e
312b5c25537044e40f73e5a54d2610dceac50dd3
68749 F20101209_AABOWE obrien_e_Page_017.jpg
72d1349aa09afde5b103b791b357abd5
4382d486a983f3fc4b248f0930ad7e74847ef602
1605 F20101209_AABPAW obrien_e_Page_097.txt
f2e2bbdb26f37fe88384f80284590aca
67790c6a2b54d765116d74d0204a993cddd6ce0d
50766 F20101209_AABOVR obrien_e_Page_062.pro
0773522a2c1d58d6beb52d60b3872f70
7da15c40ce6e0fd4c4f03590c0d2e57edc6dba11
25276 F20101209_AABPCA obrien_e_Page_083.jpg
2371b7dd7125b1c355d44be0920c0971
25943de2a9a29e52ad9ab01d5c00d640dc88f65c
2939 F20101209_AABPBL obrien_e_Page_091thm.jpg
0acb0b1bb18afcc9038effa4d06be9c9
cb93683c19874d2bd9e173dc780b5255f289a29c
52468 F20101209_AABOWF obrien_e_Page_093.jpg
d3de0aaa78ebf5b275a4bd88c53e0b93
09437004bc878128820daa9b4d9fd46a2740d540
86919 F20101209_AABPAX obrien_e_Page_040.jp2
b62f1f8dede14c824f74bcd46894bd7d
d4b9914133f407bf771cd077ce0f5c103be0a03f
74932 F20101209_AABOVS obrien_e_Page_057.jpg
2aeb40e596b9743bae158e0d89b35742
310f36bedce99e7ac71b3c4a28860aad797fb319
78916 F20101209_AABPCB obrien_e_Page_018.jpg
7d842464aee155127eb05d0615c6bd5e
7afe456d7f8ea8ac197fef490c5974dd9fc01ec7
30005 F20101209_AABPBM obrien_e_Page_091.jpg
e4ff4b56b9935385fabb6c4e48b4883c
5423a9f979f0096e961732cb56487a0027c78a80
17386 F20101209_AABOWG obrien_e_Page_093.QC.jpg
b456880a58060ce05a97f30af8825a82
8f46249b52d675bf12e0f678f9d91dde03fd104c
63331 F20101209_AABPAY obrien_e_Page_036.jpg
d708de7c217491fff337c1e9afc7d14d
9fcf5ff10953e31d00d09eebae7c2e57c636b21e
1803 F20101209_AABOVT obrien_e_Page_046.txt
50fb857acab624974e25eca4e9449bd2
0a752b74fe6cfafca6ac6ac7358960234a20e1b0
2597 F20101209_AABPBN obrien_e_Page_037.txt
b6d1a15f6936fa2898af1b4d177b56c6
ca5cba72df99c8996afcb70312cbb6bb5f5e1402
6079 F20101209_AABOWH obrien_e_Page_030thm.jpg
e05d9c47242f17595a3ece7207ae8bb3
3bb1f5a723305b1cd12101fc42e6dc4822abe76b
6511 F20101209_AABPAZ obrien_e_Page_027thm.jpg
2fc380c8c915b7f302fc00ffb3f1f94e
4676c10e90be450ab8cf4af4e4abc4ae371f4c1f
F20101209_AABOVU obrien_e_Page_024.tif
c0a259161d5d6c0b7de55552072d72fa
7ae8f5d7766f339635274f09c0ffb8a8cc12b3f5
38021 F20101209_AABPCC obrien_e_Page_071.pro
ca91d3e7f15ea8e59cdb60c1d864268e
18f3808e38bf4fac796af3a1433c1ffb7da3f942
1079 F20101209_AABPBO obrien_e_Page_100.txt
9fb0defe8f7ae0767379b2941f0cd956
697419ebe17518b85ebc0f4cfe5c9d0ae8ae0cc2
199 F20101209_AABOWI obrien_e_Page_010.txt
1c313f3985c493144b506757d75120e7
b682429c29c7b6bb2202ac525c7e73f90fac4265
16023 F20101209_AABOVV obrien_e_Page_079.QC.jpg
b5bcbbe8abc5d267b09a4a999d9dd9be
68cc9ff12eda6396f7cb6c0ad0eb3c28fc452f9a
13069 F20101209_AABPCD obrien_e_Page_100.QC.jpg
27ef2cc7f66085fa2df9142172b858f1
6822e12cd880be6fb30a63a15061f259db093e17
8905 F20101209_AABPBP obrien_e_Page_082.QC.jpg
0ada4f021947734ed09ccd57097c84ba
a7b78b2a431f5e09524c928f5c8ec072da7ff423
1893 F20101209_AABOWJ obrien_e_Page_038.txt
26c5107c379bb00cb498c10ba5098af5
1597f09faf393ecd7696c39542928b8da08187fc
5565 F20101209_AABPCE obrien_e_Page_097thm.jpg
5b5c1c675ccfea63584daed40d08bded
f7cb485457dfa94880d1cf16b794ecfaa64f8598
1489 F20101209_AABPBQ obrien_e_Page_026.txt
88574ec9ecae0aa3cd5750d5d0905230
36923cbac90a5634479f10750ef2976246297080
41348 F20101209_AABOWK obrien_e_Page_099.jp2
0ba8cd44510ee7d3f0c48b3d6d6ebd99
b4cbe197d2598a962db6f6b3aba51b45c87602f3
6295 F20101209_AABOVW obrien_e_Page_024thm.jpg
bbcf8f533b73552bc3aeeb2c6eee5a0b
3cc07c50add4dcab81920802b9dccf90ea1574ba
9483 F20101209_AABPCF obrien_e_Page_091.QC.jpg
e840d5a0d9f6f2a13e07c04843add071
c0efe9a28b3e552181bfcc4206a0fd80592767cc
6768 F20101209_AABPBR obrien_e_Page_057thm.jpg
bda762e3296e3728274a771da88868ff
4b7d6db295cebcff4e202ca0b2b20f27544b93fc
F20101209_AABOWL obrien_e_Page_023.tif
ec1a9475d1bec4705d3ec02dc363e870
f34a27cec6d5293aff7dc6a5f9bde3ad39dd3fc2
2226 F20101209_AABOVX obrien_e_Page_006.txt
43e6006e9bcbb97e76cc95edc8bcd36f
940d04ef5e7cb0c93411ab44b44acee5a248b595
56547 F20101209_AABPCG obrien_e_Page_035.jpg
9b7fcdd56c99d5582eac98668eff5879
29436332e1ddb3caf9f939df205ac935079e03de
49020 F20101209_AABOXA obrien_e_Page_027.pro
53aa74c88db59b0f1c1307ffe6e7a173
a214f2691354e90248de0954bbc0ddce18fe149d
48291 F20101209_AABPBS obrien_e_Page_047.pro
5dadeb43157169d8930ca1df38894fa7
9c885d431a3924e704c7338bda5bc899adecb17d
F20101209_AABOWM obrien_e_Page_047thm.jpg
0601264c61479d90dba316ee9096f3cf
3037f132a9f6b209d9c6df32caacf6b3b9095b8a
F20101209_AABOVY obrien_e_Page_013.tif
c1a20b4169515d0f278c2d2c4f3eae05
999017c9ccc011070141a7108bfc4e991391b206
25763 F20101209_AABPCH obrien_e_Page_001.jp2
1a5ac0cd9cf348bd3f16ce6880e9810e
200ab30810ccd2111a4abd8076a7d55708eb525d
94830 F20101209_AABOXB obrien_e_Page_049.jp2
03c19bc2d34be3036d922df22eb0fe80
6410f4a3f46f8112d5db5ea664464427bd8968c5
1365 F20101209_AABPBT obrien_e_Page_077.txt
09571b3215c438b9a1b2788e836b9aee
82970fba382861848e8a8a5fbd4f70abce8523d4
4791 F20101209_AABOWN obrien_e_Page_092.pro
e8d4267abd4fa4affe1150cb72d7c92f
59df5799ea5a198f09bf0ee268275ac49894d4b9
87132 F20101209_AABOVZ obrien_e_Page_009.jp2
8eb1de1eda70a458bfdc8093dc92f884
e678dff9ca810e536bd2bb939c763ec99766042a
101001 F20101209_AABPCI obrien_e_Page_095.jp2
4019531139d0bd3e06fbf4c0f7aaa642
9781bcffb51534d3a76a245b82bafd0e592d6318
F20101209_AABOXC obrien_e_Page_068.tif
6e9bf9e840067e4fd0adb375ef08d786
8ed9f8ce0d58cc2c321c1627e894bc52c129bd9a
F20101209_AABPBU obrien_e_Page_069thm.jpg
a5fc19cf9a5958e368260989df11f0b2
b820df29f193ce9e7cc73da743561e99739fc855
1844 F20101209_AABOWO obrien_e_Page_011.txt
fc6d6b30637ddac110aca5e70c0f62f7
e1c1ba4f92ec640321904421a7c31f82e4bbe322
89875 F20101209_AABPCJ obrien_e_Page_094.jp2
3cd705cf8b71768d29e645fc8fc85aff
6f3c81eb92aab8ddfa3127f610b545161ebadd69
64411 F20101209_AABOXD obrien_e_Page_068.jpg
981f22a522239c0930e2a7bc0b19cdc3
4d778aeb3b4a119cc54a793986cb5d31b404f616
431012 F20101209_AABPBV obrien_e_Page_081.jp2
13e92aaea0701f03f0f776b707391e8b
61e62c4a41dcf73edc36b4d8635017efff2a2d0d
20312 F20101209_AABOWP obrien_e_Page_105.QC.jpg
603a392857dc7122a7e973302a4404f4
d23e8326dda430762606a854e038197750828ca6
4877 F20101209_AABPCK obrien_e_Page_108.QC.jpg
dcec8deea93b2d6f12c5d3181c8bfa4e
b74ab2dc83c0f7ab00ee7b9c8127fbc0d4224cf9
F20101209_AABOXE obrien_e_Page_051.tif
69e38447cc24f82b52e487587a95cd7b
6aee17d1ba3a9684aa248dd23c28907c92771c0e
71873 F20101209_AABPBW obrien_e_Page_098.jp2
ef479fcefcb02af8ca38f97b6a339375
8079c0fbd3f05f9060b86860f876f7483db16bc5
23169 F20101209_AABOWQ obrien_e_Page_056.QC.jpg
54b324d47885e5a8f102ad52772b679d
950307f9c2255f48fdc99e0a9bc5391c6ff3b23d
6039 F20101209_AABPCL obrien_e_Page_002.jp2
0224aaf57056d80516a9733005deaf4d
251944edd14f0bb4ac776045adbb0c87251415b0
5657 F20101209_AABOXF obrien_e_Page_026thm.jpg
85bf908d8a553c0b8db1ce01a813b582
98a20916f9b6d7c46f578bdbbe7797e88e22c4da
7099 F20101209_AABPBX obrien_e_Page_025thm.jpg
ef48f6f7ca341d391b4b7ac97fdddeb3
0b275c6708adc76ff993a95b4f976fc788914975
564038 F20101209_AABOWR obrien_e_Page_084.jp2
851da72d189701ae22611ee6a471fa82
c0423c45bfb604a6e5c32d47a9f5062674f012eb
1704 F20101209_AABPDA obrien_e_Page_108thm.jpg
450884331cf2d0dccf8087fd07294ca3
65584f7c708fe153617340535842ae47f3521955
106230 F20101209_AABPCM obrien_e_Page_105.jp2
45b14b9ef01a838725735a1a6d3dc426
51667be5ebc2569f5d2d156390f0a0d76a33eb53
24825 F20101209_AABOXG obrien_e_Page_032.QC.jpg
d7e9ad95e7b6ddf86204b6990954645c
7f754f72176d24fa5d73bec07c252c73693b5dd4
50061 F20101209_AABPBY obrien_e_Page_060.pro
f24baf480989a6bbe6a169a65b726c8f
cb46a23764ca9f19b719f705a38938186b9f7c74
20490 F20101209_AABOWS obrien_e_Page_053.QC.jpg
0dbc8f91ebbc2bbccc40a7f2f8556b63
b3ab6d69d4fd599b33e1185578fb8e7d6347fd91
1958 F20101209_AABPDB obrien_e_Page_089.txt
6cdb755028a5c78576299f0b47f26266
5c6a6e34ac6d9816f1656af8c79206cdbd3312fb
5752 F20101209_AABPCN obrien_e_Page_005thm.jpg
7e2738cc9975719f409821bbc3d4d8fa
77273e23ce33419770a67c741dc4d6374bb9afdc
6434 F20101209_AABOXH obrien_e_Page_103thm.jpg
4dda6ed2d12ece9c073f62701e4ae2a2
5fafcb63bcae19a4183eeaa703645b999c245d0e
F20101209_AABPBZ obrien_e_Page_041thm.jpg
5f3d84b3b8901236eab8fa55c515a291
52d5e8aa3958743ccef2a83a3b9a13355d3d0b81
3054 F20101209_AABOWT obrien_e_Page_006thm.jpg
b9f9fd41ac505bd73d200f3c07ad58e6
c1c82bb71ce1cbdcec0b8fd62306074060451162
127 F20101209_AABPDC obrien_e_Page_078.txt
4d5ca328f4e7dedff104a21b3c8d1c8d
2c50f2ead60010e00b9a874583a79d3b5b4cb8aa
38804 F20101209_AABPCO obrien_e_Page_009.pro
8bf116befc82872eb773db8844f93ee5
99aa273b0c115a877c19cef94b78c59f0e245809
99141 F20101209_AABOXI obrien_e_Page_015.jp2
955447256e17921df702691f511c30ca
c256dee65813ca5285d36e65b547accc939506af
19972 F20101209_AABOWU obrien_e_Page_086.QC.jpg
50c7b6bfac2f581f7dfa949f97a63fe0
116e964aef4d7d7ed9cb1ac16a1bcb351521602c
46495 F20101209_AABPCP obrien_e_Page_028.pro
ad43284cc67ffbe73bb53ee049dc4203
36660fbde6f4adef30b5c8dc887d7c2507bd7e59
6617 F20101209_AABOXJ obrien_e_Page_062thm.jpg
a2c90a05d6e29374bd150c1fd5543dc1
7ce8220a975e9251f14967f29b19e5bb1601a1ec
F20101209_AABOWV obrien_e_Page_060.tif
8f749f895a2f76723449bfe25a1533fe
5d49b4525a2314f0e3c89c3786772d7b3e867b18
2050 F20101209_AABPDD obrien_e_Page_022.txt
43a8803c5bb811f904e33f9613479088
12dbce70392947b80e1ded855a480c28cb9ef8ad
7719 F20101209_AABPCQ obrien_e_Page_001.QC.jpg
f00bf323f5a9330d16ce9fcfd753452a
01569d8f8c327021f14912bad66b1412b3652003
F20101209_AABOXK obrien_e_Page_054.tif
843d19daa0098d17c27270fd9a9eaf30
b035898e0f7ee436f25cc1c0135c624e7efcdd29
5923 F20101209_AABOWW obrien_e_Page_012thm.jpg
618ec0ed90115256918c8f0ceb111e73
be156ab95ab3af4029dea30031e23247c00cf0b5
1872 F20101209_AABPDE obrien_e_Page_020.txt
809f1c6bf2e9baf6ade403512f5ed574
c2998b8ecb2f90d42ce7f08d02528adec9c4ccb9
17370 F20101209_AABPCR obrien_e_Page_099.pro
da641a6950061906e5fc85436c0612a1
4b7cee469e7d50bbfa1a889b179cdd29db1380f5
6269 F20101209_AABOXL obrien_e_Page_028thm.jpg
b78abe9fa0501e4eb7677f9913ec48c4
ef3967095a5df1e2b5e3fa78242e309856bb3c67
5172 F20101209_AABPDF obrien_e_Page_077thm.jpg
5129304662c9dff667253aa524823ecb
4cfbf1c6bda51f92c13d083b4d67062829b59e1f
71588 F20101209_AABOYA obrien_e_Page_004.pro
0b4c868142f66d19afb5a73897e314ea
9f6d6e4e6236b142d1604e13e5da445d628b917c
F20101209_AABPCS obrien_e_Page_076.tif
2126e4cee58594b11e36591d6880d791
72837b3953f478a29bd4a05dc9560487e230f34b
72356 F20101209_AABOXM obrien_e_Page_044.jpg
8298b8971edbb15df2a30425d7266d83
aa23675e98baa5560d002409bad373d96bf88adc
103072 F20101209_AABOWX obrien_e_Page_005.pro
dc0420e8f8bd5bfe61ad733853a5ae5b
903bf9d0f9a014fee6bcbe2775d124d5c24bd1a9
61433 F20101209_AABPDG obrien_e_Page_009.jpg
437aa18fdb45a5f3116f750f60737706
ca5d8e908aca27542e86633ec8c897d03aaf5061
32664 F20101209_AABOYB obrien_e_Page_076.pro
fbad9fa58e82759509e3f1b43e5b2696
2a8f61b1a7190cc1d0b05a8371d6c58b9c02b465
F20101209_AABPCT obrien_e_Page_067.tif
0fdc39dc2d354fd8aff32039fc2699fb
3bfd5acbe32d330e2b33af000aa462e5082849f9
65883 F20101209_AABOXN obrien_e_Page_102.jp2
889ed0e86e55b85b50c27b5d4fe070ab
0f90ae5c45b3cb134725102681c2e6209c09ccae
2979 F20101209_AABOWY obrien_e_Page_004.txt
50601206c4f43122ce5c813371c0fdb8
a78d0557d6551639953d71a0b736986d424d3afc
51227 F20101209_AABPDH obrien_e_Page_087.pro
38955aee81614a5495520c5789bb1d27
8bd14d1e482d160cba6cd736d7a4a3a240b71bbc
597839 F20101209_AABOYC obrien_e_Page_085.jp2
20cc9be37f1ca5ccb4f1c4c98bad4d63
47415bc469c406ca93aa0d122ed0e5754abae040
70632 F20101209_AABPCU obrien_e_Page_070.jpg
4348cfba8aa93175d9a3e5f3eb30397b
ff5d05aa7987a57281a00d90b81c7af1f5178ee7
50272 F20101209_AABOXO obrien_e_Page_018.pro
fe8cd6f5f6733e32123b902bfe9b750d
2275425a94dd4cfb2e8f00a963e3838ee872b8cf
722 F20101209_AABOWZ obrien_e_Page_091.txt
73e8a2f123bed862343ec8e62d3f2ddf
275fbb5dbe83b699b1a8aa94a1cdb3303e741e77
16116 F20101209_AABPDI obrien_e_Page_102.QC.jpg
66321ac638ba48a0c3f024985f95bc61
f89d4c6b4d7cbf30be89004fe7e605e8d900b201
49162 F20101209_AABOYD obrien_e_Page_063.pro
76e8f0a203c38fccf01e5119eb94ca73
4a6124941e2b3481c8e50c49498117be8a6c9330
22935 F20101209_AABPCV obrien_e_Page_048.QC.jpg
9e5347b8312fa1994818c93f9c6794ef
1463c0c5176882fa557aea969e7cdfc61d2805cd
12985 F20101209_AABOXP obrien_e_Page_071.QC.jpg
5850b7703cd0c2a094b98f4c8523b855
01f87d6baf2e80ab06524491ffe82a9e2965a9a8
23328 F20101209_AABPDJ obrien_e_Page_045.QC.jpg
ee85a0b0ef6de5ecf2bc408b2005ef4f
a68d6f446b9b972d2c246d957431e716ff77aa51
51631 F20101209_AABOYE obrien_e_Page_064.pro
d9881ab773de1772b64d54beee2ad418
6a5ed1d6074da765a0578f8e9273b69c541d0355
47311 F20101209_AABPCW obrien_e_Page_020.pro
10615907cb1a32ef158a3f51b068c9ea
c7ef4976a3eecca283906059ad37840b61755bf1
110624 F20101209_AABOXQ obrien_e_Page_059.jp2
a236bbc92abacf8f1514ce210ba4c7ae
63df560da06ccf08949c6afd49ad911871874185
42223 F20101209_AABPDK obrien_e_Page_003.jpg
c626c9125c617bd96e1cde8c4d2a6e87
883462c50c651c4eac434f66a29872e126c3b8f6
1051969 F20101209_AABOYF obrien_e_Page_089.jp2
27bb6e7e5cf2476f6aecf709f312def8
72e4d9863520cbe57c2ca346f838870a43d13793
23821 F20101209_AABPCX obrien_e_Page_106.QC.jpg
166883089846c90b7f99d38b00338491
32145a3b8e463a614fe02b113c563e38d6131b91
5913 F20101209_AABOXR obrien_e_Page_054thm.jpg
34da872d30d346691e091e082cad2f89
0c419c0e7d94dc3d2992a78bb9cc8c54513d0ae7
F20101209_AABPEA obrien_e_Page_074.tif
e1003c8b6e8373048f2838f48625c70c
6fb613ec5e1e1463cb74abe04726b901bba8fc14
1500 F20101209_AABPDL obrien_e_Page_035.txt
b407dda1970cee106270c7fcb4dd24a6
11a6c91cf0e46ecf0de6be89b45d10c4f87b9dd4
82065 F20101209_AABOYG obrien_e_Page_029.jpg
d1cdc9ebf04a0f868e69eefa807aacc2
75303c5380c26406e822f1d115221122d4dabf78
F20101209_AABPCY obrien_e_Page_018.tif
63d8e89fc9790a690e771521cf1966bc
b21f0b708d8800951b291ce6a3efaf79ec9e5249
35946 F20101209_AABOXS obrien_e_Page_080.jpg
58ef42c3c13226f4146e32d557386859
8b53d895cb1828743234b149bdfbb358f97ba2d2
1975 F20101209_AABPEB obrien_e_Page_017.txt
f2f7e35ec208adf747af02e864ce458d
81b818cce11d79230af044c9150cdfd7f08e9ae0
27182 F20101209_AABPDM obrien_e_Page_104.jpg
8130f8af6be7b9eb558f1d94600ed311
0886e9cf92798e8fc34a84b2d2d6390cbf5f9c86
3654 F20101209_AABOYH obrien_e_Page_078thm.jpg
45a4a38a26b693b95e65034f3a2706b5
b36f1dcf663c1b3703c0b92179573c38da2e8e85
5916 F20101209_AABPCZ obrien_e_Page_011thm.jpg
fdd264ddf8adf1d085d00d697e97b455
14e79f499f78dcc36b7935e097079badb7a23052
1051920 F20101209_AABOXT obrien_e_Page_025.jp2
08bb4c958ca24dfd4d1d1c1c3affbe40
618e4e491e86b5d5988727f40185d882ecc80e3a
6512 F20101209_AABPEC obrien_e_Page_050thm.jpg
3740ffaeb369696fa6322492ecc6ffea
f488e53c61edb1c5b62cbf5d2ed671d57d874f2d
109138 F20101209_AABPDN obrien_e_Page_063.jp2
b667bb6f242444d5e866c29946c4f2d0
038229b38b1033d1d3416fced44dc23a054e80cf
9848 F20101209_AABOYI obrien_e_Page_084.QC.jpg
b453dfd9a3f2d1f27e7a84ab4739a190
977cfdd05c72be9fa683538b710d1b7c70f718f2
3083 F20101209_AABOXU obrien_e_Page_082thm.jpg
51c52638f1142fe1880e14f62a9bf55c
ca3538630225e1a5e02849e497b68d58965c4771
F20101209_AABPED obrien_e_Page_071.tif
439b9917c400fedaada60bd4ff31383a
73a34a2e2b4f9d2ec9614a55eaea587f852f47bb
18819 F20101209_AABPDO obrien_e_Page_040.QC.jpg
e1333b4fc623dc1f5e47a7cd5120a5d9
de8b7235e31fa681c35fd81e9f35c6c7b072438c
2557 F20101209_AABOYJ obrien_e_Page_103.txt
7c6e707c9f1c80f5c18234e2917c5e7e
a58d44e3486a5f16e793bbb978f1eda240dd4ae2
45088 F20101209_AABOXV obrien_e_Page_096.pro
5fb08667e917dc8fe87e6a5e520517e3
988de1e3d545aef43c5fc37502a71bfe215cc890
523 F20101209_AABPDP obrien_e_Page_104.txt
e4e6633b0710526c733482699dfe3735
2b45c69f11e1893e5a0f22415cd9eb26d63d0c09
21795 F20101209_AABOYK obrien_e_Page_066.QC.jpg
1562cce2f8e12eec55675975393539f2
543a7ffe0a6cb59169de54dfbd8bf3d52227d152
5268 F20101209_AABOXW obrien_e_Page_009thm.jpg
71279dbbdd4a7b40ceb8d48c787e0519
ad595a6cd3bbf25336f706abe1d44eb129e95ca2
62101 F20101209_AABPEE obrien_e_Page_086.jpg
1164f3f0928569a23b972bd4995da72f
8b835f55d715551b2ca64bd49f77e33f148dc7fd
59045 F20101209_AABPDQ obrien_e_Page_094.jpg
94c7713a985168cea71806c0a5fbd8e2
71a60e4ebc51767f8f40e575792bef91cfab3353
F20101209_AABOYL obrien_e_Page_014.tif
f03ab88db1be6f02c1b52f88e5cc6176
d81fcaf71629a96afb91847384d2478e90a0e7c5
5362 F20101209_AABOXX obrien_e_Page_076thm.jpg
dba42cfd82d9444f8cb48a7a7ea87daf
4dcc87ad1972b581e084764a8dd6ba8a3bfbfad0
63759 F20101209_AABPEF obrien_e_Page_107.pro
6904d434b28f426c63906f9d7085b97a
f119d17fc7a582187d743713caa14af0d4c2b01e
51247 F20101209_AABPDR obrien_e_Page_031.pro
acdb26414960783797248091fa8ca17b
703f03890a3b682f3fd312148d70584b7037ae0a
52347 F20101209_AABOYM obrien_e_Page_016.jpg
a63869a900fa2d5db1b336a1f054f639
da7f7486b6289fc2e5a3dfc1830b0bdf8f603a18
30179 F20101209_AABPEG obrien_e_Page_099.jpg
bd87f21287e6a08289910bbb3ec042e0
105b06bbca2b66ad78d148046ebc097364751c99
21822 F20101209_AABOZA obrien_e_Page_015.QC.jpg
ca854bff819766eb4fcc081d2bcdb583
7eb11904a957d0b9d7156fa6fb744405ad2a58ae
95590 F20101209_AABPDS obrien_e_Page_053.jp2
bebc1d26dc12bdd4a2d2d7c86c10835e
90bc621a6bb11555a6f2e41778f2bdc8bfa52b9e
54574 F20101209_AABOYN obrien_e_Page_006.pro
25dd1c566eb7474ad485cf6da03dc192
488662eb8cfa85fbd2694ba940b34e0a8b56a9f3
7012 F20101209_AABOXY obrien_e_Page_087thm.jpg
19641861dc8a434d76785c2537dd4c18
feda0de8f0e1f64cde338198307655b463149ae4
F20101209_AABPEH obrien_e_Page_015.txt
ae568feec7ba35bbf40010a5f0bb63a2
5c6492760c7c84c74718243f410b50835470fdc2
98143 F20101209_AABOZB obrien_e_Page_012.jp2
27e13692ca26be8ecf38e263f5162d5c
3383fb1597c72d2956aad186e5dc895f0b827049
6107 F20101209_AABPDT obrien_e_Page_068thm.jpg
674066fe3d2834c245035926b0ce0e55
3bfb8a85e7e41c11ec97c49b71c22d9ecbbd130d
97430 F20101209_AABOYO obrien_e_Page_054.jp2
19ef4a6f2c1c2e9f0587f3ca6f9433da
a3644fb2279dfae5fbad039718d22442d33c4cc1
23170 F20101209_AABOXZ obrien_e_Page_063.QC.jpg
51a8fe7c7e9538391636b910e946eaac
ae2595f75e27eea154837d38cea5d9651469ecfe
2446 F20101209_AABPEI obrien_e_Page_072thm.jpg
df8c2638f78fdcde34f682c0d902ac91
f6cdf1b1469501506360ba8b20570c251a6251d8
16837 F20101209_AABOZC obrien_e_Page_043.QC.jpg
7c0a4e4c05678d9b55f5c78a620fd899
0a09c71f5129cdcadd3fce4bc3ce3f4382761d02
1822 F20101209_AABPDU obrien_e_Page_053.txt
71e2f2dfa78d719fa8d237a2778a3f73
13ad40f8c8d762776dd021b8c0c41789a44b74fe
44228 F20101209_AABOYP obrien_e_Page_012.pro
63d6b63c413848c2934755c670b3d9b5
edf41a0a57bab320fc8f6a807026a51336f7ae3d
51341 F20101209_AABPEJ obrien_e_Page_059.pro
63d2d5a1e366114de024510036ba31dc
860ba0c0a8ff8ea32817c4f5db74985bc936cef2
1620 F20101209_AABOZD obrien_e_Page_094.txt
91069101eb004deeeed266a8e18bbf1a
5c08d5b749c1b397283e6b2fa3ecc3b7164ce897
43251 F20101209_AABPDV obrien_e_Page_049.pro
6fa19aba968af0b5005cd32ff7b48c8c
573020b6812603392492120eb3b12a1a73193d30
32526 F20101209_AABOYQ obrien_e_Page_075.pro
180b417a3caf33602df97020ed888d0f
9306e6ffa9fc606cf9cd4a04b91c48998b79fa13
48693 F20101209_AABPEK obrien_e_Page_089.pro
29cf4baf6156a543c1ead961e8fd95f1
663982b89b8d9033724c582fa42a6a4a6ddfcffb
1916 F20101209_AABOZE obrien_e_Page_019.txt
236daf81cce46d3b170e10b8ec6d9d8f
42f626e760fca8054d60b5b6e1f248997d080bef
4138 F20101209_AABPDW obrien_e_Page_003thm.jpg
25b440cbce0d387b9ffcb5b2478bd2a8
6158a4573037685621fbd46d76ae9dfa1a51d21a
70281 F20101209_AABOYR obrien_e_Page_037.jpg
b5ed51cc20c8dcefbff919f458eb95be
4935b93aa8308c7c5adc684fc686f62ff4de8935
2001 F20101209_AABPFA obrien_e_Page_055.txt
dc366d98c41e01cef555430162c290ea
c00fd1c5c9e5f77a29d5cc70e957b778829052ad
15664 F20101209_AABPEL obrien_e_Page_098.QC.jpg
391c87d43812c3851599ddb157bc318b
ceaf7cad96f6502aea0957b55eb162fe4b96b2a0
6466 F20101209_AABOZF obrien_e_Page_048thm.jpg
6b5dd0f176f8763766bed58dffa08f72
3c4620624b8539b1a9d15d4c2b5cd5986c18ddb9
66837 F20101209_AABPDX obrien_e_Page_073.jpg
3892d01de4b7e7960408308202594c52
60d43f518edc026818c7037df62ce7f9522360bb
5213 F20101209_AABOYS obrien_e_Page_108.pro
15a0a144f710a2d66b8e978444b34349
85e32501734b19990ae9a9cc1942f64868dbae06
106311 F20101209_AABPFB obrien_e_Page_070.jp2
cf5593e6b042133353f149a8dc4209f8
08030d0a1d7abd4c824d420d54060efcc12527c3
106263 F20101209_AABPEM obrien_e_Page_065.jp2
583ac849e7dc1cf38c3b953ec5e15c07
d4acef2ae25d86687bf5de561f0a758f351234d5
19025 F20101209_AABOZG obrien_e_Page_036.QC.jpg
445495d8a12ce60162f224b52f059692
6d75441de178d8fbda08f1796edfc03de178b02b
22652 F20101209_AABPDY obrien_e_Page_034.QC.jpg
cc216f0be7d5a40cd87fab268408fdea
19e9113742e0263d6cce32771dedeee69ca0d890
480 F20101209_AABOYT obrien_e_Page_001.txt
477a193dff58ba23c073170f73eaf8ef
b84e3520eef441a436f66f4b48da26681fb56d20
21217 F20101209_AABPFC obrien_e_Page_058.QC.jpg
6e3a0802fc7e9aecd8a9dd04bf4256e7
f6c113282bde84f8749a70503c85080b0ba7af19
F20101209_AABPEN obrien_e_Page_065.txt
57d1e879e04ca588f8f64a42ed120397
0826c257fbf39a22ab4e35933739ff8874eda06f
F20101209_AABOZH obrien_e_Page_048.tif
da39247c56ab1e0fd72945989e2dc3e9
fd843c640d8f4bb6455e6a8086ea517bab4e5813
81150 F20101209_AABPDZ obrien_e_Page_106.jpg
3da056357fddcc5360dd2c0e80ea651a
0037c0b9ced9f55cf5ba14a8b1485d343dd54e92
57477 F20101209_AABOYU obrien_e_Page_008.jpg
c9ac47c2d235e75b5e7a97eab91970e1
f04327ab8df61cfd59fc76c8cd9bb81771a8ad1c
48111 F20101209_AABPFD obrien_e_Page_037.pro
a74537f7d1ea8e0d53beac7f0f1bd29b
701ea93206d48f6b3b4abfa754b5c238e78b7132
99564 F20101209_AABPEO obrien_e_Page_068.jp2
3f496cee63ce7c31fd9960d9825701a5
791e147360beb9d280a21820b121e6fb1bdce9a3
4315 F20101209_AABOZI obrien_e_Page_008thm.jpg
f5230904b1e5d89361794a0efe8f4ab9
55eb5398a0c2bbd41d6c9477e7c26bf75060faec
3009 F20101209_AABOYV obrien_e_Page_081thm.jpg
90140d75f068bfd9f258a14d9f95f497
9e07f7d8647bfb35fdbb520a0283b521b0323e9d
10214 F20101209_AABPFE obrien_e_Page_109.QC.jpg
a31dd9e7748632437fdbabb396d10ece
e562f0becd29a905671c59fd7defa8b9ea05af59
5327 F20101209_AABPEP obrien_e_Page_016thm.jpg
30e2d918e3ebdab94b5f82756a5d274e
3e2e967714b7a261240784cbc70a7639497f954a
1051962 F20101209_AABOZJ obrien_e_Page_004.jp2
53992a3f3bdc87dd99242131016e93db
e915fa5d0412c9fd5beb2b434025496dd592fda0
F20101209_AABPEQ obrien_e_Page_006.tif
0257f55ef7a80c9be80ca3c4cbd7234f
b51eac149fc75a744dba5c5a0b54f9afc9354f1c
3397 F20101209_AABOZK obrien_e_Page_084thm.jpg
e6a8850b870129688f5616581ce252e2
f10560d49b3500c57a6876d16f697e519d9f04db
F20101209_AABOYW obrien_e_Page_049.tif
0605f88bb30098d229798b1159139c0c
69bb8b6dc2064f3df9e32b4d716346fc2b49f4fa
F20101209_AABPFF obrien_e_Page_022.tif
c435fe42cce0c5aa7094bd5f99f7a335
913add98fe09d8dab3de0de6aead96d056d9cbc0
37190 F20101209_AABPER obrien_e_Page_091.jp2
91215be1de0ad14dcdeb9062729b9b5d
0c7320b8734d86738978024167ee3a72b61c66dc
77137 F20101209_AABOZL obrien_e_Page_016.jp2
d25272af8572b179bc3abdc1ff8fd729
606846efc32150dbdc1f1cb580c86ddcc00c9750
F20101209_AABOYX obrien_e_Page_016.tif
6071575df3b03e8403721b190451660b
61c83d28b54333f5fde59d5024c806f60a0b4378
22538 F20101209_AABPFG obrien_e_Page_039.QC.jpg
c03d060ff3643e324b000287c099aee3
1ccd527bd224a3a44e080ff68e0ee8d845f960f2
7240 F20101209_AABPES obrien_e_Page_018thm.jpg
a5e019aae42476835f60c8b02244957e
38361984972db8ed30ace57dbe67b01fdd2c6823
15550 F20101209_AABOZM obrien_e_Page_108.jpg
6a8aeed532fd417f87a2c9e72a1fe61c
3c8bd405c97813fad9b6df31174a85af4eea5685
F20101209_AABOYY obrien_e_Page_032.tif
cc019019e727d967e29f4b1c300c5704
51afe79fe469cd30d665d923352f17415d34cd25
25361 F20101209_AABPFH obrien_e_Page_025.QC.jpg
bed00c880385c3a46cdcb8881278166f
810fb85de1b0c6e72be762f80e2a5ecd2095e62a
F20101209_AABPET obrien_e_Page_057.tif
09c20c59d389c07b3d6ea9f43c169cb5
f36944acb65ccff88681e1ac197a15775af44c18
77513 F20101209_AABOZN obrien_e_Page_093.jp2
9400dbe4632a28be523c32f7919967db
bee728674c7c11941751e53bba8dde3186381359
F20101209_AABPFI obrien_e_Page_047.tif
8344c0c45b021938cf4e9d5b39f45964
5428b9c756241ec980fabf6fd771fae5b0471819
1962 F20101209_AABPEU obrien_e_Page_036.txt
c623458b2c49230c8592d19b64829d37
09c0faa99f1ac41ba4d934a6526c87e374b358c5
24855 F20101209_AABOZO obrien_e_Page_089.QC.jpg
7df79d16c3a089e0f4b3bc36b7ce9972
a5027689099fd7ddff5f4c9544e11bc4ff014518
F20101209_AABOYZ obrien_e_Page_042.tif
7e50d33faea9a6eb911b5b4f8dec8322
43960fe6c98694dcb5fff4418f7f1743e3e90f5e
1343 F20101209_AABPFJ obrien_e_Page_074.txt
f2f7d75bb272312bfd1da0f30d7f1c12
367a7a0da7ee009bdf9a6542670fe9700f98a0d3
22304 F20101209_AABPEV obrien_e_Page_023.QC.jpg
4bb633c3e019d1967e18d3f629847f74
520a749596a4adc3603d4cdef6da68c4db25f771
99871 F20101209_AABOZP obrien_e_Page_058.jp2
5e409ab7baa2400ab9feee4eec29dc78
cf87efa059fc0f68ca727bf5e979949163a708ba
54255 F20101209_AABPFK obrien_e_Page_100.jp2
acc94891168230fdb981b67ce734bedc
cb47046793953f2802d49e3e202513979912ac8c
109713 F20101209_AABPEW obrien_e_Page_088.jp2
ffc360aa1d8e09af5010e975fb66cc02
f35f4b41ebf4bac894b0776be869597e716a92ae
50256 F20101209_AABOZQ obrien_e_Page_029.pro
397284b093a7b17dafa8896fdfad40c5
bf9b9c51df2e2c3fe66ec83824c08bd5e37117b5
71714 F20101209_AABPFL obrien_e_Page_105.jpg
1ca96631aebdf81e5b3b0d2b1a62c628
2a7789c3c3b0eb8994bc943feafc736af624974c
1051978 F20101209_AABPEX obrien_e_Page_006.jp2
2578918394dbab8d8fb48bbc226e591a
f1e2b151f51c79e86d76c95f572d8531d4ee8294
5260 F20101209_AABOZR obrien_e_Page_075thm.jpg
ebf03b3a014832e8932ff7c0859a2660
497164006755335f1ad53029b15d79ce6657aab8
1413 F20101209_AABPGA obrien_e_Page_002thm.jpg
f9a38f51d38fb774bb04b2643ca6aafe
9299711b26c7559891e81e7fa89ae15035f11548
95956 F20101209_AABPFM obrien_e_Page_103.jpg
f427a5fe2158e57942a0b535e08ad0ce
09e22b2749e4ba42a0118f94264cbbeb437b275c
42842 F20101209_AABPEY obrien_e_Page_007.pro
069c037f193ba356a8922d37ef7ddf0d
ac2d168812b5a050d9c7c53ff5fb1721c0faeca9
2594 F20101209_AABOZS obrien_e_Page_107.txt
16c54433305acc5b86c90a1a420de768
0d9b51487737b703cfda4199d47078371e74c234
58135 F20101209_AABPGB obrien_e_Page_040.jpg
4954640286f5ee4bad0a4f9f12abe231
dec78bd512c96ba6501df8cd906a01f8e08073f0
69470 F20101209_AABPFN obrien_e_Page_027.jpg
af737f5bed9f42fe01fe178546a68744
ff92a77a79dd748c9e6f236da1e73591dd9e0a93
109 F20101209_AABPEZ obrien_e_Page_002.txt
6be7cc4fdfc5ab136ff8f89984ded815
162ce9e700fb0dae08b6c66113440404c373062b
968 F20101209_AABOZT obrien_e_Page_072.txt
845f9938abdafa34ce7109d233769718
066afe42f12fde9d32eb0295a0293a3a2761f9bb
48918 F20101209_AABPGC obrien_e_Page_048.pro
fd2c9c4283ba3d0d9f02c726250404fd
4f069c459f6d82fdb9ce598ec8bac1eb6e9bd8b5
5741 F20101209_AABPFO obrien_e_Page_105thm.jpg
2a93a219b2e604d519a67b617543c812
73cbb4d0990ccb77871bc221ec8b89fda6065bba
111168 F20101209_AABOZU obrien_e_Page_050.jp2
f7151818bf20fb2b6f0f557bf4a817a0
ea5f4cdcc71f66cc7b4180691dc816299959c727
112970 F20101209_AABPGD obrien_e_Page_061.jp2
7feae596c32fe9bf8191e1d7acff4913
312a93cb68c95cf29c64aebcc5274af0d08eb4ae
82625 F20101209_AABPFP obrien_e_Page_035.jp2
7b5ce2ff2f6288077ebd82e51329ce4d
6dde60e5e32882c7c3b82e71490e9dd9a2f83d8b
728 F20101209_AABOZV obrien_e_Page_109.txt
3e26d163c582d2ee404b49e5c147e19e
933421810a66d5a37880746d5b130342b6b8d380
F20101209_AABPGE obrien_e_Page_061.tif
eaf8e4be37f109f0c258dc541b6e5503
6ffa9064bc22bb8bb47e5b5697bc7c007e4b913c
F20101209_AABPFQ obrien_e_Page_012.tif
9d2d12307d1ec48b304cc519e0e412cf
ee3c82d5fc5d6484c569b021300763b163e46206
81581 F20101209_AABOZW obrien_e_Page_101.jpg
e8fd6aba6763d78d41cd6321b5204fa3
b5351efede8390fb2547559563c092a01414cee8
1051981 F20101209_AABPGF obrien_e_Page_005.jp2
3c3f20de43ab8f46f4d2f78251488dbc
b1f8396a601e68bd4c21003df4cee6229b9dd248
52209 F20101209_AABPFR obrien_e_Page_061.pro
9212732a7d6e00c5c5cdfc0d890d78b3
9f7607431d6820a4c4e59b629a66300df63166cc
23879 F20101209_AABOZX obrien_e_Page_041.QC.jpg
fcae1ae3d796eba08dbb778701547eb5
5760b13986d264e190e02f7c63032b2c2dc21aee
F20101209_AABPFS obrien_e_Page_086.tif
3c1d27dbe760fe11c99274021b3dad89
8c3bee852c450660bc3abbe41beddd7b505211bb
74273 F20101209_AABOZY obrien_e_Page_061.jpg
c58b4e343b8260d493cb6be88732c3f7
547b7e42f573ab3930f999699f82afff7a06cb7f
47029 F20101209_AABPGG obrien_e_Page_033.pro
38e611510d22b42ccc0b1e0a15656574
1a12dae5779e08d8882a2c2b9b9a548fc6f12928
4893 F20101209_AABOZZ obrien_e_Page_010.pro
3ce99f78073e5738a9eefea7dfe85b7f
448ff782bcf57d3f7b9b508258e2a220b8ce19c5
46838 F20101209_AABPGH obrien_e_Page_101.pro
8a996b79fb98382a1ae60157862a7752
48205523a206299e77ffa44a3d32f1bd11e01ac0
1779 F20101209_AABPFT obrien_e_Page_096.txt
d8ce61b6c0ac0e015a0f93b75d2daef8
547caadd9dcf8f7cf1fabe10c127911a765748e0
6574 F20101209_AABPGI obrien_e_Page_044thm.jpg
62afc3af671a5cd721c96b6e84e4547f
cda2910f8f24a9e482ce768659b7455a0383023a
F20101209_AABPFU obrien_e_Page_089.tif
0e3a7a0418dc052cecc1f681c4de977c
70154d7798f7e12c1d9e854a84d4ae47bc2c8d40
6038 F20101209_AABPGJ obrien_e_Page_015thm.jpg
6ef241b334fdbdd1fd45c63de09cb326
f0abb1ab2e6e09efc88c9f4db56bc7a31681f58a
691 F20101209_AABPFV obrien_e_Page_099.txt
a339d600ff80498b186848289b76a9e0
361e6656d212205871e2545a4a503d5e05c49725
56422 F20101209_AABPGK obrien_e_Page_075.jpg
69b3866373eb3afe07b3e42e20eb4cf7
08a7341c59806f4e1485ba4542392ba9be554858
57405 F20101209_AABPFW obrien_e_Page_077.jpg
ad0fd8fc7a7151aab3486e6d380751eb
7449dc28dc08323aca26d03fe57c907b098de7aa
48239 F20101209_AABPHA obrien_e_Page_069.pro
7276baa5ad2fe0b5049b88bc1efd11ac
9442268f9a62de01dc3f3cecbfb7c9de4405a680
F20101209_AABPGL obrien_e_Page_062.tif
0eaa4ff2ae67f3f31516e2c42d5bdcad
023e1ae8925b54e20a34ffc64240a9516aa54df8
113348 F20101209_AABPFX obrien_e_Page_064.jp2
bc4bbb9e862a43bc50b78b248d51978e
e6e501f975d9691200f3894b5cd4f7fa25722b3f
F20101209_AABPHB obrien_e_Page_050.tif
fc51702211699db1cc16dd3bbd09c0de
52bb47f6f9586ec4eee4c0b3ef3814b1c183d61d
39126 F20101209_AABPGM obrien_e_Page_008.pro
e6e0abd24b0b4df036a306a0457ad066
444cfd64178bd37bd9d7cd4aa2467bbca68198ac
63787 F20101209_AABPFY obrien_e_Page_054.jpg
10655b9fe8aea7008572d79aa9250652
13484b741157867300c925b6da6a0d66c4f92979
1421 F20101209_AABPHC obrien_e_Page_075.txt
3ac8e9c4ee345a9032933ddd19c0e3a4
d5516adf0d3f05c5b084eef1cec6e20eea57fc9f
F20101209_AABPGN obrien_e_Page_043.tif
55dac5f6acbdca9fe2286ea3b226694f
0612b26d283f0d293b47ea28c432f56e76909572
6214 F20101209_AABPFZ obrien_e_Page_095thm.jpg
62eaeb10b6cc604342f57e77dc47d8dd
2eba2e32e26e80b437066eefed2baa46e9de3ce1
8950 F20101209_AABPHD obrien_e_Page_083.QC.jpg
dfbf27bd56f9e91e585620c8158646c3
406af54acb14bc457dee4753a9ac483aea808765
22193 F20101209_AABPGO obrien_e_Page_030.QC.jpg
8fe54b0bbceea107fadfee3968b49d9f
7c465771c47ad3ea6d5e6a383f80dbf6b76e90cd
1628 F20101209_AABPHE obrien_e_Page_071.txt
958ad5acfcfdc55512dbe2de055d33c5
cb68653bc2e4e3d34bdc3eea35666a9eeb221f89
23180 F20101209_AABPGP obrien_e_Page_044.QC.jpg
a1da785c75f8ba0d205189cb49d1c809
363681fcec5e63ec10af19ff6dd53971515775fa
F20101209_AABPHF obrien_e_Page_070thm.jpg
c8748de06fade03cd577440fbd528350
ce20c00de72d4e54e45e9d89a295f08f6981bce8
24297 F20101209_AABPGQ obrien_e_Page_064.QC.jpg
8464c4746e0f729a908567f19a1d43ed
bde8934da9c09fc8f23738aa8df597e13bc2058d
2401 F20101209_AABPHG obrien_e_Page_104thm.jpg
8f5568ee994549eac674a55675a3a830
d231f7db595e5d8dd15b9057b3e00c867ee223a1
8852 F20101209_AABPGR obrien_e_Page_001.pro
a6a6d189507b6917b0ab92d514ae7177
154d00d04240afe0d8766e0fa51c9828e3896728
20994 F20101209_AABPGS obrien_e_Page_072.jpg
66dc7650fd196e2b62242449668c78ac
5e4047cd35cfdf62230c14f8db38e74aea40c205
6985 F20101209_AABPHH obrien_e_Page_032thm.jpg
f62199d01c8cdd5385547429f7da1c77
2c10c9d11303f312925270408a4aef2acdf1df2a
48422 F20101209_AABPGT obrien_e_Page_105.pro
7e988a9b06aee942f69fd67474c6a66a
e2cbdb1a9b12e42ea7a5e4dd444b4b56a759427e
1691 F20101209_AABPHI obrien_e_Page_009.txt
5f00da5630d612fac3a2bcb416e4a202
29bc1f8cb67377c0cdc1e4c22a2e707ce1feb309
1870 F20101209_AABPGU obrien_e_Page_054.txt
ee9d2518811ec3be8cfecf55292a9b06
40592e8f6d915f9b4369b051d370b0fe500c91f4
F20101209_AABPHJ obrien_e_Page_078.pro
f785e3dd07c7d4aa7b319126cf94fb0c
366f1ecbcdd254c8fe5c8e8b46e582a349b69884
845012 F20101209_AABPGV obrien_e_Page_071.jp2
c9b85c6bddc7b5a3a7f3b0e4b42e43ee
37762f63f49b4f3666fe7ecb023c04b2d0a7f67b
F20101209_AABPHK obrien_e_Page_021.txt
ef2f321a5d0db584878cbd1661049d93
00cc2e5bbfa22a0306b950df0b4be407bf01fab9
19433 F20101209_AABPGW obrien_e_Page_092.jp2
7eae34b3f297016be09c3512e1dfc8ce
3db265c2f02ec3392319af4afecd83d131849c41
24637 F20101209_AABPHL obrien_e_Page_001.jpg
a5d87f3ebd1ee222b14b5e3b37463754
c58de42b9b06df20b7f92a1843420215802ed948
23996 F20101209_AABPGX obrien_e_Page_067.QC.jpg
dd68cd31606c8ade5c8fa4a188498d02
14b205ad15ef6b24f9b76d18ed48755558ac03a9
22733 F20101209_AABPIA obrien_e_Page_051.QC.jpg
c601aa21caf83f3e9ec2a32c5446c6a0
4710b57e662a1cd69f19840ccc2941c7f44abc44
1227 F20101209_AABPHM obrien_e_Page_002.pro
6cf44443c210ea1b49addb47468a9549
40745d008ed0f20709a1f0d5f98b1450ad0c1a4f
51338 F20101209_AABPGY obrien_e_Page_022.pro
06fa2be716e80e2c58f11bde55d63154
46c8e616c4bb94d7830fa1d5c4a3bc5efb1f1f62
20380 F20101209_AABPIB obrien_e_Page_049.QC.jpg
2b08e845f5ea8fdb2f0467acf69e0e51
a7d17f09d9f87cf36a65d42c57eac891662d5607
F20101209_AABPHN obrien_e_Page_077.tif
92e664f09208804b3c845b119cacfd1c
9f86141be7abda435ee9717473a72fed58b6e8ea
5840 F20101209_AABPGZ obrien_e_Page_037thm.jpg
320f1451ea163ebd34c611e22898d997
996d173653e2650f08de0855e97c28c6249908f8
1455 F20101209_AABPIC obrien_e_Page_043.txt
51eb8d3c49f56a811df7bcb93886b1ae
d790061b892313fc0cabc2b42a7425ac5bc9b7a9
4971 F20101209_AABPHO obrien_e_Page_098thm.jpg
98f4860a0df1a7556467d75dd9c61d9d
b35c631f8c6082d98e1242645996c19c11ec956a
F20101209_AABPID obrien_e_Page_046.tif
629292ea5949fe6a099ef4a91fba5515
18260ff2c10cdbe256b0b054a7e0702065991877
44267 F20101209_AABPHP obrien_e_Page_068.pro
1399351a3898ef80d1b0eca814b13edc
10f9b5a4b6b9702e811d9068e70f6da4ec94d008
F20101209_AABPIE obrien_e_Page_010.tif
cec5e80f6f3f09afee13c1fc07c3b7e0
bb02d073d95cfc260ab10765e8f8d65f04df1307
4103 F20101209_AABPHQ obrien_e_Page_102thm.jpg
e11dee10638fcc7ecc2decfd22acca15
529a4a86a9817b5b6db0b6224d5447b6987423e8
44301 F20101209_AABPIF obrien_e_Page_024.pro
3dd940b70a0c26b703e6e38c0846886a
fa384c0e569787c7cc787053539dbf50030ffccd
6501 F20101209_AABPHR obrien_e_Page_063thm.jpg
904a9e674e9f232fd515573c30a83190
98c67318f490a5455b639d9889d3098eb59bc734
28983 F20101209_AABPIG obrien_e_Page_104.jp2
37d869c55a647622d130b228b4ae5070
d7778898b72a12b521762ca3bb370ac31766d449
94580 F20101209_AABPHS obrien_e_Page_073.jp2
1033617e160bf8062ea7dc8767183b61
2f35aa19ef4fe8a2fba029021b2feb841a4eb134
1959 F20101209_AABPIH obrien_e_Page_088.txt
0efb75c1125e5a747cbe7935f6506cf4
48a7a0b8701438826aee0e6edf5853ebc8ecfa40
F20101209_AABPHT obrien_e_Page_104.tif
ed1ece121a54b27bfe4adcfdbbb0f089
4b2c79968921e7de9ecaad577d8f091f02e36ac4
2551 F20101209_AABPHU obrien_e_Page_001thm.jpg
7c8fdb21eb6b8465d47f23f711a2c74d
11b55ed069288f80e6d3fb0486a02bf1fa62b0c6
1051960 F20101209_AABPII obrien_e_Page_038.jp2
a10fcb804b5dc9a290a835fad3762bd4
e10e7ba65e5e436b6fd2e4ed6f9745c23d4035cf
1751 F20101209_AABPHV obrien_e_Page_049.txt
9d269e9a23eea33c636bb9a5ffd76295
d46d2dc6d4e3426fe17856687be7b6cdd84a831e
113767 F20101209_AABPIJ obrien_e_Page_057.jp2
55ac99a7b865ff7186c5887f5c2cc50b
5de18b599e9ddb834753fa9434198267a2b032dd
14396 F20101209_AABPHW obrien_e_Page_108.jp2
e57e1ab2b02853ab4759702317a5d776
eec3c4bef6ce85ad719ef04d51490b903368dd92
64343 F20101209_AABPIK obrien_e_Page_079.jp2
28849250b7faf5f037f9f20311d5249a
0509e71a6d7321cdd7bc18e1111b5e17fd4154d4
69380 F20101209_AABPHX obrien_e_Page_069.jpg
17265f16c665156ad5f9c69b9a5de050
3bb8a684aab2b7f62e78c43a1c0ac9c99f325c40
69293 F20101209_AABPJA obrien_e_Page_020.jpg
eb824c3f7fd4f472a563a5b202523e60
e42920d8103b6bbf11e870660808102e69be795a
6742 F20101209_AABPIL obrien_e_Page_029thm.jpg
d4af35cd3cee298124af4bcbe4f9f858
c62d1f1c89f7939b44524a402b76d594cc79bb06
F20101209_AABPHY obrien_e_Page_108.tif
55a8a7d890002cc4496f1481e365a469
32792194eca9a063d48e870b331de5b354e7fed4
71556 F20101209_AABPJB obrien_e_Page_047.jpg
af4e9ddf03a9a2453515c6dc761a78f9
60138a3f541bf25e770a47544e03c94ebe8154d3
105441 F20101209_AABPIM obrien_e_Page_020.jp2
a7a2f9018a61fbb59beda7ad93ffa074
2b23f3834135a90891bf37135bc8860789b2c35a
1051954 F20101209_AABPHZ obrien_e_Page_031.jp2
18ee8d8b00f96da10e493b191e1df9de
fa39443b5009639325473c1b4441cd2e7202c3c4
F20101209_AABPJC obrien_e_Page_069.tif
da908565f7f982678bf6caf5ea9b8ecd
af968fe198ea9922026ebe314621a184d0248963
F20101209_AABPIN obrien_e_Page_107.tif
45599f1ace56b33637b51494cfaffd3e
6c17f52159af8fcfbf560b9a55f88694a7d00829
50730 F20101209_AABPJD obrien_e_Page_045.pro
c86e120604b847e80aa94231fcdb7e2b
90ed9dbdab6374f8149199ca072dd9c7633b6168
36486 F20101209_AABPIO obrien_e_Page_085.jpg
ea692e2b1804a1c1e0568199a7465783
30148cf9c35b9726e834fdb90dcb0cba00c7aed1
F20101209_AABPJE obrien_e_Page_030.txt
904eb92ba952adf8ad31f0ac08fac59a
cc57fc94ab4f9169cb23a716f37d93a5a346ee73
6133 F20101209_AABPIP obrien_e_Page_058thm.jpg
2daa56d9e869e13827b9119cc380f421
cbb2d8e11becbea1b045cb446cb1ebcd4d87fc0e



PAGE 1

LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS OF THE DE CONSTRUCTION OF MILITARY BARRACKS: A CASE STUDY AT FT MCCLELLAN, ANNISTON, ALABAMA By ELIZABETH OBRIEN A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ENGINEERING UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2006

PAGE 2

Copyright 2006 by ELIZABETH OBRIEN

PAGE 3

iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to first acknowledge and th ank the Department of Defense for the grant funding that made this project possible. I am also grateful to Brad Guy and Timothy Williams for their leadership and guidance of the deconstruction team and for their work in collecting and organizing the data used in th e life cycle assessment. I would also like to thank Costello Dismantling Company for its help in the deconstruction and demolition of the military barracks at Ft. McClellan. I acknowledge and thank Dr. Angela S. Lindner, my supervisory committee chairperson, for her time, hard work, leadersh ip, and guidance during th is project. I thank my committee members Drs. Timothy Townsend and Charles Kibert for their direction, time, and support. I am also very grateful to my research group for feedback and support throughout this project. I acknowledge and tha nk my family, roommates and friends for all of their support and guidance.

PAGE 4

iv TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.................................................................................................iii LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................vii LIST OF FIGURES.........................................................................................................viii ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ix CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 A Case for Deconstruction............................................................................................2 Advantages............................................................................................................2 Disadvantages........................................................................................................4 Is Reuse of Non-Virgin Wood Possible?...............................................................5 A Case for Virgin Wood...............................................................................................8 Research Scope...........................................................................................................12 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE.....................................................................................14 Amount of Construction Each Year...........................................................................14 Amount of Deconstruction/Demolition Each Year....................................................15 Increased Availability of Materials.....................................................................15 How are Virgin Trees Turned Into Usable Wood?.............................................16 Virgin Wood Processes...............................................................................................16 Harvesting............................................................................................................16 Sawmill................................................................................................................17 The Deconstruction Process.......................................................................................18 Raw Material Extraction......................................................................................18 Material Refining.................................................................................................21 Use/Reuse............................................................................................................22 Disposal...............................................................................................................23 Disadvantages of Unlined Landfills....................................................................25 Costs of Deconstruction Verses Demolition...............................................................28

PAGE 5

v 3 LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS.........................................................................................33 Abstract.......................................................................................................................33 Introduction.................................................................................................................34 Methods......................................................................................................................37 Description of Fort McClellan Barracks.............................................................37 The Deconstruction Process and Four Scenarios Studied...................................37 Life Cycle Analysis....................................................................................................39 Functional Unit....................................................................................................39 Scope and Goal Definition..................................................................................39 Figure 3-2............................................................................................................39 Figures 3-3 and 3-4..............................................................................................40 Data Inventory.....................................................................................................41 Impact Assessment..............................................................................................42 Assumptions and Limitations.....................................................................................42 Sensitivity Analysis....................................................................................................44 Results and Discussion...............................................................................................45 Data Inventory.....................................................................................................45 Time Requirements for Remova l of Barrack Components.................................45 Labor and Machine Time and Mileage Requirements and Material Yields........47 Fuel and Electricity Requirements......................................................................49 Emissions....................................................................................................................51 Impact Analysis..........................................................................................................53 Case 1: No Salvaging..................................................................................................53 Case 2: Salvaging and No Long-Distan ce Transportation to a Storage Facility (Local Reuse)..........................................................................................................55 Case 3: Salvaging and Transport to Austin, TX, for Reuse........................................56 Sensitivity Analysis....................................................................................................57 Time for Deconstruction or Demolition Activities.............................................57 Commuting Distance...........................................................................................58 Recycling.............................................................................................................58 Transportation Requirements..............................................................................58 Time Required for Paint and Nail Removal........................................................59 Conclusions.................................................................................................................59 4 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS..................................76 Summary.....................................................................................................................76 Conclusions.................................................................................................................76 Recommendations.......................................................................................................79 APPENDIX A DATA COLLECTION AND DAI LY NARRRRATIVE...........................................81 Introduction to the Form.............................................................................................81 Key to Form................................................................................................................83

PAGE 6

vi Team....................................................................................................................83 Completed by.......................................................................................................83 Date......................................................................................................................83 Time.....................................................................................................................83 Name....................................................................................................................83 Building...............................................................................................................84 Room...................................................................................................................84 Location...............................................................................................................84 Activity................................................................................................................85 HDec (hand deconstruction)............................................................................85 HDem (hand demolition).................................................................................85 MDec (mechanically assi sted deconstruction).................................................87 MDem (mechanically assisted demolition).....................................................87 N (non-productive)...........................................................................................87 P (processing)...................................................................................................88 S (supervising).................................................................................................88 Assembly.............................................................................................................88 Equipment............................................................................................................88 B INVENTORY OF EMISSIONS.................................................................................90 LIST OF REFERENCES...................................................................................................95 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.............................................................................................99

PAGE 7

vii LIST OF TABLES Table page 2-1. C&D Waste Material Categories and Sources..........................................................19 2-2. Amount of Chemical Constituen ts in Wood Products (Construction and Demolition Waste Landfills 1995)...........................................................................26 3-1 Time Requirements for Removing Co mponents of Barracks Using the Four Scenarios Varying in Degree of Manual Deconstructiona, b.....................................61 3-2 Labor and Machine Requirements and Ma terial Yields of the Four Scenarios Studied......................................................................................................................62 3-3 Fuel and Electricity Require ments for Associated Processesa,b.................................63 3-4 Emissions from the Scenario Involving 100% Manual Methodsa.............................64 3-5 Emissions from the Scenario Involving 44% Manual Methodsa................................65 3-6 Emissions from the Scen ario Involving 26% Manual Methodsa...............................66 3-7 Emissions from the Scenario In volving 100% Mechanical Methodsa, b.....................67 B-1: Raw Material Emissions...........................................................................................90 B-2: Emissions to Air........................................................................................................91 B-3: Emissions to Water...................................................................................................93 B-4: Emissions to Land.....................................................................................................94

PAGE 8

viii LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 3-1 World War II Army Barr acks at Fort McClellan...................................................... 68 3-2 Stages Involved in the Deconstruction Process.........................................................69 3-3 Total Impacts Calculated Using the EDIP Method Not Including Reuse of Salvaged Materials...................................................................................................70 3-4 Total Impacts Calculated Usin g the CML Method Not Including Reuse of Salvaged Materials...................................................................................................71 3-5 Total Impacts Calculated Using the EDIP Method Including Reuse of Salvaged Materials But No Transportation to a Warehouse....................................................72 3-6 Total Impacts Calculated Using th e CML Method Reuse of Salvaged Materials But No Transportation to a Warehouse....................................................................73 3-7 Total Impacts Calculated Using the EDIP Method Including Reuse of Salvaged Materials and Transport to the Habitat for Humanity Warehouse in Austin, Texas........................................................................................................................74 3-8 Total Impacts Calculated Using th e CML Method Including Reuse of Salvaged Materials and Transport to the Habita t for Humanity Warehouse in Austin, Texas........................................................................................................................75

PAGE 9

ix Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Engineering LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS OF THE DE CONSTRUCTION OF MILITARY BARRACKS: A CASE STUDY AT FT MCCLELLAN, ANNISTON, ALABAMA By Elizabeth OBrien May 2006 Chair: Angela Lindner Major Department: Environmental Engineering Sciences Nearly 2.5 million ft2 of barracks must be remove d from military facilities throughout the U.S. Environmental Protec tion Agency Region 4. While manual deconstruction offers promise for environmental, economic, and social benefits, the combination of mechanical and manual methods for minimal impact to the environment and public health is unknown. Here, life cycle analysis was used to determine an optimum level of manual deconstruction of barracks at Ft. McClellan in Anniston, Alabama. Four scenarios were compared with varying degrees of time required for manual deconstruction, 100% Manual, 44% Manual, 26% Manual, and 100% Mechanical, on the barracks. Data were collect ed directly from the site and applied using SimaPro modeling software (Pr Associates The Netherlands), considering three postdeconstruction options. Materials salv aged using either 100% or 44% Manual deconstruction and reused within a 20-mile ra dius of the deconstruction site yielded the most favorable environmental and health im pacts; however, given the significant impacts

PAGE 10

x involved in the life cycle of diesel fuel required for transpor tation, the need for developing reuse strategies for deconstruc ted materials at the regional level is emphasized.

PAGE 11

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Each year, the building industr y in the United States is re ported to generate nearly 136 million tons of construction and de molition (C&D) waste, amounting to 35-40 percent of the total amount of municipal solid waste (MSW ) produced annually (Dolan et al. 1999). Approximately 60 percent of this C&D waste originates from the demolition of buildings, and 80-90 percent of this waste is estimated to be either reusable or recyclable (McPhee 2002). While the reuse and recycling of C&D-related waste offers potential environmental advantages, the bui lding and deconstruction industry has not fully embraced these practices (Lippiatt 1998). Reuse and recycling of currently landf illed construction and demolition materials offer potential benefits in terms of decrease d landfill use and raw material extraction. A reduced amount of raw material extraction is a benefit to the environment because the extraction of raw materials may lead to resour ce depletion and biologi cal diversity losses. The extraction of raw materials normally occurs at sites far from manufacturing plants and the transport of raw materials and manufacturing of building products consume energy. The generation of this energy produ ces emissions linked to global warming, acid rain and smog. Also the waste generated from the manufacture and transport of the raw materials decreases the space available for dis posal in landfills. A ll of these activities from raw material extraction to landfilling are potential sources of air and water pollution. The goal of this proj ect is to discover the best way to lower bu ilding-related contributions to environmental problems (Lippiatt 1998).

PAGE 12

2 A Case for Deconstruction Most buildings are removed using demolition processes. Demolition is an equipment-intensive operation. Most of the crew is involved in operation of machinery and have very little physical contact with the actual building materials. Larger materials (usually metals, sometimes concrete and masonry) can be separated during demolition using machinery (Falk and Lantz 1996). D econstruction, on the other hand, is the systematic disassembly of buildings in or der to reuse and recycle as many of the component parts as possible, before or instead of standard mechanized demolition (Mcphee 2002). Deconstruction uses hand la bor and physical contact with the building by the workers and involves a methodical disass embly of building parts with similar care taken in this process as devoted to its reve rse process of construction. Because of this physical contact with the building, deconstruc tion takes about twice as long as demolition (Falk and Lantz 1996). As an alternative to demo lition, deconstruction has adva ntages and disadvantages: Advantages Recycling building materials conserves reso urces by diverting us ed materials from the landfill and avoiding use of virgin resources. For ev ery recovered square foot of wood used in new construction, a corres ponding square foot of virgin wood is not consumed. Therefore, salvaging redu ces the use of natural resources. The diversion of bulky and difficult-to-handl e C&D waste from the municipal solid waste (MSW) stream will increase the operating life of local landfills and will result in fewer associated environm ental impacts such as groundwater contamination (Dolan et al. 1999).

PAGE 13

3 Deconstruction and the resulting reuse of bu ilding materials results in avoidance of some of the costs of landfilling, prim arily transportation and tipping fees. Recovering materials may generate a cred it or otherwise subsidize the overall building disposal costs. A generated credit would allow the owner of the deconstructed building to receive money or materials from the user of the recovered materials. Landfill failures can result in remediation costs being assigned to former landfill contributors. By reducing landfill use, there could be a reduced future liability (Falk and Lantz 1996). Due to the increasing cost of materials manuf actured with virgin materials, recycled materials are becoming much cheaper in comparison. Salvaging reduces the total cost of mate rials since only the cost of removal, refurbishing, and transport is incurred by the sa lvage (NAHB 2003). The availability of high-quality virgin materials for the manufacture of building materials is decreasing. In many cases, th e sources of raw materials are great distances from installations or building projects, and hi gh transportation costs make contractors look for a local replacement. Many state and regional waste au thorities restrict the dis posal of bulk waste, such as furniture, appliances, and building equipm ent, to special solid waste handlers or landfills. This, in turn, has driven up th e disposal tipping fees. In most cases, any level of salvage reduces the cost of disposal. Timber that is recovered properly from older buildings is gaining acceptance in meeting the demand for large old-growth timber (Falk, R. and Lantz, S. 1996).

PAGE 14

4 Salvage recovers the highest percentage of the embodied resources in the materials or subsystems. The energy and raw materials consumed in the original manufacture of the materials or systems are not lost to landfill disposal (NAHB 2003). Disadvantages Building disposal may be more manageme nt-intensive for the building owner if multiple contracts are needed for the various types of abatement and disposal. Deconstruction takes twice as long as demolition. Demolition is more machine-intensive, while deconstruction is more laborintensive. Because of the increased numb er of workers on the deconstruction site, there is an increase in the emphasi s on site safety and coordination. The markets for nonvirgin building materials are very unstable. The acceptance of salvaged material is still in transi tion from local markets to national and international markets. Therefore, the va lue of the recovered materials is still difficult to predict (Falk and Lantz 1996). Salvaged materials are harder to sell. As yet, they do not have a standard grading system. So it is hard to tell for what application each board can be used. Before the deconstruction process, a dete rmination of whether the materials and/or assemblies can be removed in a cost-effective and safe manner must be made. This is vital information in assessing the economic feasibility of the project. Even when markets for the material exis t, deconstruction may not be financially justifiable if there is not enough material.

PAGE 15

5 If there is too much material and not enough storage space the salvage operation may not be able to occur. If the material has to be stored for an indefinite period of time, some types of materials, such as wa llboard, will lose their economic value. If they are not stored properly, degradation of their material properties may occur (Dolan et al. 1999). There are negative environmental impact s, such as dust generation, noise and vibrations (Thormark 2002). Deconstruction discards different wast e than construction or renovation and demolition. Deconstruction is more likely to contribute contaminated materials to landfills because all reusable materials are separated, leaving for disposal materials contaminated by potentially toxic substan ces, such as lead paints, stains, and adhesives (Dolan et al. 1999). Is Reuse of Non-Virgin Wood Possible? The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) has 2,357,094 square feet of excess buildings that are in need of removal from military bases throughout U.S. EPA Region 4, encompassing the states of Alabama, Flor ida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee (Falk et al. 1999). The U.S. military is disposing of these barracks because the federal procurement law and military regulations listed under the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations CFR 32 162.2, will not allow federal tax dollars to be spent on the maintenance of facilit ies that are in surplus to its needs (Falk et al. 1999). In response to these regulations, th e U.S. Army is considering deconstruction of its barracks and salvaging of materials in order to accomplish its minimization goals and subsidize the overall disposal costs of the buildings, thus lowering funding

PAGE 16

6 requirements (Falk et al. 1999). However, th ere is a question as to whether 100% manual deconstruction of military barracks will yi eld optimum economic and environmental savings, particularly for those barracks built before World War II. The possibility of recovering timber and lumber from buildings is dependent on both physical and economic factors, which include: wood condition, dimensions, and species type and number of fasteners per piece exposure or protection from the elements labor cost allowable building disposal period site configuration and building height allowable on site recovered materials storage time The demand for nonvirgin timber and lumber can increase due to the following: Harvesting restrictions on high-quality, large-diameter, old-growth timber restrict its availability at any price. Prices of forest products are steadily increasing. Exposed timber frame construction demands high-quality large timber. Older species-specific wood may be desired for use in new log home construction and interior remodeling of older buildings. North American species may be consider ed exotic creating a demand in those markets. The more nonvirgin timber and lumber is used the more familiar buyers, designers, and builders will become with it.

PAGE 17

7 The demand for nonvirgin timber and lumber is restricted by the following factors: There are no grading standards or de sign rules specifically for nonvirgin wood materials; application of virgin materi al standards and rules on nonvirgin wood may have the effect of downgrading nonvirgin materials. Lumber used at a site must be graded. Without a grade, a timber grader must be present, or the materials will be rejected. Lack of consistent supplies and markets for nonvirgin timber and lumber. Owners and disposal contract ors are not aware of the va lue of nonvirgin timber and lumber so they make no attempt to recover them (Falk and Lantz 1996). Variability of the Quality of Lumber Service-related defects, such as drying checks, splits, bolt and nail holes, notches from other framing members or utilities and exposure to weather and decay, can affect the quality of recycled lumber. Depending on the building type and use, boards also may have been exposed to chemicals and extreme temperatures. Most im portantly, structural members have often experienced an unknow n load history (Green et al. 1999). When timber is first cut it is full of water. Before the days of drying kilns in mills, wood was allowed to dry naturally. This pro cess takes several years for large timbers. As the wood dries out, the timbers shrink. Th e location of the cut on the tree determines the kinds of splits or checks that occur in th e wood. A split is a separation of the wood as a result of the tearing of the wood cells (Fal k et al. 2000). A separation of the wood that occurs across or through the growth rings is a check. A separation that extends from one surface of a piece to the opposite or adjoining surface is a through check (Falk et al. 2000 73). If the timber was cut from the center (the heart of the tr ee), cracks (checks)

PAGE 18

8 will form in a radial pattern outward from th e center. If the timber was cut from the outside part of the tree (free of heart center), there will be less checking. Free of heart center timbers check less, but they cost more because they have to be cut from a much bigger tree (Falk et al. 2000). Heart checks have little effect on the stre ngth of the recycled timber columns, but they lower the modulus of rupture (Stress Grading of Recycled Lumber and Timber 1999). Checks also have little effect on column compressive strength. Although the checks have little effect on th e quality, the damage incurred during deconstruction lowers the quality of dimensional lumber from the reconstructed buildings on average one grade (Falk and Green 1999). The direct reuse of wood materials as a construction product faces many obstacles. The duration of loads, moisture cycling and fabrication changes durin g the service life of the wood are difficult to determine but quantif ying the remaining strength of the wood is necessary. Currently, there is no way to grade wood except on an individual piece-bypiece basis. This is a majo r obstacle to the reuse of tim ber. Typically, manufacturers will reuse heavy timbers only for post and frame buildings because they are dry and stable ( Green et al. 1999). Another obstacle to the direct reuse of wood materials occurs as a result of use or the dismantlement pro cess. Defects often e xhibited by recycled lumber can include mechanical damage (broken ends and edges of members, splits due to disassembly), damage from fasteners and hard ware (bolt holes, clusters of nail holes), and notches from other framing member s or utilities (Green et al. 1999). A Case for Virgin Wood Since 1953, 16 million acres of southern yellow pine timberland have been lost in the South. Suppression of wildfires, reduced prescribed burning, sout hern pine beetles,

PAGE 19

9 urban development, high-grading, and a lack of artificial regenerati on on privately owned timberlands are all factors that have contri buted to the decline of timberland. Treeplanting programs on agricultural lands have slowed the decline of timberland. In addition, according to the Southern Forest Reso urce Assessment, an increase in southern yellow pine timberland could occur if 23 million acres of former cropland and pastureland were planted to pines during the next four decades. This effort would probably require subsidies (South and Buckner 2003). Each American uses the equivalent of a 100-foot tree every year. The American population has increased from 76 million in 1900 to more than 250 million people in 1990. Therefore, over 14-billion 100-foot tr ees were grown and used from 1900 to 1990. And, due to good forest practices, two-thirds of the original forestland is left. Many people believe that, to obtain environm ental benefits from the forests, it is best to leave the trees untouched. More of ten, the opposite is true Forests with young trees that are growing and hea lthy generally have more enviro nmental benefits than older forests whose trees are stagnant or dying. Tree farming using modern forestry knowledge produces young healthy forests (Trees 1992). Trees, unlike steel and aluminum, are a renewable resource. In 2002, forest landowners planted nearly 1.7 billion seedlings. Besides planting new trees, forest landowners managed the natural regeneration of millions of other trees giving America nearly two and a half million acres of new, growing forests. For decades, America has been growing more wood than is harvested or lost to insects and di sease. And since the beginning of the 1980s, the total amount of forestland in America has increased by 27 million acres (Trees 1992).

PAGE 20

10 Trees produce 1.07 pounds of oxygen and use 1.47 pounds of carbon dioxide for every pound of wood they grow. An acre of trees can grow approximately 4,000 pounds of wood a year, using 5,880 pounds of car bon dioxide and giving off 4,280 pounds of oxygen in the process (South and Buckner 2003). Forests benefit our population in two wa ys. The first is by producing wood. People use an average of 15,824 board feet of lumber and up to 10,893 square feet of panels in each house that is built. Over 600 pounds of paper per a person are produced a year for books, diapers, packaging, and all the other paper products. Trees are also a benefit due to the oxygen they produce. One person needs 365 pounds of oxygen per year, and that oxygen is manu factured through plants and trees (South and Buckner 2003). America is slowly becoming a paperless society as electronic copies become the more cost and time-efficient way to do busin ess. Before the industrialization of our nation, tree harvesting was minimal. However, now that our nation is industrialized, the harvesting of trees is one of the best ways to counteract the produc tion of air pollution. As trees age, they consume less carbon di oxide, so growing new trees allows more carbon dioxide to be taken up and oxygen to be released making our air more breathable. The harvesting of trees is important because it gives new trees room to grow and keeps carbon dioxide stored in old wood. As forests age and become more overcrowd ed, little growth occurs; however, trees begin to use oxygen instead of releasing oxygen; and more wood may decay than grow. For every pound of wood that decays (or combusts), 1.07 pou nds of oxygen are used, and 1.47 pounds of carbon dioxide are released (South and Buckner 2003). As a result of this

PAGE 21

11 reversal of CO2 removal/oxygen release, care must be taken to avoid wood decay or combustion and to ensure that new trees are in abundance. Besides creating more breathable air, trees cool the air by providing water evaporation. Trees act like huge pumps cycling the water up from the soil and back into the air (South and Buckner 2003). A 100-foot tree with 200,000 leaves, for example, can remove 11,000 gallons of water from the soil and release it into the air in one growing season. This cooling effect of water evapora tion by latent heat tran sfer is said to be equivalent to air conditioning for 12,168 square foot rooms. In fact, one solution to combat global warming is forest regene ration and maintenance (South and Buckner 2003). When a forest grows naturally, it goes thr ough cycles. A wild forest may start out with as many as 15,000 small seedlings per acre. Over a typical 60to 100-year cycle, at least 14,700 of the original trees 98 percent will die as the trees compete for space. Modern forestry finds ways to use this natural mortality and improve and maintain forests at the same time (South and Buckner 2003). Modern forestry uses many different types of harvesting, depending on many factors, including the terrain a nd the conditions that are need ed to plant a forest (South and Buckner 2003). More than half of the timber harvested each year in the United States is used in some form of solid wood product: lumber, panels of veneer, or chips for both structural and nonstructural applications and miscellaneous products, such as posts, poles, and pilings. Although a significant amount is used in manufacturing and shipping, construction activity accounts for the majority of solid wood products consumption (more than 60 percent of lumber and more than 80 pe rcent of structural pa nels). As a result,

PAGE 22

12 consumption and prices of lumber are highly sensitive to fluctuations in new housing and other construction activity (Adams 2002). Th erefore, use of virg in wood maintains the production of trees, however, salvaging wood pr events the already harvested trees from decaying in landfills. Research Scope The focus of this paper is the life cycle comparison of four identical barracks located at Fort McClellan in Anniston, Alab ama, deconstructed with varying degrees of hand and mechanical methods, ranging from 100% mechanical demolition to 100% manual deconstruction. Using data carefully collected during th e deconstruction and demolition processes, the specific emissions and resulting environmental impacts of the four scenarios are compared using LC A methods and are reported herein. Since steel and masonry building materials we re being redirected to other parts of the war effort, many of the army facilities that were built during the World War II era were built of timber. Many of these facilities were classified as surplus to the nations defense requirements at the end of the Cold War era in the early 1990s. The current situation in the military is contrary to the pa st trend of adding buildings to the industrial inventory while continuing to use existing bui ldings. In the past, any disposal of buildings was incidental to other ongoing ope rations and, as such, was often handled on an individual basis. This disposal was ba sed on administrative decisions and disposal practices. The typical disposal practice for such facilities has been demolition, with the debris placed in a landfill (Falk, R. and Lant z, S. 1996). Several army bases have been closed since 1990, and many of the World Wa r II barracks are no longer used (Falk, R. and Lantz, S. 1996). Since federal tax dolla rs cannot be spent to maintain surplus facilities, many of these army facilities must be demolished. In 1995, over 250,000,000

PAGE 23

13 board feet (BF) of lumber were estimated to be available for reuse from the World War II wood buildings then slated for demolition (Falk 2002). At Ft. McClellan in Anniston, Alabam a, deconstruction and demolition was performed on three barracks on site with varying degrees of mechanical and manual labor. This project involves a life cycle a ssessment (LCA) to determine if the reuse of wood salvaged from the deconstruction of the barracks is a viable alternative to using virgin wood. The Environm ental Protection Agency states an LCA examines the environmental releases and impacts of a specific product by tracking its development from a raw material, through its production and to eventual disposal. An LCA was performed on all four scenarios to compare the inputs and outputs of each scenario in the form of environmental impacts, energy consum ed and labor required. This project was completed to help the DOD determine the square footage of barracks that need removal and to compare and contrast environmental impacts of deconstruction and demolition. This project will have a direct impact on th e ability to plan the most environmentally effective deconstruction of the barracks c ontained in EPA Region 4. This plan is intended to aid the U.S. Army to meet its waste minimization goals, to provide materials at lower cost for new construction on bases on or close to deconstruction sites, and to increase the number of civili an jobs. The hypothesis of the project is that 100% manual deconstruction will have the lowest environmental impacts of any of the four scenarios because it is assumed the machinery will be used for the least amount of time and fewer materials will be landfilled. Therefore the least amount of emissions should be produced in the 100% manual deconstruction scenario.

PAGE 24

14 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE Amount of Construction Each Year Over the last three decades lumber consumption has increased by nearly one-third, and structural panel use has more than doubled. The Resources Planning Act (RPA) Timber Assessment projects that the consump tion of solid wood products will continue to grow in the future through the expansion of both construction and nonconstruction uses due to Americas growing population and increasing wealth (Adams 2002). It is projected that, every year for th e next 50 years, 1.43 million new households will be constructed, thus creating approxima tely 71 million additional separate living units. Approximately, 1.93 million houses will al so be improved each year for the next 50 years. The primary driver of the new construction and improvements is an aging, healthy, retired population acquiri ng second homes (Adams 2002). Reflecting the trend of an aging populati on and the declining number of people per household, the average size of new housing units is projected to stabil ize over the next 40 years and then rise in the final decade of the projection. By 2050, the average size of a single-family unit will increase from the cu rrent average of 2,160 square feet to 2,600 square feet. Multiple-family housing will expand from 1,000 to 1,200 square feet, and mobile homes will grow from 1,350 to 1,950 sq uare feet (Adams 2002). In 2004, singlefamily houses had already increased to an average size of 2,225 square feet (CORRIM 2004). Since 1991, the consumption of lumber ha s been growing stead ily. A historical high of 68.2 billion board feet (bbf) c onsumed was reached in 1999 (Adams 2002).

PAGE 25

15 Amount of Deconstruction/Demolition Each Year The average age of housing in the United St ates is over 30 years, necessitating their improvement or demolition. According to the Census Bureau, approximately 245,000 dwelling units and 45,000 non-residential uni ts are demolished every year, creating approximately 74 million tons of debris a year. Using deconstruction to remove buildings can convert demolition waste into construction materials. For example, by deconstructing one-fourth of the buildings instead of demolishing them, approximately 20 million tons of debris could be dive rted from landfills each year (NAHB 2003). Increased Availability of Materials The past century has seen a major populat ion boom in the United States. During this time many new residential homes, commerc ial and industrial build ings, bridges, and other structures were built from sawn lumb er and timber. As these buildings become ready to be torn down, much of this lumber may be available for reuse. Over three trillion board feet of lumber and timber ha ve been processed in the U.S. since 1900. Much of this wood is still residing in existing structures. When these structures reach the end of their service lives, become obsole te, or change use, contemporary practices emphasize quick, cheap disposal in landfills (Gre en et al. 1999). Recently, public interest has been expressed in finding environmentally acceptable and efficient material reuse options that focus on deconstruction and re use of materials in new construction and remodeling activities (Green et al. 1999). Along with growing public interest in incr easing the amount of recycling/reuse of C&D waste, federal agencies, such as th e United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and General Services Agen cy (GSA), have developed policies to promote an increase in the use of recycled content products. Building materials have not

PAGE 26

16 been emphasized in these procurement guidelines until recently. Increased recycling of C&D waste promises to close the loop of material procurement and reuse by increasing the amount of materials avai lable (Dolan et al. 1999). How are Virgin Trees Turned Into Usable Wood? The life cycle of timber products includes the following stages: Growing timber Harvesting timber/cutting it down Processing/making it into a useable product Installation into a building Maintaining, preserving, painting Replacement Disposal via landfill, incinerator/burning or recycling Transport at each stage Virgin Wood Processes Harvesting Timber used for the construction of ne w houses and the renovation of old houses all comes from one source-trees. The harvesting of trees occurs in three stages: the felling and bunching of trees, the movement of th e trees from the forest to the site where they are loaded on the truck and the load ing of the trees onto the truck (Long 2003). A feller buncher is used in the first stage (felling and bunching of trees). The feller buncher cuts down a group of trees using a saw blade that is located on the bottom of the feller buncher between two clamps. There are also two more sets of clamps located above the saw blade. All three sets of clamps are brought together at the same time. As

PAGE 27

17 the saw blade cuts the tree, the two upper sets of clamps grab hold of the tree. Normally feller bunchers cut trees that are between 8 and 18 in diameter. It cuts several trees at a time, lays the trees down, and moves on to cut down the next tree (Long 2003). Photos of feller bunchers can be accessed at http://www.deere.com/en_US/cfd/forestry/d eere_forestry/feller _bunchers/tracked/703G_ general.html, http://catused. cat.com/equipment/view-equipmentdetail.html?equipmentPK=Eq1.545735F, and http://www.franklintreefarmer.com/fellerbunchers/Fellerbunchers.html. A rubber-tired skidder delimbs the downe d trees by directing them through steel grates and then moves them from the forest to the loading area (Long 2003). Photos of rubber-tired skidders can be accessed at http://www.vanna ttabros.com/skidder1.html. Log loaders are used to sort the wood by si ze and to pick the trees up from the ground and load them on eighteen-wheeler trucks, whic h carry the logs to the mill (Long 2003). Photos of log loaders can be observed at http://www.vannattabros.com/drott.html and http://www.madillequipment.com/loaders.html. Sawmill Logs are converted into lumber in a sa wmill after they are unloaded from the eighteenwheeler truck. The first step is to cut the logs to specified log lengths, and then the logs are sawn by a chippi ng saw or a bandsaw, edgers, a trimmer and a resaw. The focus of these processes is to maximize the lumber extraction. The tim ber is cut into twoinch thick boards of varying wi dths and lengths, and sorted by size before it is kiln-dried. The lumber is then planed using a plane saw and graded by graders. The kilns, which are controlled by computers, dry rough, green lumb er with a moisture content of about 50% to a desired moisture content of about 10% in approximately 24 hours. Lumber is planed

PAGE 28

18 to the desired size and finished in the planermill. Then the lumber is shipped to consumers (Long 2003). The Deconstruction Process Raw Material Extraction Deconstruction is used to extract materials that will be reused in new construction and remodeling activities. The main raw material that comes from deconstruction is reusable wood. Other raw materials that ca n be salvaged include showers, urinals, mercury ballasts, and doors. Before deconstruction begins, the building is surveyed to determine what can and cannot be salvaged. Visible defects, subtle signs of wear and tear, and the ease with which materials can be removed are observed. Deconstruction is both labor-intensive and time-consuming, comparable to buildi ng a new structure only in reverse order (Yeung and David 1998). Deconstruction starts with removing the shingles from the roof and pulling out nails to take out the sheathing. The roof boards are then pried loose, handed down, further denailed, si zed and stacked. Next, workers take nails from the rafters, knock the boards apart, and hand them down to be denailed and sorted. Then the ceiling joists are knocked off and lowered dow n (Block 1998). This process continues throughout the whole building. Deconstruction can be contrasted with the sorting and salvaging of demolition debris. The biggest problem with sorting and salvaging of demolition debris is that, during demolition, the debris is mixed. Even during the deconstruction process, when the structure is carefully dismantled by manual labor, the mixing of different types of materials is still possible. For example, removing the exterior wall in a load-bearing masonry system will result in a combination of masonry materials including concrete

PAGE 29

19 blocks or bricks, reinforcing steel, metal ties and grout (Dolan et al. 1999). These dissimilar materials must be separated if they are to be recycled or reused. The composition of C&D waste varies depe nding on the type of project and the method of construction and demolition. In ge neral, wood comprises one-quarter to onethird of the C&D waste stream. As shown in Table 2-1, C&D waste can be divided into sixteen categories of materials, which can be furtherdivided into several different subcategories of materials. The informa tion listed in Table 2-1 includes all of the individual components that may be found in a building. Many of these classes of materials, such as concrete, masonry, and cer amics are inert and thus not susceptible to degradation by bacterial activity once landfilled. There are, ho wever, several components of C&D waste that are not inert in nature and, therefore, are putrescible. The best example of a material the will putrefy under th e proper conditions in a landfill is wood. Also several types of these materials can be considered chemically-reactive, such as paint and paint thinner, and they must be handled in a special manner (Dolan et al. 1999). Table 2-1. C&D Waste Materi al Categories and Sources Waste Material Demolition Source Construction Source Asphalt Roads, bridges, parking lots, roofing materials, Same flooring materials Brick Masonry building equipment white goods, Same appliances installed equipment Ceramics/clay Plumbing fixtures, tile Same Concrete Foundation, reinforced concrete frame, Same sidewalks, parking lots, driveways Contaminants Lead-based paint, asbestos insulation, fiberglass, Paints, finishes fuel tanks Fiber-based Ceiling systems materials, insulation Same Glass Windows, doors N/A Gypsum/plaster Wall board, interior partitions Same

PAGE 30

20 Table 2-1 continued Waste Material Demolition Source Construction Source Metals, ferrous Structural steel, pipe s roofing, flashing, iron, stainless steel Same Metals, nonferrous Aluminum, copper, brass, lead Same Paper/cardboard N/A Corrugated cardboard, packaging Plastics Vinyl siding, doors, wi ndows, signage, plumbing Same Soil Site clearance Same, packaging Wood, treated Plywood: pressureor creosote-treated, laminates Same Wood, untreated Framing, scraps, stumps, tops, limbs Same The amount of C&D waste produced in th e United States depends on several variables including: The extent of growth and overall economic development that will drive the levelof construction, renovation, and demolition; Periodic special projects, such as urban renewal, road construction and bridge repair, and unplanned events, such as natural disasters; Availability and cost of ha uling and disposal options; Local, state and federal regulations concer ning separation, reuse, and recycling of C&D waste; Availability of recycling facilities and the extent of end-use markets (Dolan et al. 1999). The composition and quality of waste materi als will vary greatly from building to building. Any of the 16 categories of waste foun d in Table 2-1 is expected to be found in a typical residential, commercial or institutional project. The physical composition of building materials changes dramatically de pending on the age of the project (for renovation and demolition projects), resour ce availability and construction/demolition practices used. There are three main factors th at affect the characte ristics of C&D waste:

PAGE 31

21 the structure type (e.g., reside ntial, commercial or industr ial building, road, bridge), structure size (e.g., low-rise, high-rise), a nd activity being perform ed (e.g., construction, renovation, repair, demolition). Some additi onal factors that influence the type and quantity of C&D waste produced are the size of the project (e.g., custom built residence versus tract housing), the loca tion of the project (e.g, wate rfront versus inland, rural versus urban), materials used in the cons truction (e.g., brick versus wood), the demolition practices (e.g., manual verses mechanical), sc hedule (e.g., rushed versus paced), and the way the contractor keeps track of and take s care of materials (Dolan et al. 1999). Salvaging materials has several advantag es for both the construction industry and solid waste management. It recovers the mo st resources and the initial energy and raw materials used for the virgin manufacture are not lost to landfill disposal. Also, salvaging materials reduces the overall cost of the ma terials since only the cost of removal, refurbishing and transport are included in the final price of the material. Salvaging materials also reduces the cost of disposal (Dolan et al. 1999). Material Refining Once the wood is removed from the building, it must be cleaned before it can be reused. The first step taken to make the wood reusable is dena iling. Denailing is accomplished using a denailing gun, which opera tes reverse of a nail gun. Removal of nails without damaging the wood using a de nailing gun requires approximately 30% of the time necessary to remove the boards from the building (Guy 2005). At a typical deconstruction site, a denailing gun is powered by a generator and runs approximately 8 hours a day (Guy 2005). Painted wood is not stripped unless it is covered in lead-based paint (LBP). Wood covered with paint containing no lead can be stripped by the consumer if needed. If the

PAGE 32

22 end of the wood is rotten, it is still resold and the consum er can remove the end. If however, nails are clustered at the rotten end, it is cut off before sale to a customer (Guy 2005). The processing of lumber after a decons truction process takes approximately 0.008 labor hours per linear foot of lumber. Proce ssing the lumber involves 3 steps: moving the lumber from an original pile to the de nailing station, denailing the boards using a compressor and a denailing gun, and restacking the boards (Guy 2005). Use/Reuse The wood salvaged from deconstruction is ideally reused in new construction and renovation projects; however, several barriers ex ist to making this practice a reality. The largest barrier is the difficu lty project managers and solid waste authorities have in identifying markets for the debris. Another barrier is the accurate characterization of C&D waste due to the high variability of the content and quantity of C&D waste. This variability is due to the nature of the waste, the dispersion of C&D activities, inconsistent waste management regulations, range of dis posal options, and the variance in cost of disposal options (Dolan et al. 1999 58). Da mage is incurred on C&D waste as a result of 1) the original construction process (nail hoes, bolt hoes, saw cuts, notches), 2) building use (drying defects, decay and term ite damage), and/or 3) the deconstruction process (edge damage, end damage, end splitting, and gouges). The main reason for the inconsistencies in reusable wood is damage during the deconstruction process (Falk and Green 1999). Joists, particularly those lo cated on the first floor, decay more frequently than other timbers because of their proxi mity to the ground. Water l eakage causes th e joists in bathroom areas to decay most often (Falk et al. 1999). Larger timbers (such as support

PAGE 33

23 columns) command a high price and are regular ly recycled, whereas dimensional lumber is not often reused (Falk and Green 1999). There are several potential advantages of reusing recycled lumber. First, a significant quantity of recycled lumber is de rived from old-growth timber and may have a tighter grain structure. Second, recycled lumb er is relatively dry, with less tendency to warp on the job site (Falk et al. 1999). Thir d, salvage yards sell recycled lumber at about 50% of retail lumber prices (Falk 2002). Disposal The Florida Administrative Code (FAC) allo ws the use of C&D debris facilities in addition to Class I, II and III landfills. Rule 62-701.200 (25) defines C&D debris as: Discarded materials generally considered to be not soluble in water and nonhazardous in nature, including but not limited to steel, glass, brick, concrete, asphalt material, pipe, gypsum wallboar d, and lumber, from the construction or destruction of a structure as part of a construction or demolition project or from the renovation of a structure, including such de bris from construction of structures at a site remote from the construction or demolition project site. The term includes rocks, soils, tree remains, trees, and othe r vegetative matter (that normally result from land clearing or land development ope rations for a construc tion project), clean cardboard, paper, plastic, wood, and meta l scraps from a construction project; Effective January 1, 1997, except as pr ovided in Section 403.707(13)(j), F.S., unpainted, nontreated wood scraps from fac ilities manufacturing materials used for construction of structures or their components and unpainte d, non-treated wood pallets provided the wood scraps and palle ts are separated from other solid waste

PAGE 34

24 where generated and the generator of su ch wood scraps or pallets implements reasonable practices of the generating i ndustry to minimize the commingling of wood scraps or pallets with other solid waste; and De minimis amounts of other non-hazardous wa stes that are generated at construction or demolition projects, provided such amounts are consistent with best management practices of the cons truction and demolition industries; Mixing of construction and demolition debris with other types of solid waste will cause it to be classified as other than construction and demolition debris (FAC 62701.200). Landfills are typed as Class I, II and III. Class I landfills receive an average of 20 tons or more of solid waste per day. Class II landfills receive an average of less than 20 tons of solid waste per day. Class I and II landfills receive ge neral, non-hazardous household, commercial, industrial and ag ricultural wastes, following Rules 62-701.300 and 62-701.520, F.A.C. C&D waste is disposed of in a Class III landf ill. In rule 62701.200 of the Florida Administrative Code (FAC ) Class III landfills ar e defined as those that receive only yard trash, construction and demolition debr is, waste tires, asbestos, carpet, cardboard, paper, glass, plastic, fu rniture other than app liances, and any other materials approved by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). Any materials approved by the FDEP for disposal are not expected to produce leachate that endangers public health or the environment. Putrescible household waste is not accepted in Class III landfills. Since Class III landfills do not receive MSW for disposal, they are not required to be lined automatically. Special requirements fo r Class III landfills are contained in Rule

PAGE 35

25 62-701.340(3)(d), F.A.C., which states that Clas s III landfills can be exempt from some or all requirements for landfill liners, leachat e controls and water quality monitoring it that no signifigant threat to the enviro nment will result from the exemption. The language in this rule results in the need for a liner in a Class III landf ill to be determined on a case-by-case basis by each department di strict office. The determination of each case will be made by the Department in a wa y that will protect both human health and the environment (ICF 1995). The average cost of disposal of C& D waste in Florida is $32.06/ton, ranging anywhere from $5.00/ton in Okaloosa C ounty to $92.00/ton in Monroe County (ICF 1995). This average cost of disposal is seemingly high, most likely because disposal costs at private facilities, which are significantly lower, were not included. Disadvantages of Unlined Landfills Leachate is formed when water washes over garbage in landfills, soaks through the landfilled material, and exits th e other side carrying contaminan ts. The fate of hazardous constituents in C&D materials, such as acry lic acid, styrene, vinyl toluene, nitrile and copper (Table 2-2) may include leachi ng into nearby groundwater aquifers or volatilization into th e surrounding air. As a result potential impacts of C&D waste disposal in unlined landfills may include drin king water contamination and fire hazards.

PAGE 36

26 Table 2-2. Amount of Chemical Constituen ts in Wood Products (Construction and Demolition Waste Landfills 1995) Wood Product Chemical Constituent Amount of Note Chemical(s) in Wood Product pallets and skids, pentachlorophenol < 10 ppm a (hardwood/softwood) lindane dimethylphthalate copper-8-quinolinolate copper naphthenate pallets, plywood phenolic resins 2-4% a pallets, glued epoxy 2-4% painted wood, lead-based paint lead 1400-20,000 ppm b (before 1950) painted wood, acrylic-based paint acrylic acid, styrene, vinyl toluene, < 0.01% nitriiles painted wood, "metallic" pigments aluminum powder, copper acetate, < 0.01% phenyl mercuric acetate, zinc chromate, titanium dioxide, copper ferrocyanide plywood, interior grade urea formaldehyde (UF) resins 2-4% c plywood, exterior grade phenol form aldehyde (PF) resins 2-4% c oriented strandboard phenol form aldehyde resins, or 2-4% PF/isocynate resins waterboard urea formaldehyde resins, or 5-15% UF d "Aspenite phenolic resins 2.5% PF, 2% wax

PAGE 37

27 Table 2-2. continued overlay panels phenol formaldehyde resins 4-8%, sometimes up to 10% plywood/PVC laminate urea fomaldehyde 2.5% UF polyvinyl chloride 10% PVC particleboard urea formaldehyde resins 5-15% UF d particleboard with PVC laminate UF resins with polyvinyl chloride 4.5%UF 10% PVC hardboard phenolic resins 1.50% fencing and decks: pressu re CCA or ACA 1-3% e treated southern pine CCA or ACA 1-3% e fencing and decks: surface treated pentachlorophenol 1.2-1.5% f utility poles, laminated beams, freshwater pilings, bridge timbers, decking, fencing railroad ties, utility poles creosote containing 85% PAHs 14-20% g freshwater pilings, docks creoso te coal tar 15-20% marine pilings, docks creosote/chlorpyrifos15-20% a. Hardwood pallets are used primarily in the east ern U.S.; softwood and plywood pallets are used primarily in the western U.S. b. Lead level is highly dependent on the age of the paint; before 1950 lead comprised as much as 50% of the paint film. Legislation in 1976 reduced the standard to 0.06% by weight. c. Plywood may be surface-coated with fire reta rdants, preservatives and insecticides, or pressuretreated with CCA. d. May be sealed with polyurethane or other sealant to prevent off gassing of formaldehyde. e. Dominant wood preservative; actual levels will be lower due to evaporation or leaching after treatment. f. Restricted use due to industry change and concern over dioxin linkage; not permitted for residential uses. g. Losses after treatment estimated to be 20-50% over 10-25 years; not recommended for residential use.

PAGE 38

28 Costs of Deconstruction Verses Demolition When well-trained crews are employed for the deconstruction of buildings, deconstruction is very competitive with de molition because deconstruction companies are relatively inexpensive to start and multiple streams of revenue occurring during each deconstruction job. These revenue streams ar e the job contract, reduced tipping fees, a percentage of the resale of materials, and tax deductions for the donation of materials to nonprofit organizations. The most successful deconstruction companies either own or partner with a retail yard that sells salvaged materials (h igh-value architectural pieces, dimensional lumber, windows, doors, hardware and more) at affordable, but profitable prices (Mcphee 2002). A well-tr ained deconstruction team can contend with the price of mechanical demolition. For example in Hartford, Connecticut, deconstruction teams deconstructed a building at a cost of $2/squa re foot this was a 33 percent savings over mechanical demolition. Also deconstruction projects can reduce tipping costs by as much as 50 to 85 percent (Mcphee 2002). Due to the decreased amount of availabl e landfill space and the increasing costs of managing landfill tipping fees, recycling C&D waste not only recovers valuable resources, it saves money. Because of thes e changes in cost, C&D waste recovery and reuse of waste is becoming economica lly feasible (Dolan et al. 1999). The cost of buying these recycled material s on the market depends on the cost of storage, collection, transportati on, and other costs for the processor. The most important driving force of cost is the demand for thes e materials. This depends on short-term demand for and availability of virgin material The scarcer a resource is, the higher the

PAGE 39

29 resale cost and thus the more feasible dec onstruction will be cons idered. There are at least six key factors that dr ive the supply, demand, and pric ing of recycled materials: 1. Export markets The Far East, where fiber is in short supply, represents a particularly strong export mark et for recycled materials. 2. Virgin capacities and recycled capacities When the price and availability of virgin commodities change, the price and availability of recycled commodities follow. 3. Geography A West Coast generator with access to markets in the Pacific Rim has different marketing opportunities than a generator in the Midwest. 4. Transportation costs The distance to market plays a role in the pricing of all commodities, whether recycled or virgin. 5. End product demand Recycled materials serve three key sectors of the economy: automobiles, housing and retail. When th e auto industry booms, so do the steel and plastic industries. When housing booms, bus iness increases for suppliers of steel, paper, plastic and other virgin and recycled materials. Likewise, when retail sales climb, so do paper and plastic packaging material sales. 6. Natural disasters around the world When a community begi ns to rebuild after a natural disaster, demand for recycled mate rials in all areas of the world spike (Dolan et al. 1999). To reduce the uncertainty associated with recycling/reusing the materials gathered from large-scale or long-term projects, an explicit commitment among the general contractor or project manager, hauler and market should be established (Dolan et al. 1999). This will ensure a market for the mate rials and guarantee that the deconstruction is worth the extra time and effort.

PAGE 40

30 The most critical component for reuse of C&D waste is the identification of a market for the waste material. Once a market is found to exist, the material becomes a commodity not a waste. For reuse of materi als to be economically successful, there must be a stable, profitable market. The Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA) suggests that, to have a market for the C&D waste, there are five requirements that must be met and agreed upon by both the buyer and th e seller: (1) specifications, (2) quantity, (3) delivery conditions, (4) price, an d (5) commitment (Dolan et al. 1999). For most Army facilities, an extensive C&D waste reuse operation will require a large investment of both time and money. De nison and Ruston (1990) listed factors that should be considered by solid waste and projec t managers before beginning any type of a reuse operation to ensure that the reuse pr oject is both financia lly and technically feasible: 1. quantity of waste generated 2. composition of the waste 3. materials targeted for recycling a nd the methods of recovery 4. expected value 5. necessary additional processing required to prepare the recovered materials for the market 6. costs of recycling, handli ng, collecting, and processing 7. financial and logistical risks and uncertainties 8. availability of markets for recovered ma terials, current market prices, price instability, and the potential effect of ma rket development programs (Dolan et al. 1999).

PAGE 41

31 Army Technical Manual Rule 5-634 states that the adde d costs (increased time, effort, and equipment) plus the sales revenue of a recycling program will determine its economic feasibility (TM 5-634, p 4-79). If the added costs exceed the avoided costs plus revenue, the operation should not be performed (Dol an et al. 1999). Many contractors are doubtful of the time a nd cost effectiveness of deconstruction, thus hampering its general acceptance. When savings in disposal costs and the resale value of building materials are considered, d econstruction becomes more attractive. An even more appealing aspect of salvage and deconstruction is the environmental benefits, including reduction of waste materials which may be incinerated or landfilled. This may improve air and water quality and will redu ce landfill use. Also sometimes lumber recovered from deconstruction proj ects is vintage or priceles s. Building materials yards may have old growth timbers, architectur al trimmings and anti que doorknob (Yeung and David 1998). Salvageable materials include plywood, lumber, hardwo od flooring, bricks, windows, concrete, plumbing fixtures, door s and knobs, hinges, paneling, insulation, stairs and railings, asphalt roof tiles, moldings and ba seboards and countertops. The recycling of building materials gives its grea test benefit to the consumer, who purchases the material at incredibly lo w prices (Yeung and David 1998). The following equation can be used to determine the net deconstruction cost: (Deconstruction + Disposal + Processing) (Contract Price + Salvage Value) = Net Deconstruction Costs. The net cost for demolition use is calculated by the equation (Demolition + Disposal) (Contract Price) = Net Demolition Costs. When the salvaged materials are not resold or re distributed on-site or reused by the deconstruction contractor in new construction, transportation and st orage costs may be additional costs for

PAGE 42

32 deconstruction. For deconstruction to be cost effective and competitive with traditional demolition and disposal the sum of the savings from disposal, revenues from resale of materials must be greater than the incremental increase in labor costs. To increase the percentage of time spent in deconstruction activity and decrease overall time costs, a buildings materials should be deemed wo rth salvaging and with efficient resale mechanisms and markets. Removing and rese lling materials as quickly as possible can overcome the disincentive for deconstruction created by the time costs of development and building loans. Deconstruction is also more cost effective when the site is large allowing the unwanted structure to be isolated from the other construction activity and be deconstructed without delaying the site deve lopment. On the other hand when the new construction will take place on the footprint of the existing structure, the time for removal of the existing structure by deconstruction is a significant economic impediment (Guy 2001).

PAGE 43

33 CHAPTER 3 LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS Abstract Nearly 2.5 million ft2 of barracks must be remove d from military facilities throughout the U.S. Environmental Protec tion Agency Region 4. While manual deconstruction offers promise for environmental, economic, and social benefits, the combination of mechanical and manual methods for minimal impact to the environment and public health is unknown. Here, life cycle analysis was used to determine an optimum level of manual deconstruction of barracks at Ft. McClellan in Anniston, Alabama. Four scenarios were compared with varying degree of time required for manual deconstruction, 100% Manual, 44% Manual, 26% Manual, and 100% Mechanical, on the barracks. Data were collect ed directly from the site and applied using SimaPro modeling software (Pr Associates The Netherlands), considering three postdeconstruction options. Materials salv aged using either 100% or 44% Manual deconstruction and reused within a 20-mile ra dius of the deconstruction site yielded the most favorable environmental and health im pacts; however, given the significant impacts involved in the life cycle of diesel fuel required for transpor tation, the need for developing reuse strategies for deconstruc ted materials at the regional level is emphasized.

PAGE 44

34 Introduction Each year, the building industr y in the United States is re ported to generate nearly 136 million tons of construction and de molition (C&D) waste, amounting to 35-40 percent of the total amount of municipal solid waste (MSW ) produced annually (Dolan et al. 1999). Approximately 60 percent of this C&D waste originates from the demolition of buildings, and 80-90 percent is estimated to be either reusable or recyclable (McPhee 2002). While reuse and recycle of C&D-rela ted waste offers potential environmental advantages, the building and deconstructi on industry has not fully embraced these practices (Lippiatt 1998). There are two different methods for the removal of buildingsdeconstruction and demolitionand the method used greatly influen ces the amount of salvaged (reusable) material gained. Demolition, the most ofte n used means of building removal, is equipment-intensive, requiring machiner y throughout the process for leveling the building and separating the larger material s. Because most of the labor involves machinery operation, the crew has very little physical contact with the actual building materials (Falk and Lantz 1996). Deconstr uction, on the other hand, involves the methodical disassembly of buildings in or der to reuse or recycle as many of the component parts of the building as possible, before or instead of demolition (McPhee 2002). Deconstruction can invol ve hand labor only and alwa ys involves actual physical contact with the building by the workers, t hus resulting in time requirements that are approximately twice that of de molition (Falk and Lantz 1996). The additional time burden and percep tion of associated increased costs accompanying deconstruction have hampered its practice. Another pot ential drawback of deconstruction is the need to tend to a greater level of detail at every stage of the removal

PAGE 45

35 process. For example, increased planning is required in order to assess the type and amount of materials that can potentially be salvaged. Th e actual deconstruction phase must involve greater oversight of the labor, while recovered ma terials must be stored and protected on site before removal to their fi nal destination. Also, most of the salvaged lumber can only be used for non-structural applications, such as in decks and nonsupporting walls, unless the materials are re-g raded (Falk et al. 1999). In order to minimize the time and cost burdens of dec onstruction while stil l ensuring gain of salvaged materials, this practice can be comb ined with demolition. However, the degree at which this combination of building re moval practices becomes economically and environmentally beneficial is not known. This work presents results of a case study performed on military barracks at Ft. McClellan in Anniston, Alabama, for the pur pose of determining the benefits of combining deconstruction and demolition. Military buildings in need of removal throughout the U.S. offer tremendous potential for materials recovery and reuse. The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) has 2,357,094 square feet of excess buildings that are in need of removal from military bases throughout U.S. EPA Region 4 alone, encompassing the states of Alabama, Flor ida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee (Falk et al. 1999). The U.S. military is disposing of these barracks because the federal procurement law and military regulations listed under the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR 32 162.2) will not allow federal tax dollars to be spent on the maintenance of facilit ies that are in surplus of its needs (Falk et al. 1999, CFR 2004). In response to these regulations, the U.S. Army is considering deconstruction of its barracks and salvaging of materials in orde r to accomplish its

PAGE 46

36 minimization goals and subsid ize the overall disposal cost s of the buildings, thus lowering funding requirements (Falk et al. 1999 ). However, there is a question as to whether 100% manual deconstruction of military barracks will yield optimum economic and environmental savings, particularly for those barracks built before World War II. This project, funded by the U.S. DOD, sought to determine the optimum levels of manual deconstruction and mechanical demolition of pre-World War II barracks using a life cycle approach. Life cycl e analysis (LCA) is a method th at enables quan tification of the environmental and public health impact s of an activity or product throughout its entire life. This cradle-to-grave approach is based on the knowledge that each stage in a products life has potential to contribute to its environmental impacts. Considering a buildings life cycle, these stages include ra w material extraction a nd processing, material manufacture (e.g., wood harvesting and m illing), transportatio n, installation (e.g., construction), operation and maintenance, and, ultimately, recycling and waste management (e.g., salvaging of materials fo r recycling or reuse) (Lippiatt 1998). The focus of this paper is the life cycl e comparison of four identical World War IIera barracks. Data were caref ully collected from a previ ous study on three Ft. McClellan barracks, deconstructed using different methods of manual effort that were accompanied by different time requirements for manual i nvolvement. The specific emissions and resulting environmental impacts and cost savi ngs or burdens of the three scenarios are compared to traditional mechanical demo lition using LCA methods and are reported herein.

PAGE 47

37 Methods Description of Fort McClellan Barracks U.S. Army facility, Ft. McClellan, in Anniston, Alabama, was established in 1917, with a primary mission of training for combat a service it fulfilled during World War I, World War II, and the Vietnam War. This facility was also the home of the Womens Army Corps School, the U.S. Army Chemical Center and School, the Military Police School, and the Training Brigade. The base was decommissioned in 1995; and, upon its official closing on May 20, 1999, it occupied 45,679 acres of land w ith 100 barracks of approximately 415 m2 each in need of removal (Fort McClellan 2005). Figure 3-1 shows a typical row of barracks at Ft. McClellan. They are identical, tw o-story, wood-frame, World War II-era barracks similar in typol ogy and construction to thousands of older barracks found on military in stallations throughout the United States. The barracks in the U.S. EPA Region 4 we re typically built with Southern yellow pine, a strong wood readily available in the Southeast and considered salvageable. Other components with potential resale value in th e barracks include shower s, urinals, toilets, windows, doors, electrical wiri ng, lighting, emergency exit signs, a brick fireplace, and the metals associated with the air conditio ning ducts and the large structural support columns. The metals were removed by hand before the demolition of the building, and it was found that the structural support column s were salvageable under careful demolition practices. The Deconstruction Process and Four Scenarios Studied The deconstruction and demolition of the barracks were conducted from April-June of 2003. Personnel involved in th is project participated in ei ther a deconstruction team or an LCA team. The deconstruction team was responsible for hiring a dismantling

PAGE 48

38 contractor, coordinating the di smantling of each barrack in a systematic approach, and collecting data during the dec onstruction process. With th e aid of Costello Dismantling Co., Inc. (Boston, MA, USA), contracted in the early stages of the project, the deconstruction team carefully documented in 15-minute intervals at the deconstruction site the following information: type and amount of material salvaged or disposed, method of material removal (manual or mechanical), time required to salvage and/or demolish, time required for machine operati on, total labor time and tran sportation requirements, as previously described in detail (Guy and W illiams, 2004). The LCA team transferred the data collected from the site and applied these data to the modeling efforts. As stated previously, the primary goal of this project was to assess the optimum combination of manual and mechanical met hods of barracks removal, as measured by minimum environmental/public health life cycle impacts. To this end, four scenarios were designed and compared. The first scen ario involved removal of one barrack using entirely manual deconstructi on (labeled as % Manual ). The second and third scenarios involved manual dec onstruction only 44% and 26% of the total time required for removal, respectively, with the remainde r of the time involving traditional mechanical methods. These two scenarios are labeled henceforth as % Manual and % Manual, respectively. The f ourth scenario involved removing a barrack using only mechanical methods of demolition, as traditiona lly used, and this scenario is denoted as % Mechanical. The percentages of time used for mechanical demolition and manual deconstruction were determined by di viding the total time required for building removal into the total time required fo r machine operation and/or labor.

PAGE 49

39 Life Cycle Analysis All data collected from the deconstruction phase were carefully databased for use in the life cycle analysis (LCA) modeling th at followed ISO 14000 guidelines (Guinee et. al., 2002). The ultimate objective of the LCA effort was to guide the Department of Defense (DOD) in the best management pr actices for removing the WWII-era barracks that remain in EPA Region 4. The scenario yielding lowest environmental impacts would be considered the most preferable option in this study. The development of the LCA model and its relevant stages are di scussed in more detail below. Functional Unit The four scenarios were compared using a functional unit of per square foot of barracks. This functiona l unit allowed comparison of inputs and outputs and the ultimate impacts from each scenario. All results presented herein are based on this functional unit. Scope and Goal Definition The relevant stages included in this LCA are the deconstruction/demolition process, representing raw material extraction; dispos al of materials by landfilling; transportation between the stages; and recycling and reuse of salvaged materials by replacing virgin materials. Figure 3-2 Figure 3-2 shows these stages divided into individual steps, starting with preparation for deconstruction by transportati on of equipment and la bor to the site and removing asbestos (Steps 1a and 1) and hazardous waste (Step 2). Each rectangle (Steps 1, 2, 5, 13-16) represents an activity that is involved in preparation for demolition of the barracks, preparation of salvaged materials for reuse, and the processes in the outer

PAGE 50

40 avoided virgin wood production l oop. Each oval (Steps 3, 4, 612) represents a part of the barrack disposed of in the landfill or salv aged for reuse. Time requirements for each relevant step under each scenario were co llected at the site for subsequent LCA development. The only steps shown in Fi gure 3-2 relevant to the 100% Mechanical scenario are transportation of labor and equipment to the site, asbestos and hazardous waste removal and transportation to disposal sites (Steps 1, 1a, 1b, 2 and 2a), whereas all subsequent steps apply only to the other three scenarios. Figures 3-3 and 3-4 In this LCA, three options were considered for salvaged material. The first option was performed from the perspective of savings in landfill volume requirements and reduction of leachate production that occurred when materials were salvaged. No reuse of salvaged materials was considered in this first option and represents a case where no reuse options are available. The second opti on was also performed from the perspective of savings in landfill volume requirements and reduction of leachate that was produced when materials were salvaged. However, this option also incl uded the reuse of the materials by transporting them to a local storage facility within 20 miles of the deconstruction site for their reuse or recycle, thus assessing impact s of a regional market for these materials. The third option cons idered reuse and recycle of the salvaged materials beyond the deconstruc tion and landfill sites by inco rporating transportation to the Habitat for Humanity (HfH) warehouse in Austin, TX, thus assessing impacts of a national market for these materials. For bot h the second and third op tions, if use of the salvaged material avoided the production a nd preparation of the virgin wood that it replaced, then the avoided virgin wood produc tion loop (Steps 13a16) and the recycling of MEP materials (Step 5a) were involved.

PAGE 51

41 Data Inventory Both primary (derived directly from th e deconstructed and demolished barracks) and secondary (derived from literature and re gulatory agency publications and databases) data were collected and da tabased in LCA software, Si maPro 5.1 (PR Consultants, Ameersfort, The Netherlands). SimaPro contai ns inventory data th at has already been gathered for common products and processes in databases created by ETH-ESU (Uster, Switzerland), Buwal 250 (Bern, Switz erland), and Franklin Asso ciates (Prairie Village, Kansas, USA), among others (Goedkoop and Oele 2001). As previously described, the primary data collected included the amount s of hazardous, salvaged, recycled and landfilled materials, the amount of time each piece of equipment was used, the number of workers, and the worker labor time. In a ddition, the weights of sa lvaged and landfilled materials were found by weighing the hauling trucks before and after filling. The secondary data included types of equipment and materials used (site-specific for project), fuel type and requirements of each piece of equipment (JLG 2004, Bobcat 2004, Caterpillar 2004, Grove 2004, Homelite 2004, Stihl 2004, DeWalt 2004), amount and composition of leachate from all deconstr uction materials (Jamback 2004), equipment usage for production of virgin wood in th e forest and at the sawmill (Long 2003), emissions for production of bricks used in the barracks construction (EPA 1997), recycling and producing steel (E PA 1986), diesel and gasoline fuel combustion emissions (EPA 1995), data for the production of diesel fuel and gasoline (EPA 1995) and for the U.S. electricity mix (SimaPro 5.1). The LC A compared the inputs and outputs of each alternative scenario in terms of emissions, th e value of the material, and requirements of dollars, energy, and labor.

PAGE 52

42 Impact Assessment While a number of weightings schema used in LCA impact assessment have been developed and are available to LCA pract itioners, the need for an increased understanding of how these metr ics are developed, their uncer tainty and variability, and potential limitations and benefits of thei r application has been recently identified (Thomas et al. 2003). In this study, two methods, Centrum Voor Milieukunde Leiden (CML) and Environmental Design of Industr ial Products (EDIP), were chosen for calculation of the rela tive impacts of Global Warming, Oz one Depletion, Acidification, Eutrophication, Human Toxicit y, and Ecotoxicity (Guin e and Heijungs 1993; Goedkoop et al. 1998; Goedkoop and Spriensma 1999; CML 2001; Goedkoop and Oele 2001). Each method, included in the SimaPro software uses a different a pproach for calculating impacts but consider similar contributing fact ors for each impact. Comparing the results of these two approaches will enable determ ination of the reliability of the observed trends. A detailed description of these methods can be obtained in Sivaraman and Lindner (2004). Assumptions and Limitations The following is a list of assumptions made throughout this assessment to enable comparison of the four scenarios: 1. Each barrack contains the same quantity of hazardous material, asbestos, and wood coated with lead-based paint that must be disposed; therefore, these emissions were not accounted for in the LCA. 2. Transportation: Note that all assumptions of distances traveled were considered for their effect on the results in the sensitivity analysis.

PAGE 53

43 3. The workers made a 20-mile roundtrip to and from work each day in a 1995 model midsize car. Each worker drove hi s/her own car; howev er, carpooling was considered for its effect on the results in the sensitivity analysis. A 20-mile distance served as a worst-case scenario because this represents approximately twice the distance most workers travel to work (Khattak et. al. 2005, Demographia 2005). 4. Equipment was transported to the site on a flat bed truck from within a 20-mile radius. Because this distance varies for ev ery site, this mileage was tested in the sensitivity analysis (transport distance). 5. A 30-mile distance for transport of equipm ent to and from the site of harvesting was assumed (Long 2003), and harvested wood was assumed to be transported 60 miles to the sawmill (Long 2003). A transport distance of finished lumber of 100 miles was assumed to exist from the sawmill to the construction site for virgin wood (Long 2003). 6. Salvaged wood was transported 80 miles fr om the deconstruction site to the new construction site. While a 500-mile radius is considered to be a cutoff point for environmental savings for delivery of mate rials to a construction site, this lower value was assumed to ensure that th e expense of transporting and buying the salvaged material does not exceed that of the virgin materials (Smith 2003). 7. Except for small equipment (chainsaws, c hopsaws, and weedeaters), each piece of equipment used at the barracks site require d a separate flat bed truck for hauling. 8. The capacity of each truck was at leas t capable of handling 5,500 lbs of wood, equal to a cord of wood.

PAGE 54

44 9. Other than the use stage, the life cycle st ages of the machinery used throughout the deconstruction or demolition process were not considered. 10. Sources of emissions included from the cr eation of virgin timber were harvesting, transporting the wood, milling the wood, and transporting the lumber to the construction site. 11. The data collected at the barracks in Ft McClellan are applicable to all other barracks within U.S. EPA Region 4. 12. Methods for asbestos abatement and lead assessment are the same whether for demolition or deconstruction. The wood de posited into the landfill was untreated chemically, but most of it was painted w ith lead-based paint. Wood coated with lead-based paint produces lead-contaminated leachate; however; th e effects of this wood were not accounted for in the leachat e because there was the same amount in each barrack. Because the landfill is unlin ed, the leachate from all other materials contained within the barracks was account ed for using data reported in Jamback and Townsend (2004), the only available resource for this type of data. 13. The source of electricity was assumed to be the average U.S. mixture of 56% coal, 21% nuclear, 10% hydropower, 10% natural gas, and 3% crude oil. The safety concerns of spent nuclear fuel were not considered. Sensitivity Analysis Assumptions and variables that were tested for their sensitivity to model impacts included the time spent to both deconstruct a nd demolish the barracks, the distances the workers traveled, the distances the materi als and machinery were transported, the recycling of the steel, and the time requirements for preparation of the materials for reuse.

PAGE 55

45 Results and Discussion Data Inventory Time Requirements for Removal of Barrack Components As shown in Table 3-1, each of the barrack components was partitioned into broad categories of windows and doors, interior partitions, hazardous waste (composed primarily of mercury thermostat switches, lead -acid batteries in exit lights and emergency light fixtures, fluorescent tube s and ballasts), mechanical, electrical and plumbing (MEP) materials (including sinks, toil ets, showers, light fixtures, wiring and conduit, ducts, and air handlers), interior finishes and frami ng, roof, walls and floors, and foundation. The time required to remove each building component following the relevant set of steps conducted in each scenario is also provided in Table 3-1. Asterisks in Table 3-1 denote all components that were removed involvi ng some degree of mechanical methods. Removal of hazardous materials (fluor escent lights and exit signs) and the foundation of each of the barrack s, mechanically performed in all scenarios, required the same amount of time (5.0 and 3.3 hrs, resp ectively). Removal of windows and doors, interior partitions, and MEP materials required the same am ount of time for the three scenarios that involved hand deconstruction (100% Manual, 44% Manual, and 26% Manual) but a significantly lo wer time for the 100% Mechanical scenario. The windows and door frames coated with lead-based paint and the MEP materials were manually removed from the barracks involving hand deconstruction. The wood containing leadbased paint was not considered hazardous wast e because of the low concentrations of the paint, and, therefore, it was disposed of in a C&D landfill. The windows and door frames from the 100% mechanically demolished barrack were disposed of thus yielding no time requirement, whereas the time for removing ME P materials under this scenario was lower

PAGE 56

46 than the other three because only the light fi xtures, electrical wi ring and conduits were removed before the demolition of the building. The 3.1 hours required to remove interior partitions from the 100% mechanically demo lished barrack involved recovery of the large support columns only. The same amount of time was needed for the salvaging of the interior finishes and framing for the 100% Manual and the 44% Ma nual scenarios but a decreased amount of time was needed in the 26% Manual scenario. This decreased time is explained by the fact that the columns and wall studs were cu t using chainsaws to speed the process of deconstruction and so that the second stor y floor could be dropped onto the first story floor for deconstruction. As shown in Table 3-1, less time was requi red for removal of the roof, walls and floors of the barracks with incr easing use of mechanical methods This is true with the exception of the removal of the second story floor. The removal of the second story floor took longer in the 26% manual scenario than in the 44% manual scen ario although it still took less time than the 100% manual scenario. In the 44% Manual scenario, the secondstory floor was cut into tenby-ten foot pieces and dismantled on the ground, whereas the second-story floor in the barrack subjected to 26% Manual methods was dropped onto the first-story floor and dismantled. The two di fferent methods of removal for the second story floor in the 26% and 44% manual scen arios were experimental to determine the fastest way to deconstruct the second story floor It was found that it is faster to remove the second story floor in ten-by-ten foot piec es because it is easier to remove the wood when it is in smaller pieces. The time for the removal of the firststory wall also varied greatly between the 44% Manual and 26% Ma nual scenarios. The former, involving

PAGE 57

47 manual removal of sheathing and siding, requir ed approximately 62 hours, and the latter, involving cutting at the floor base and dire ct disposal in a dumpster for ultimate landfilling, required approximately 9 hours. For more information on the methods used to deconstruct and demolish the barracks and the time differences for the removal of the different components of the building pl ease refer to Guy and Williams (2004). Labor and Machine Time and Mileage Requirements and Material Yields Table 3-2 presents the total labor and m achine time and transportation requirements for the material yields from each of the four scenarios. As expected, the scenario involving all manual deconstruction demanded th e greatest number of work days and mileage requirements of the work crew, 17.7 days and 2160 miles, respectively, compared to the range of 12.7 to 1.5 days a nd 1440 to 120 miles for the other scenarios, decreasing with less manual deconstruction. Interestingly, the time requirement for machine operation and mileage requirements for delivery of machinery were maximum in the 44% Manual scen ario (277.8 hrs, 140 miles, respec tively) because an additional piece of equipment, a crane, was used in this scenario to lift the roof off the building so that the salvageable pieces of the roof could be saved while the rest of the building was demolished. It is important to note that machines were necessary in the 100% Manual scenario for collection, movement and cleaning of materials. The 100% mechanical demolition scenario re quired the least amount of transport mileage of equipment and machine hours b ecause only two pieces of equipment were involved, the Bobcat T200 Turbo (Bobcat, West Fargo, ND) and Caterpillar 320C excavator (Caterpillar, Inc. Pleasanton, CA ), to simply topple the building with no manual removal processes. Also, unlike th e three scenarios with manual involvement where materials were separated and move d to various locatio ns on site, the 100%

PAGE 58

48 Mechanical scenario resulted in materials transferred directly to an on-site dumpster for subsequent disposal. The amount of recycled material was the same for each barrack that used hand deconstruction (Table 3-2). In 100% m echanical demolition, the building was knocked down and put in the C&D landfill without removi ng the recyclable steel. As anticipated, the yield of salvageable material decreased wi th diminishing levels of manual labor. The weight of salvaged material ranged from 2,552 lbs from the barrack that was entirely mechanically deconstructed to 59,089 lbs fr om the entirely manually deconstructed barrack. The barrack that was mechanically deconstructed yielded salvaged material in the form of large wood columns, the f oundation of the building and plumbing and electrical fixtures. This is a total of 2,552 lbs of salvaged wood, which is 1.8% of the total weight of the building. Additional components salvaged with manual methods included non-damaged wood, showers, urinals, toilets, air conditioning ducts, and some of the bricks from the chimne y (if clean of mortar). The amount of hazardous material (141 lbs) was the same for each barrack, as each barrack contained the same components, including prim arily mercury thermostat switches, lead-acid batteries in exit lights and emergency lig ht fixtures, fluorescent tubes and ballasts. As salvaged material yields increased, the amount of material sent to the landfill decreased. Therefore, as also anticipated, the amount of landfilled material decreased with increasing ma nual labor rates. The amount of material landfilled ranged from 140,055 lbs for 100% mechanical demolition to 82,486 lbs for 100% manual deconstruction.

PAGE 59

49 Fuel and Electricity Requirements The hourly fuel and electricity requirement s for transportation of the labor force and machinery and for the operation of each of the machines are provided in Table 3-3, along with the relevant stages of their invol vement, previously introduced in Figure 3-2. Seven different pieces of machinery that were used during the deconstruction and demolition of the military barracks are also listed in Table 3-3. Each of these pieces of equipment was used for a different purpose and for varying amounts of time depending on the scenario. The JLG Lift 600S (JLG Industries, Inc., McConnellsburg, PA) was used to raise the workers above the roof in or der to cut and remove panelized sections in the 100% Manual and 26% Manual scenarios. The Bobcat T200 Turbo was used to move the loose salvaged material and floor panels to the designated places for pick up and disposal in all 4 scen arios. The Caterpillar 320C (ex cavator) was used to knock down the 100% mechanically demolished building a nd to push over the building in the 26% Manual scenario. In all the other scenarios, the Caterpillar excavator was used to pick up the floor panels from the second floor and flip over the first floor panels. The Crane Grove TMS 760E (Grove, Pensacola, FL) was us ed for the removal of the roof in the 44% Manual scenario. The Homelite Chainsaw (Homelite, Port Chester, NY) and Stihl Chopsaw (Stihl Inc., Jacksonville, FL) were used to cut the roof into panelized sections either on the ground or in the air with the help of the JLG Lift 600S. The chopsaw was also used to cut the first and second floor pa nels in the Manual scenarios. The chainsaw was used to cut the roof raft er for roof panelizations, the second floor joists and beams for panelization, and the columns and wall studs in the 26% Manual scenario so that the second floor could be dropped onto the first floor and dismantled there. The DeWalt

PAGE 60

50 DG7000E (generator) (DeWalt Industrial Tool Company, Baltimore, MD) was used to remove nails and paint from the salvaged wood w ith attached tools in all four scenarios. The 100% Manual scenario required operati on of the lift, bobcat, excavator and chopsaw for 4, 4, 0.5 and 3 total hours, resp ectively (data not shown). The same equipment was used in the 26% Manual scenar io, requiring increased times for use of the lift, bobcat, excavator and chopsaw of 5, 1, 6 and 7 hours, respectively. In the 44% Manual scenario, the lift, bobcat, and excavat or were also used in addition to the chainsaw and crane (for a total of 6, 9.5, 1, 3, and 4.5 hours, respectively). Only the bobcat and excavator were required in the 100% Mechanical scenario, both used for 2 hours total. As shown in Table 3-3, the chopsaw, chainsaw, and generator required gasoline (0.20, 0.12, and 0.63 gallons/hr, respectively) (Stihl 2004, Homelite 2004, DeWalt 2004), whereas the other equipment re quired diesel fuel in larger volumes (ranging from 2.50 to 8.10 gallons/hr) (Bobc at 2004, Caterpillar 2004, Grove 2004, JLG 2004). The fuel and electricity requirements for harvesting and processing virgin wood are also provided in Table 3-3. The primary equipment pieces involved in harvesting of wood are feller bunchers, rubber-tired skidders, and log loaders. The 29 gallons of diesel fuel used during the transportation of th is equipment to and from the forest was overwhelmingly greater than in-use fuel c onsumption. In fact, the consumption during transportation of the equipment to the forest for harvesting was greater than any of the other diesel fuel consump tion requirements incurred duri ng transportation, including transport of the downed trees to the sawmill, of the lumber to the construction site, of the recycled steel to the recycling facility, a nd of the waste materials to the landfill.

PAGE 61

51 Electricity requirements for sawmill opera tion (6.2E-03 kWh per pound of wood) and recycling of steel (2.1 kWh per pound of recycl ed steel) were also accounted for, as shown in Table 3-3. It is important to note that, for every pound of salvaged wood, one pound of virgin wood is avoided. Thus, th e values provided in Table 3-3 represent savings in relation to using all virgin mate rials in reconstruction applications, and their resulting emissions will be considered as emi ssions savings rather than contributions. Emissions Tables 3-4, 3-5, 3-6 and 3-7 show the prim ary environmental emissions that result from each of the four scenarios per square f oot of barrack. The emissions shown in these tables represent the second option where material salvaged is reused or recycled within 20 miles of the deconstruction site. Emissi ons from the other tw o optionsno salvaging or reuse and transportation of all reusable ma terials to Austin, TXare considered in the discussion of impact an alysis results below While the SimaPro modeling software included hundreds of emissions from the includ ed life cycle stages, only those in highest quantity and/or risk to the public and environment were c onsidered. These emissions have been broken down into four categorie scriteria pollutants, greenhouse gases, metals, and miscellaneous chemicalswhich have been further separated by life cycle stage, during salvaging of material (Stage 13 in Figure 3-2), disposal (S tages 1b, 2a and the waste from stages 3-12), use of equipm ent during deconstruction (Stages 3, 4 and 612), and transport of equipment and labor to a nd from the site (Stage 1a). The emissions with negative values in Tabl es 3-4, 3-5, 3-6 and 3-7 repres ent savings as a result of replacing virgin materials with salvaged materials. The most highly emitted species from all four scenarios were carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NOx),

PAGE 62

52 and methane (CH4). The remaining chemical emissions, dioxin, arsenic, lead, and mercury, are listed in the tables beca use of their known toxicity. Total CO2 and CH4 emissions increased and VOC and CO emissi ons decreased with de creasing degree of manual involvement. Despite small increase s in emissions of CO from the disposal stages from the 100% Manual to the 100% Mech anical scenario, the decrease in CO and VOC emissions from equipment (resulting from decreasing use of the generator used to clean salvaged materials) and transportation (resulting from the decreasing transportation mileage from the commute to/from the site by the labor) overwhelmingly influence the total CO and VOC values. As expecte d, the C&D landfill contributed the largest emissions of CO2 and CH4 regardless of the scenario, and the increases in materials disposed of in the landfill resulted in an increase in these emissions with decreasing degree of manual involvement. Also, emissions of arsenic, lead, a nd mercury in leachate from the landfill increased as manual invol vement in the deconstruction decreased because the amount of materials that are landf illed increased. These metals in particular leach from the wood and the joists (Tables 3-4 3-7). Total emissions of NOx are highest in the 100% Mech anical scenario (87.7 g/ft2 barrack, Table 3-7) and lowest in the 44% Manual s cenario (46.9 g/ft2 barrack, Table 35), with total emissions from the 100% Manual and 26% Manual scenarios (74.6 and 49.5 g/ft2) falling in between these values. The lower emissions of NOx as the amount of manual involvement in the manual deconstructi on scenarios decreased can be explained by the decreased usage of cars for transporta tion of workers. The number of days the workers drove to the site decreased as fewe r manual methods were used which, in turn, decreased the NOx production from the combustion of the gasoline. The 100%

PAGE 63

53 Mechanical scenario yielded the highest NOx emissions because the steel was not recycled. The recycling of steel produced negative emissions of NOx (emissions savings) for the manual deconstruction scenarios, thus allowing 100% manua l deconstruction to yield lower NOx emissions than 100% mechanical demolition. Impact Analysis An impact assessment was performed on each of the four scenarios to determine their effects on Global Warming, Ozone Depl etion, Acidification, Eutrophication, Human Toxicity, and Ecotoxicity. As stated earlier two publishe d impact assessment methods, CML and EDIP, were used for this LCA to compare and contrast the results of three hypothetical cases) where no reuse was considered, 2) where reuse but no transportation to a salvage warehouse was c onsidered, and 3) where both salvage and transportation to the Habitat for Humanity warehouse in Austin, TX were considered. Case 1: No Salvaging Figures 3-3 and 3-4 show impacts (calculated using EDIP and CML 2000, respectively) resulting from the scenarios wh ere no reuse was consider ed. In this option, all salvaged materials are disposed of in a landfill. All scenarios that involve manual deconstruction show comparable or larger contributions to al l impact categories calculated by the EDIP method (Fig. 3-3) compared to the mechanical demolition scenario. All of the environmental imp acts were lowest for the 100% Mechanical scenario because of the significantly lower em issions resulting from lower total mileage for transportation of the employees to/from the site and the lowest total hours of equipment use. Specifically, ecotoxicity a nd human toxicity impacts are higher in the scenarios involving manual methods because of the increased need of diesel fuel and gasoline for machine and automobile operati on, respectively. These impacts are most

PAGE 64

54 affected by the emissions of mercury and l ead during the producti on of the fuels, not emissions resulting from their use in the a ssociated equipment. The global warming potential is higher for higher percentages of manual deconstruc tion because of the increased transportation of workers and corresponding productionand use-related emissions of CO and CO2. The increase in machine and transportation requirements in all of the manual scenarios also yielded increased SOx and NOx emissions that increased acidification and eutrophication impacts. Most of the SOx emissions were released in the production of the diesel fuel and gasoline required by the machines and automobiles, whereas the NOx was released primarily during the use of these fuels. The ozone depletion potential was elevated because of the increased produc tion requirements of diesel fuel, needed in larger quantities in the manual scenario s. The production of diesel fuel involves CFC emissions, thus yielding increased ozone depletion impacts. The CML 2000 impact analysis method resu lts revealed less significant influence of 100% Mechanical methods on impacts (Fi g. 3-6) and, in most cases, comparable impacts among all of the scenarios. The reas on for this difference from the EDIP results is because the impact assessment categories are normalized by CML 2000, whereas EDIP does not normalize the impact assessment results. Normalization attempts to achieve the expression of impacts on a global or regional basis, and the CML 2000 approach normalized the impacts to the most problema tic species that is known for each impact category. Global warming is expressed as kg of CO2, ozone depletion, as kg of CFC-11, human toxicity and ecotoxicity, as kg of 1,4-DB, acidification, as kg of SO2, and eutrophication, as kg of PO4 -3. The impacts for EDIP are expressed based on the environmental emissions that occur and their e ffects on the local area. Regardless of the

PAGE 65

55 differences in results from the CML 2000 and EDIP impact assessment methods, both show that, if the salvaged materials ar e not reused, then manual methods of deconstruction yield potential for increased or comparable impacts compared to traditional demolition methods. Case 2: Salvaging and No Long-Distance Tran sportation to a Storage Facility (Local Reuse) Figures 3-5 and 3-6 show the impacts calculated using the EDIP and CML 2000 impact analysis methods for each of the four scenarios where material is salvaged and delivered to local reuse and recycling facili ties. The EDIP impact results (Fig. 3-5) showed that, unlike when no salvaging is c onsidered, the 100% Mechanical scenario yielded significantly higher impacts comp ared to the scenarios involving manual methods. Differences observed in impacts fr om the manual scenarios were not large. However, of the manual methods, the 100% Manu al scenario yielded the least impacts to global warming and ozone depletion. Acidifi cation and toxicity impacts were lowest in the 44% Manual scenario, with the latter re sulting in a negative value because of emissions savings. Eutrophication impacts we re lowest in the 44% and 26% Manual scenarios, whereas ecotoxicity impacts we re the lowest in the 100% and 44% Manual scenarios, both yieldi ng negative impact values These small differences in impacts involving manual methods were directly relate d to the amount of wood salvaged and to the amounts of diesel fuel, gasoline and el ectricity used in the processes. Manual deconstruction avoided the production of virg in wood, thus avoiding electricity emissions from this stage and yielding decreases in the ecotoxicity, ozone depletion and global warming impacts. The 100% Manual scenario, involving increased us e of machinery and

PAGE 66

56 cars, yielded higher human toxi city, acidification and eutr ophication impacts than its other manual counterparts. Like the EDIP method results, the CML 2000 method revealed that impacts from the 100% Mechanical scenario were the highest when sa lvaging but no long-distance transport of the salvaged ma terials was involved. The CML 2000 approach also showed that the 100% Manual scenario yielded the lowest impacts in all categories except acidification, which was lowest (and negative) in the 44% Manua l scenario (Fig. 3-6). In comparing only the impacts from the manual scenarios, the 26% Manual scenario was largest in all cases and yielded no ne gative impacts using the CML 2000 method. Case 3: Salvaging and Transport to Austin, TX, for Reuse The impacts determined by the EDIP and CML methods for each of the four scenarios that included transportation of the salvaged materials to the Habitat for Humanity warehouse in Austin, TX, (approxima tely 885 miles) are shown in Figures 3-7 and 3-8, respectively. The 100% Mechanical sc enario yielded the lowest impacts in all instances because of its significantly lo wer transportation requirements. The transportation of the salvaged material to Austin, Texas increased the environmental impacts for each of the scenarios in which ma terials were salvaged. Likewise, impacts increased with increasing manual involvement b ecause of the greater emissions related to fuel production and use during transportati on accompanying the larger weight of salvaged materials. The results of both the EDIP (Fig. 3-6) and CML 2000 (Fig. 3-7) impact assessment methods showed that the negative impacts of tran sport distance of the salvaged materials far outweigh the savings in emissions that occur by reusing the materials.

PAGE 67

57 Sensitivity Analysis The previous results show the influence of both material salvaging for reuse and transportation to a storage warehouse on the environmental and health impacts of each scenario compared. Other variables tested for their influence on impacts were time for deconstruction or demolition activities, drivi ng distance (carpooling), degree of recycling, transport distance of equipment, a nd time for material preparation. Time for Deconstruction or Demolition Activities The importance of the pace of dismantling and demolishing the barrack by each of the four scenarios on the environmental and health impacts was determined by increasing and decreasing the baseline rates achieved. Baseline rates of dismantling achieved by the deconstruction team were 105.5, 182.4, 231.7, and 388.4 lbs/hr for 100%, 44%, 26% manual deconstruction and 100% mechanical demolition, respectively. The demolition rates achieved were 1028.5, 608.2, 729.3, and 600.1 lb/hr for the 100%, 44%, 26% manual deconstruction and 100% mechanical demolition scenarios, respectively. These rates were found by dividing the lbs of material salvaged and landfilled by the labor hours minus the machine hours and m achine hours respectively. The rate of dismantling material for salvage was observed to influence the emissions much more than the disposal rate because the slower rate of hand demolition greatly increased the amount of time the work ers spent at the site and thus the times required for driving to work and using the ge nerator. For the s cenarios involving manual deconstruction, decreasing the rate of disman tling by 5 lb/hr increased human toxicity by 21%, acidification by 4%, and eutrophication and ozone depletion by 3%, whereas very little change in the impacts was observed in the 100% Mechanical scenario because no salvaging of materials was performed. Increasing the rate of dismantling by 5 lb/hr

PAGE 68

58 showed that human toxicity wa s also most sensitive by resu lting in a decrease of 27.4%, while acidification and eutr ophication decreased by 6% and ozone depletion by 4.0%. Increasing and decreasing the rate of demolition resulted in no significant change in impacts. Commuting Distance Decreasing and increasing the commuting di stance of 20 miles assumed in the baseline case by 5 and 10 miles and in the num ber of people/car from 1 in the baseline case to 4 tested for their sensitivity on th e impacts from the 100% Manual scenario. The importance of carpooling to the site by increa sing the number of occupants to four was evident by a decrease in eutrophicati on by 561%, in acidification by 77.5%, and in human toxicity by 39%. Less dramatic results were observe d with increasing the driving distance by 5 miles, where the largest changes were observed in impacts on eutrophication, acidification and human toxi city (2.12%, 0.290% a nd 0.146% increases, respectively). Recycling When recycling was removed from the scenarios involving manual methods, acidification, eutrophication, and ecotoxicity decreased as much as 23.5%, 36.4% and 77.9%, respectively (for the 100% Manual scenario). Transportation Requirements Driving distances for transportation of demolition equipment, salvaged material, recycled material and landfill material, fo r moving equipment to the woods, felled wood from the woods to the mill and boards from th e mill to the store or site were increased and decreased by 5 and 10 miles from their as sumed transport distances (listed in the Assumptions and Limitations section). Most of the emissions categories did not increase

PAGE 69

59 or decrease significantly. Global warmi ng, ozone depletion, acidification and eutrophication changed the most as a result of elevated emissions resulting from increased diesel fuel requirements. For exam ple, when the mileage of an eighteen-wheel truck was increased by 5 miles, eutrophi cation increased by 1 8.3%, acidification increased by 2.38%, global warming increas ed by 2.11%, and ozone depletion increased by 1.25%. Time Required for Paint and Nail Removal According to the deconstruction teams past experience, 30% of the total time for manual deconstruction involves paint stripping and denailing the wood and thus use of the generator. However, this time percen tage was increased and decreased by 5 and 10% to account for differences in methods and expe rience levels of deconstruction teams. The results show that large changes in acidifi cation, eutrophication and human toxicity occur when the generator times for paint stri pping and denailing runs were altered. Acidification increased the most, 106%, wh en the time for material preparation was increased by 5%, while eutrophication and human toxicity impacts increased by 48.5% and 26.1%, respectively. Thus, the amount of time spent on material preparation can greatly affect the environmental impacts th at occur from manual deconstruction. Conclusions Of the three options considered, that invol ve salvaging and reuse within a 20-mile distance yielded the lowest impacts. Both the CML 2000 and EDIP methods resulted in significantly lower environm ental and health impacts when manual methods of deconstruction were used. Of the three manua l scenarios considered with salvaging, the 100% and 44% Manual scenarios yielded, for the most part, the lowest impacts. Compared to the scenario s involving manual methods of deconstruction, the 100%

PAGE 70

60 Mechanical scenario was the fastest option, as anticipated, and, if the salvaged wood does not replace virgin wood in other building applic ations, this traditi onal means of building removal was shown to be the best option in terms of environmental emissions and resulting impacts. However, if the reuse of salvaged wood is assumed to avoid the production of virgin wood then either the 100% Manual or 44% Manual scenario would be preferred because of the decrease in envi ronmental emissions and thus impacts. The LCA model presented herein is most sensitiv e to changes in car mileage and the amount of time the generator runs. It is recommende d, therefore, that the deconstruction occur on or near the site where the materials will be re used, for the workers to live near the site, and for the amount of time spent on material preparation to be minimal. Social and economic impacts of deconstr uction and demolition processes were not quantified in this study. Economic impacts of deconstruction have been discussed by Guy and Williams (2004), however. Because deconstruction takes longer and is more labor-intensive, it provides work for a crew for several days. Deconstruction also provides lower-cost building materials, whic h, in turn, can lower the cost of new construction or can allow people who cannot affo rd virgin materials to buy materials of good quality to make repairs on their own homes. Given that the Department of Defense must dispose of nearly 2.5 million square feet of army barracks in the U.S. EPA Region 4 alone, incorporating some degr ee of manual deconstruction o ffers potential benefits well beyond those quantified in this study. Given the influence of transportation of salvaged materials for reuse applications, it is r ecommended, however, that a strategy be developed to foster reuse within the deconstruction site region.

PAGE 71

61Table 3-1 Time Requirements for Removing Components of Barr acks Using the Four Scenarios Varying in Degree of Manual Deconstructiona, b 100% Manual 44% Manual 26% Manual 100% Mechanical Component Time (hours) % Total Time Time (hours) % Total Time Time (hours) % Total Time Time (hours) % Total Time Windows and Doors 9.57 1.46% 9.57 2.01% 9.57 2.64% 0.00 0.00% Interior Partitions 18.97 2.90% 18.97 3.99% 18.97 5.24% 3.09* 8.81% Hazardous 5.05 0.77% 5.05 1.06% 5.05 1.39% 5.05 14.39% MEP 9.54 1.46% 9.54 2.01% 9.54 2.63% 1.03* 2.94% Interior Finishes and Framing 73.55 11.23% 73.55 15.48% 50 13.81% 3.09* 8.81% Roof 137.15 20.94% 95* 19.99% 77* 21.26% 6.18* 17.61% 2Wall 52.75 8.05% 45.28 9.53% 29.12* 8.04% 2.06* 5.87% 2Floor 147.69 22.55% 71.92* 15.13% 84.4* 23.31% 5.15* 14.68% 1Wall 64.30 9.82% 62.27 13.10% 9.29* 2.57% 2.06* 5.87% 1Floor 133.07 20.32% 80.84* 17.01% 65.9* 18.20% 4.12* 11.74% Foundation 3.26* 0.50% 3.26* 0.69% 3.26* 0.90% 3.26* 9.29% aAll of the sections of the barrack within which machines were us ed are indicated with an asterisk (*), and all sections that do not have an asterisk next to them us ed hand deconstruction only. bMEP = Mechanical, electrical and plumbing ma terials, 2Wall = Second story wall, 2Floor = Second story floor, 1Wall = First-stor y wall, 1Floor = First-story floor.

PAGE 72

62Table 3-2 Labor and Machine Requirements and Mate rial Yields of the Four Scenarios Studied Labor and Machine Require ments Material Yields Scenario Labor (Days) Machine (Hours) Labor Transportation (Miles) Equipment Transportation (Miles) Salvage Weight (Lbs) Recycle Weight (Lbs) Hazardous Material Weight (Lbs) Landfilled Weight (Lbs) 100% Manual 13.64 80.22 2160 120 59089 1032 141 82486 44% Manual 9.74 146.59 1440 140 57291 1032 141 84284 26% Manual 7.32 139.75 1080 120 48134 1032 141 93441 100% Mechanical 1.46 23.42 120 40 2552 0 141 140055

PAGE 73

63 Table 3-3 Fuel and Electricity Requ irements for Associated Processesa,b Processes Involved Stagesc Gasoline (gal) Diesel Fuel (gal) Electricity (kWh) Labor Transportation (1 laborer, 1 day of work) -8.0E-01--Deconstruction Transportation To and From the Site --6.4E+00 -Lift (hr) 7, 8 -2.5E+00 -Bobcat (hr) 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12 -5.0E+00 -Excavator (hr) 7, 12 -8.1E+00 -Crane (hr) 7 -4.0E+00 -Chopsaw (hr) 7, 11 2.0E-01--Chainsaw (hr) 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 1.2E-01--Generator (hr) 13 6.3E-01--End-of-Life Stages Salvaging Wood (1 lb) Harvesting Transportation of Equipment to and from the Forest 14 -2.9E+01 -Feller Buncher (1 lb) 15 -1.7E-03 -Rubber Tired Skidder (1 lb) 15 -2.8E-03 -Log Loader (1 lb) 15 -3.1E-03 -Transport from Site to Sawmill (1 lb)15 -9.0E-03 -Sawmill Electricity (1 lb) 16 --6.2E-03 Transportation from the Sawmill to Construction the Site (1 lb) 16 -3.0E-03 -Recycling Steel (1 lb) Electricity (1 lb) 5a --2.1E+00 Transportation to Recycling Facility 5a -1.6E-02 -Landfill (1 lb) Transportation to Landfill 1b -1.6E-02 -aValues of fuel requirements by the equipm ent are presented on an hourly basis, and values of electricity. bAll fuel usage values were obtained by cont acting the manufacturer s of the machines and asking for average fuel usage values. cStage numbers refer to the specific st ages involved and shown in Figure 3-2. dMileage workers drove to/from the site was assumed to be 20 miles, equipment transported from within a 20 mile radius to site, 30 miles to/from the forest, 60 mile transport for harvested wood to sawmill, 100 m ile transport from sawmill to construction site and an 80 mile transport distance for salvaged material to new construction site.

PAGE 74

64 Table 3-4 Emissions from the Scenario Involving 100% Manual Methodsa aThe functional unit is per ft2 of barrack removed. The emissions in this table are expressed in terms of g/ft2 of barrack removed. bEquipment includes a lift, bobcat, excavator, chopsaw, chainsaw and weedeater. cTransportation includes labor and equipment. Emission Total Salvaged Material Disposal Recycled Material Equipmentb Transportationc Criteria Pollutants Carbon Monoxide (CO) 3.52E+03 -8.29E+016.94E+01 9.36E-01 1.94E+03 1.59E+03 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 7.46E+01 -7.06E+014.79E+01 -9.59E-015.55E+01 4.28E+01 Air Toxics Dioxin -8.16E-12 -2.76E-111.50E-11 1.87E-13 3.17E-12 1.08E-12 Greenhouse Gases Methane (CH4) 8.49E-01 -2.29E+002.43E+00 3.03E-02 5.09E-01 1.70E-01 Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 3.45E+02 -1.46E+031.57E+03 -2.72E+023.86E+02 1.11E+02 Metals Arsenic (As) 1.62E-05 -4.49E-054.73E-05 5.92E-07 9.88E-06 3.32E-06 Lead (Pb) -4.72E-04 -7.08E-058.38E-05 -5.09E-041.76E-05 5.92E-06 Mercury (Hg) 3.05E-06 -1.71E-051.56E-05 1.95E-07 3.26E-06 1.09E-06 Miscellaneous Chemicals Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) 1.69E+02 -2.61E-010.00E+00 -2.46E-029.40E+01 7.53E+01

PAGE 75

65 Table 3-5 Emissions from the Scenario Involving 44% Manual Methodsa Emission Total Salvaged Material Disposal Recycled Material Equipmentb Transportationc Criteria Pollutants Carbon Monoxide (CO) 2.22E+03 -8.04E+017.09E+019.36E-011.17E+03 1.06E+03 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 4.69E+01 -6.84E+014.90E+01-9.59E-013.83E+01 2.90E+01 Air toxics Dioxin -6.96E-12 -2.68E-111.53E-111.87E-133.46E-12 8.65E-13 Greenhouse Gases Methane (CH4) 9.87E-01 -2.22E+002.48E+003.03E-025.57E-01 1.37E-01 Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 5.38E+02 -1.42E+031.61E+03-2.72E+025.22E+02 8.92E+01 Metals Arsenic (As) 6.68E-05 -1.46E-041.97E-045.92E-071.09E-05 2.67E-06 Lead (Pb) -3.00E-03 -7.50E-059.49E-05-3.04E-032.13E-05 5.28E-06 Mercury (Hg) 3.98E-06 -1.66E-051.60E-051.96E-073.58E-06 8.79E-07 Miscellaneous Chemicals Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) 1.04E+02 -2.53E-010.00E+00-2.46E-025.38E+01 5.02E+01 aThe functional unit is per ft2 of barrack removed. The emissions in this table are expressed in terms of g/ft2 of barrack removed. bEquipment includes a lift, bobcat, excavator, chopsaw, chainsaw and weedeater. cTransportation includes labor and equipment.

PAGE 76

66 Table 3-6 Emissions from the Scen ario Involving 26% Manual Methodsa Emission Total Salvaged Material Disposal Recycled Material Equipmentb Transportationc Criteria Pollutants Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1.62E+03 -6.76E+017.85E+019.36E-018.15E+02 7.94E+02 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 4.95E+01 -5.75E+015.43E+01-9.59E-013.20E+01 2.18E+01 Air toxics Dioxin -5.68E-13 -2.25E-111.70E-111.87E-134.13E-12 6.49E-13 Greenhouse Gases Methane (CH4) 1.69E+00 -1.86E+002.75E+003.03E-026.67E-01 1.03E-01 Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 9.69E+02 -1.19E+031.78E+03-2.72E+025.75E+02 6.70E+01 Metals Arsenic (As) 1.13E-04 -1.22E-042.20E-045.92E-071.30E-05 2.00E-06 Lead (Pb) -2.97E-03 -6.30E-051.05E-04-3.04E-032.55E-05 3.96E-06 Mercury (Hg) 8.86E-06 -1.40E-051.77E-051.96E-074.29E-06 6.60E-07 Miscellaneous Chemicals Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) 7.38E+01 -2.13E-010.00E+00-2.46E-023.64E+01 3.76E+01 aThe functional unit is per ft2 of barrack removed. The emissions in this table are expressed in terms of g/ft2 of barrack removed. bEquipment includes a lift, bobcat, excavator, chopsaw, chainsaw and weedeater. cTransportation includes labor and equipment.

PAGE 77

67 Table 3-7 Emissions from the Scenario Involving 100% Mechanical Methodsa, b Emission Total Salvaged Material Disposal Equipmentc Transportationd Criteria Pollutants Carbon Monoxide (CO) 2.52E+02 -3.58E+00 1.18E+02 4.85E+01 8.92E+01 Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 8.77E+01 -3.05E+00 8.13E+01 6.40E+00 3.04E+00 Air toxics Dioxin 2.62E-11 -1.19E-12 2.54E-11 1.70E-12 2.66E-13 Greenhouse Gases Methane (CH4) 4.34E+00 -9.87E-02 4.12E+00 2.75E-01 4.28E-02 Carbon Dioxide (CO2) 2.19E+03 -6.63E+00 1.99E+03 1.79E+02 2.78E+01 Metals Arsenic (As) 8.46E-05 -1.94E-06 8.03E-05 5.36E-06 8.34E-07 Lead (Pb) 1.50E-04 -3.06E-06 1.42E-04 9.51E-06 1.48E-06 Mercury (Hg) 2.77E-05 -7.40E-07 2.64E-05 1.77E-06 2.74E-07 Miscellaneous Chemicals Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) 6.18E+00 -1.13E-02 0.00E+00 2.01E+00 4.18E+00 aThe functional unit is per ft2 of barrack removed. The emissions in this table are expressed in terms of g/ft2 of barrack removed. bRecycled Material is not applicable for 100% mechanical. Hazardous waste not accounted for in all 4 scenarios. cEquipment includes a bobcat, excavator and weedeater. dTransportation includes labor and equipment.

PAGE 78

68 Figure 3-1World War II Army Barracks at Fort McClellan

PAGE 79

69 Figure 3-2 Stages Involved in the Deconstruction Process Avoided Virgin Wood Production 16. Sawmill 15. Harvesting 14. Transportation of Machinery Deconstruction on Site 1a. Transportation of Labor and Machinery 1. Asbestos Removal 1b. C&D Landfill 2. Hazardous Waste Removal 2a. Hazardous Waste Disposal 5. MEP 5a. Recycled Steel 13. Mechanical Cleaning and Preparation of Salvaged Material 3. Interior Partitions 4. Windows and Doors 6. Interior Finishes and Framing 7. Roof 8. Second Story Wall 9. Second Stor y Floo r 10. First Stor y Wall 11. First Stor y Floo r 12. Foundation 13a. Salvaged Material Avoids Virgin Wood

PAGE 80

70Figure 3-3 Total Impacts Calculated Using the EDIP Method Not Including Reuse of Salvaged Materials. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%% Contribution Global WarmingOzone DepletionAcidificationEutrophicationHuman ToxicityEcotoxicityImpacts 100% Mechanical 26% Manual 44% Manual 100% Manual

PAGE 81

71 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%% Contribution Global Warming Ozone Depletion AcidificationEutrophicationHuman Toxicity EcotoxicityImpacts 100% Mechanical 26% Manual 44% Manual 100% Manual Figure 3-4 Total Impacts Calculated Using the CML Method Not Includi ng Reuse of Salvaged Materials.

PAGE 82

72 -100% -80% -60% -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%% Contribution Global Warming Ozone Depletion AcidificationEutrophicationHuman ToxicityEcotoxicity Impacts 100% Mechanical 26% Manual 44% Manual 100% Manual Figure 3-5 Total Impacts Calculated Using the EDIP Method Including Re use of Salvaged Materials But No Transportation to a Warehouse.

PAGE 83

73 -40% -20% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%% Contribution Global Warming Ozone Depletion AcidificationEutrophicationHuman ToxicityEcotoxicity Impacts 100% Mechanical 26% Manual 44% Manual 100% Manual Figure 3-6 Total Impacts Calculated Usi ng the CML Method Reuse of Salvaged Materi als But No Transportation to a Warehouse.

PAGE 84

74 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%% Contribution Global WarmingOzone DepletionAcidificatio nEutrophicationHuman ToxicityEcotoxicityImpacts 100% Mechanical 26% Manual 44% Manual 100% Manual Figure 3-7 Total Impacts Calculated Using the EDIP Method Including Reus e of Salvaged Materials and Transport to the Habitat f or Humanity Warehouse in Austin, Texas.

PAGE 85

75 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%% Contributio n Global WarmingOzone Depletion AcidificationEutrophicationHuman ToxicityEcotoxicityImpacts 100% Mechanical 26% Manual 44% Manual 100% Manual Figure 3-8 Total Impacts Calculated Using the CML Method Including Reuse of Salvaged Materials and Transpor t to the Habitat fo r Humanity Warehouse in Austin, Texas.

PAGE 86

76 CHAPTER 4 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS Summary An LCA was performed comparing deconstr uction and demolition of World War II army barracks to determine the contributi on of each life cycle stage to the total environmental impacts and to compare impacts of material reuse a nd disposal. Before this LCA was conducted, a combination of deconstruction and demolition was performed on three barracks. Once the time requirement s for each stage of these processes were found, four modeled scenarios were produce d. An LCA was then performed on these four scenarios using SimaPro. The four life cycle stages considered for the deconstruction process were deconstructing th e building, cleaning the salvaged materials, salvaged material reuse, and disposal. The four life cycle stages considered for the demolition process were harvesting of trees, proc essing of trees to boards at the sawmill, use of materials in buildings and disposal. The LCA was performed according to ISO 14040 standards and included scope and goal definition, inventory analysis, impact assessment, and interpretation. Impact a ssessment was performed using two published impact methodsCML and EDIP. Conclusions Results from the inventory analysis have shown that demand for virgin material is highest for 100% mechanical demolition. The largest amount of emissions to water, air and soil is derived from the disposal of the ma terials into landfills when compared to all the other process considered throughout this LCA. In fact, in most cases the salvaging of

PAGE 87

77 the materials had an almost opposite effect on the environment than did the disposal of the materials into landfills. This is due not only to the effect s of disposal of materials into the landfill but also to impacts resulting fr om reproduction of that material. Salvaging materials circumvented both landfilling and re production of new virgin materials, thus yielding environmental savings. The impact assessment methods used showed some variation based on the chosen model. According to the EDIP method of analysis, the 100% Manual and 44% Manual deconstruction scenarios were shown to be superior when material was salvaged and transported nearby. The largest emissions that occurred for 100% manual deconstruction scenario, shown in Table 3-4, were CO2, CO, NOx, and VOCs, ranging from 7.46E+01 g/ft2 NOx to 3.52E+03 g/ft2 CO. Both CO and CO2 emissions were greater than observed in the 100% mechanical deconstruction s cenario, primarily be cause of increased generator operation and labor transportation requirements. The transportation of labor and the use of the generator were also the la rgest contributors to the nitrogen oxides and VOCs in this scenario. Table 3-5 illustrate s that in the 44% manual scenario, the largest emissions were CO2, CO, NOx, and VOCs ranging from 2.22E+03 to 4.69E+01. The major sources of these emissions are also tr ansportation of labor to/from the site and generator operation. An increased amount of landfilled material cont ributes to increased CH4 emissions and, in part, to increased CO2 and CO emissions when compared to the 100% manual deconstruction scenario. With less time spent at the site less transportation of workers occurred to and from the site and with less salvaged material the generator was used for a smaller amount of time thus all of the emissions for this scenario were less than the 100% manual emissions. As seen in Table 3-6 the 26% manual scenario had the

PAGE 88

78 same top 4 emissions and the same contribu ting processes to the emissions ranging from 4.95E+01 to 1.62E+03. Due to the higher tran sportation of machinery and the lower amount of salvaged materials, the la rgest producer of carbon dioxide was the transportation of equipment, followed closely by the transportation of labor and the use of the generator. As with the 44% manual scen ario the emissions were lower than the 100% manual and the 100% mechanical scenario due to less material being landfilled and less time being spent in transportation of labor a nd cleanup of the salvaged materials. Table 3-7 provides emissions resulting from 100% mechanical demolition of a barrack. The highest total emissions in this scenario were greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2, 3.40E+02 g/ft2) and carbon monoxide (CO, 2.52E+02 g/ft2). Also high were emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and methane (CH4). The greatest contributor of CO2, CO, NOx and CH4 was the landfill used for disposal of waste materials, whereas the main source of VOCs was the transportation of labor and equipment to and from the site. Equipment ope ration was also a significant contributor to CO2 emissions. A sensitivity analysis was performed on the results from the impact assessment to determine the influence of variables on the environmenta l impacts considered. The model produced in SimaPro was most sensi tive to changes in the mileage driven by workers onsite machine use and the operation tim e of the generator. It was shown that environmental impacts decrease with higher levels of mate rials salvaged. However, detrimental impacts were shown to rise with transportation distance to the new construction site or to a storage facilit y. Impacts also increased with increasing deconstruction time because of the increased num ber of days workers drove their cars to

PAGE 89

79 the site. Ideally, salvaged materials would be reused at a constructi on site located on or near the property where the building is deconstructed. The results found from this project will be used by the DOD to aid in development of best management practices for the 2,357,094 s quare feet of army barracks, slated for removal within EPA Region 4 and the countless more square footage of buildings in need of removal on bases throughout the U.S. The implementation of these practices by the DOD will decrease the impact of the disposal of these buildi ngs on both public health and the environment through decreased environmental impacts. While cost and societal impacts of deconstr uction were not considered in this study, some discussion of these aspects is worth mention. While increas es in environmental savings were shown herein, the availability of materials for reuse has tremendous social implications. Jobs are created by deconstr uction, and companies a nd individuals unable to afford large amounts virgin materials would be able to access mate rials at a decreased cost. With careful planning and executi on, deconstruction costs less than demolition considering the resale value of the materials and decreased landfill disposal costs and certainly provides greater positiv e contributions to society. Recommendations The most significant limitation to this study was the small number of scenarios studied. Because the most efficient way to take down a building in terms of time and environmental impacts is a combination of hand deconstruction and mechanical demolition, it would have been beneficial to have more scenarios that combined the two. This would give a more accurate representation of the most effective way to take down a building. It is recommended that for each building, contractors should determine the

PAGE 90

80 amount of available materials that could be salvaged and the worth of these salvageable materials. In doing so, the building can be removed using a combination of deconstruction and demolition methods, resu lting in maximum e nvironmental savings from prevention of disposal of the reusable materials and producti on the new replacement materials.

PAGE 91

81 APPENDIX A DATA COLLECTION AND DAILY NARRRRATIVE Introduction to the Form The heart of the data collection method is the data collection form. The form guides the documentation of each worker. It gives information on where they are working, what they are doing, and what e quipment they are using. Since each form covers 15 minutes of activity, one is complete d every 15 minutes from the start to the end of each workday. Later, the forms are entered into a spreadsheet format that allows the data to be sorted in different ways. This information was collected by the deconstruction team.

PAGE 92

82Team : Deconstruction Completed by: Date Time: 7:30-7:45 Name Building Room Location Activity Assembly Equipment 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

PAGE 93

83 Key to Form Team Starting in the upper left hand corner, the first box identifies the team which is going to be recorded on the form. For this pr oject, we had two main teams. The first one was the Deconstruction Team, which was primarily composed of the demolition contractor and crew. This wa s the team that was responsible for removing the materials from the building. The other was the Proce ssing Team. This Team was composed of Americorp and Habitat for Humanity (HfH) vol unteers. This Team was responsible for taking the deconstructed materials, getti ng them into a ready-for-use state, and transporting them to the HfH storage facility. Completed by Record of who completed the data form. Date Date form was completed. Time 15-minute interval that the form documents When a worker changes activity, the amount of time is rounded to the nearest quarter hour. Name Recording the name of each worker orga nizes the data collection and allows someone who wasnt present at the deconstructi on site to follow an individual workers activity through a day in order to get a mental picture of the deconstruction process. Additionally, when the labor hour s are reported, it is possible to break down the labor by skill level and pay-rate. The name entry will be used to sort the data for this part of the analysis.

PAGE 94

84 Building To begin with buildings 839, 840, and 841 we re deconstructed. Each building was basically identical, so it was important to write down which building was being worked on. No one reading the data forms later would be able to infer the building number solely by the description of what was taking place that day. In the event that work was being done simultaneously on two or more buildings, it became difficult to always notice who was working on which building, but at the same time it remained critical to be accurate in assigning the correct building number to the entry for the analysis and comparison of methods. Room On the back of each data co llection clipboard, there was a small plan of each floor of the building. Each room was numbered. To track the progression of work, a record was kept of where each person was working. If the worker is inside the building, the number of the room where they were worki ng was recorded. Other designations included roof, ext for exterior and site for work not occurring specifically on the building. Location This column was used to more specifically record where work was being done. If the worker was on the roof, the slope he or she is on (north or south) was recorded. If the worker was on the exterior, the side of the building was recorded (north, south, east, or west). If the worker was inside, records were kept of which surface was being worked on. Data was kept by using such designations as F for floor, C for ceiling, and N, S, W, or E for wall surfaces.

PAGE 95

85 Activity This column was used to identify what type of work was being done. While the activity categories were simplified as much as possible, they still encompass the variety of tasks that will occur during the project. An attempt was made to explain the range of tasks that can fall under each category. In co mpleting this column the data collector needed to exercise careful observation and good judgment in order to understand what each worker was doing and into which category th at activity fell. If the collector was not sure what someone was doing, he was to obtai n clarification from the worker. If the collector was not sure which category to use, a supervisor was to be consulted. HDec (hand deconstruction) This category includes all work associat ed with removing ma terials that had potential for processing and salvage from the building using hand labor. It includes the use of hammers, crowbars, or hand-held power tools such as circular saws or sawzalls. It would also incl ude the use of a man-lift, fork lift, or crane provided that this equipment is being used to transpor t workers or individual pieces of building materials. The key to differentiating be tween Hand and Mechanically-Assisted work is that hand methods are directed towards removing the materials piece-bypiece from the building and mechanically-a ssisted methods are directed towards removing large sections or assemblies fr om the building with separation into individual pieces occurring later. HDem (hand demolition) This category includes all work associat ed with removing materials from the building by hand for disposal. It includes the use of hammers, crowbars, or handheld power tools such as ci rcular saws or sawzalls. The key to differentiating

PAGE 96

86 between deconstruction and demolition is that with deconstruction the materials are handled with a level of care sufficient to preserve their conditi on and suitability for reuse. Demolition will generally be fast er and less gentle than deconstruction. This project is primarily directed toward s research into the methods, labor, and costs involved in deconstr uction. Actual salvage of building materials is a secondary benefit. Also, the amount of actual salvage will be limited by the widespread use of lead-based paint on th e wooden building materials, making them unsuitable for reuse. In the case of most of the smaller pieces of dimensional lumber, stripping the lead-based paint is simply not cost effective or environmentally beneficial. For these r easons, many of the parts of the building will be dismantled using deconstruction techniques in order to document the process, while still eventually ending up in the dumpster. 2x4 small wall studs for instance are typically salvageable. In this project, since they are painted they will be disposed in a landfill. However, sin ce the information on salvage time and costs will be needed in the accurate planning of future projects, the wall studs were deconstructed rather than demolished. Genera lly, meetings were held at the start of each day, to discuss the planned activities for the day, what methods were used, and which materials were being demolished or deconstructed. Any worker who was unsure about any activity was told to ask for clarification immediately, because the accurate distinction betw een how much time was spent on each building deconstructing for theoretical salvage or demolishing for theoretical disposal was critical.

PAGE 97

87 MDec (mechanically assisted deconstruction) This category includes all work associ ated with removing materials with potential for processing and salvage from th e building with mechanical assistance. This includes both mechanical labor time a nd any hand labor time that is needed to prepare for the mechanical work. For instance, on one of the buildings, the deconstruction method involved removing large panels of the roof using a crane. The time spent actually lifting the panels off by crane is MDec, and so is any time spent bracing a panel by hand so that it will stay in one piece while being lifted off, cutting the panel free from surrounding ma terials, and attaching the lifting mechanism. MDem (mechanically assisted demolition) This category includes work associated with removing materials from the building with mechanical assistance for disposal. N (non-productive) Non-productive time includes all on-the-cloc k time that is not spent in any of the other categories. Activi ties such as water breaks (though not lunch), discussing what to do next, receiving instruction, t ool and work station set-up at the beginning of the day and break-down at the end, mi scellaneous clean-up (though not disposal of an individual material that has just been demolished getting materials to the roll-offs is part of demolition), building ramps or sawhorses, running caution tape, and many other activities that do not dire ctly contribute to the removal or processing of the building materials are non-productive.

PAGE 98

88 P (processing) Processing includes all the work done to prepare the materials for reuse after they have been removed from the build ing. This includes denailing, cleaning, trimming, sorting, bundling, and loading for transport. S (supervising) Supervisory work is time spent by a j ob supervisor instructing, directing, coordinating, etc. Assembly This column is used to record which part of the building is being worked on. When the labor time is analyzed, this column will be used to describe how much effort is needed to salvage each part of the building as well as the whole. For the purpose of data collection, the buildings are divide d into the following assemblies: R (Roof) 2W (Second floor walls) 2F (Second floor) 1W (First floor walls) 1F (First floor) Fnd (Foundation) MEP (Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing systems) Equipment This column is used to record what tools were used for the work. To be sure, the most critical tools to record are the tools th at require energy to opera te (electric saws or drills, as well as heavy equipment such as cr anes, manlifts, forklifts, bobcats, etc.). Some workers will change hand tools often, switchi ng between a crowbar and a flatbar as they

PAGE 99

89 work. In these cases, it is more important to document that they ar e using a set of prying tools, rather than exactly which one they use at any given time. The equipment information is useful to provide an image of what was being done at any given time for someone who was not present and to help ca lculate energy consumption for the life-cycle analysis component of the project. Keepi ng these goals in mind w ill help simplify what can become the most tedious section of da ta collection. Generally, it allows future project decision makers to know what type of work was being done and to calculate how long energy consuming equipment was being operated.

PAGE 100

90 APPENDIX B INVENTORY OF EMISSIONS (When accounting for the recycling of st eel and subtracting emissions for the production of virgin materials using EDIP.) Table B-1: Raw Material Emissions Substance Unit 100% Manual 44% Manual 26% Manual100% Mechanical water kg 3.61E+04 3.61E+04 3.61E+04 0.00E+00 coal kg -9.97E+01 -9.37E+01 -6.86E+01 3.39E+00 crude oil kg -2.22E+03 -2.02E+03 -1.38E+03 4.27E+02 energy MJ 3.34E+03 3.35E+03 3.37E+03 -5.57E+00 lignite kg 4.47E+01 4.47E+01 4.47E+01 0.00E+00 limestone kg -7.39E+00 -7.03E+00 -5.59E+00 1.98E-01 natural gas kg -1.70E+02 -1.56E+02 -1.09E+02 2.90E+01 oil kg 3.60E+00 3.60E+00 3.60E+00 0.00E+00 steel scrap kg 5.50E+02 5.50E+02 5.50E+02 0.00E+00 uranium kg 1.64E+00 1.64E+00 1.64E+00 1.43E-05 wood/wood wastes kg -1.65E+00 -1.51E+00 -1.04E+00 3.03E-01

PAGE 101

91 Table B-2: Emissions to Air Substance Unit 100% Manual 44% Manual 26% Manual 100% Mechanical acrolein kg -4.44E-06-4.23E-06-3.35E-061.31E-07 aldehydes kg -1.10E-01-5.44E-02-2.36E-022.63E-02 ammonia kg -3.22E-02-3.12E-02-2.77E-022.20E-03 As kg -3.37E-05-3.14E-05-2.30E-053.96E-06 Be kg -2.86E-06-2.68E-06-2.02E-062.54E-07 benzene kg -8.68E-06-8.16E-06-6.23E-066.54E-07 Cd kg -3.74E-05-3.42E-05-2.37E-056.62E-06 Cl2 kg -4.37E-04-3.99E-04-2.72E-048.40E-05 CO kg 2.27E+031.58E+031.06E+039.51E+01 CO2 kg -1.32E+03-1.14E+03-8.92E+021.34E+02 cobalt kg -3.60E-05-3.30E-05-2.31E-055.99E-06 Cr kg -2.11E-04-2.08E-04-1.98E-044.29E-06 Cu kg -2.12E-05-2.12E-05-2.12E-050.00E+00 CxHy kg 2.12E+002.12E+002.12E+000.00E+00 cyanides kg -5.73E-04-5.73E-04-5.73E-040.00E+00 dichloromethane kg -1.91E-05-1.82E-05-1.44E-056.14E-07 dioxin (TEQ) kg -2.40E-11-2.29E-11-1.82E-116.77E-13 dust (SPM) kg 3.72E-013.72E-013.72E-010.00E+00 F2 kg 1.40E-041.40E-041.40E-040.00E+00 fluoride kg -7.91E-01-7.67E-01-6.44E-01-3.42E-02 formaldehyde kg -1.63E-05-1.55E-05-1.21E-057.34E-07 H2SO4 kg -6.37E-04-6.37E-04-6.37E-040.00E+00 HCl kg -1.95E-01-1.89E-01-1.59E-01-6.54E-03 HF kg -3.10E-03-2.95E-03-2.34E-039.23E-05 Hg kg -1.34E-05-1.26E-05-9.49E-061.20E-06 kerosene kg -1.07E-04-1.02E-04-8.19E-052.22E-06 metals kg -7.64E-04-6.98E-04-4.81E-041.38E-04 methane kg -1.71E+00-1.59E+00-1.17E+002.04E-01 Mn kg -4.71E-03-4.70E-03-4.69E-034.66E-06

PAGE 102

92 Table B-2: Emissions to Air Continued n-nitrodimethylamine kg -9.37E-07-8.92E-07-7.08E-07 2.74E-08 N2O kg 7.48E-027.52E-027.70E-02 -2.82E-04 naphthalene kg -2.20E-06-2.02E-06-1.40E-06 3.85E-07 Ni kg -6.10E-04-5.64E-04-4.14E-04 9.34E-05 non methane VOC kg -7.92E+03-6.95E+03-4.73E+03 1.25E+03 NOx kg -3.95E+00-1.77E+01-1.83E+01 5.17E+00 organic substances kg -8.81E-02-8.05E-02-5.51E-02 1.68E-02 particulates kg -7.86E+00-8.75E+00-7.98E+00 -1.01E-01 Pb kg -5.61E-04-5.57E-04-5.43E-04 7.40E-06 phenol kg -4.31E-05-3.97E-05-2.83E-05 6.37E-06 Sb kg -1.25E-05-1.14E-05-8.01E-06 2.07E-06 Se kg -4.27E-05-4.02E-05-3.07E-05 3.10E-06 Sox kg -1.90E+01-1.89E+01-1.57E+01 1.10E+00 tar kg 4.21E-044.21E-044.21E-04 0.00E+00 tetrachloroethene kg -4.27E-06-4.06E-06-3.22E-06 1.31E-07 tetrachloromethane kg -1.03E-05-9.67E-06-7.33E-06 8.58E-07 trichloroethene kg -4.18E-06-3.98E-06-3.16E-06 1.21E-07 VOC kg 1.12E+027.59E+015.02E+01 4.27E+00 Zn kg -4.73E-03-4.73E-03-4.73E-03 0.00E+00

PAGE 103

93 Table B-3: Emissions to Water Substance Unit 100% Manual 44% Manual 26% Manual 100% Mechanical Acid as H+ kg -2.46E-06 -2.24E-06-1.53E-064.70E-07 As kg 4.15E-05 4.79E-05 8.03E-05 2.44E-04 B kg -1.64E-02 -1.54E-02-1.18E-021.21E-03 BOD kg -3.86E-02 -3.52E-02-2.41E-027.24E-03 calcium ions kg 1.06E-01 1.23E-01 2.06E-01 6.25E-01 Cd kg -4.17E-04 -3.82E-04-2.66E-047.12E-05 chromate kg -3.06E-05 -2.80E-05-1.94E-055.40E-06 Clkg -3.70E-01 -3.30E-01-1.84E-013.11E-01 COD kg -2.65E-01 -2.42E-01-1.67E-014.82E-02 Cr kg -4.02E-04 -3.63E-04-2.26E-042.36E-04 crude oil kg 9.36E-05 9.36E-05 9.36E-05 0.00E+00 Cu kg 1.94E-05 2.42E-05 4.87E-05 1.84E-04 cyanide kg -1.27E-04 -1.26E-04-1.26E-041.04E-07 dissolved solidskg -1.10E+01 -1.00E+01-6.98E+001.91E+00 dissolved substances kg 4.27E-01 4.27E-01 4.27E-01 0.00E+00 F2 kg 9.89E-03 9.89E-03 9.89E-03 0.00E+00 Fe kg 2.91E-02 2.99E-02 3.34E-02 5.37E-04 fluoride ions kg -4.32E-04 -4.12E-04-3.29E-049.46E-06 H2SO4 kg -4.07E-03 -3.83E-03-2.93E-032.97E-04 HCl kg 9.36E-01 9.36E-01 9.36E-01 0.00E+00 Hg kg -3.15E-08 -2.89E-08-2.01E-085.36E-09 K kg 1.00E-01 1.16E-01 1.94E-01 5.90E-01 metallic ions kg -5.28E-02 -4.81E-02-3.28E-021.01E-02 Mg kg 2.04E-02 2.35E-02 3.94E-02 1.20E-01 Mn kg -1.01E-02 -9.56E-03-7.31E-033.01E-03 N a kg 4.69E-02 5.41E-02 9.08E-02 2.76E-01 N H3 kg -3.99E-03 -3.63E-03-2.42E-037.78E-04 N i kg -3.59E-05 -3.59E-05-3.59E-050.00E+00 nitrate kg 1.49E-02 1.72E-02 2.87E-02 8.69E-02 oil kg -2.51E-01 -2.29E-01-1.59E-014.47E-02 other organics kg -2.87E-02 -2.64E-02-1.86E-024.59E-03 Pb kg -5.83E-05 -5.79E-05-5.67E-058.40E-07 p henol kg -1.70E-04 -1.55E-04-1.06E-043.25E-05 p hosphate kg -2.05E-03 -1.93E-03-1.47E-031.51E-04 sulphate kg -3.53E-01 -3.22E-01-2.13E-011.45E-01 sulphide kg 4.07E-04 4.70E-04 7.88E-04 2.39E-03 suspended solids kg -3.82E-01 -3.58E-01-2.67E-013.77E-02 suspended substances kg 1.41E-01 1.41E-01 1.41E-01 0.00E+00 TOC kg 1.13E+00 3.10E+00 2.70E+00 0.00E+00 Zn kg -7.00E-04 -6.82E-04-6.25E-043.58E-05

PAGE 104

94 Table B-4: Emissions to Land Substance Unit 100% Manual 44% Manual 26% Manual 100% Mechanical ammonia kg -3.18E-04 -3.18E-04-3.18E-040.00E+00 Cr kg -1.06E-03 -1.06E-03-1.06E-030.00E+00 Cu kg -1.11E-04 -1.11E-04-1.11E-040.00E+00 Mn kg -5.92E-02 -5.92E-02-5.92E-020.00E+00 N i kg -5.52E-04 -5.52E-04-5.52E-040.00E+00 Pb kg -2.48E-03 -2.48E-03-2.48E-030.00E+00 Zn kg -4.25E-02 -4.25E-02-4.25E-020.00E+00

PAGE 105

95 LIST OF REFERENCES Adams, DM. (2002). Solid Wood Products: Ri sing consumption and imports, modest price growth. Journal of Forestry, 100(2),14-19. Block, D. (1998). Deconstructing Buildings at Former Army Base. BioCycle, 39(11), 46-49. Centrum Voor Milieukunde Leiden (CML). (2001) Part 3: Scientific Background. In: Guine et al., eds., Life Cycle Assessment: An Operational Guide to the ISO Standards, A Report for the Ministri es of Housing, Spatial Planning and the Environment, Economic Affairs, Transpor t, Public Works and Water Management, Agriculture, Nature Management and Fi sheries, CML, Leiden University, The Netherlands. (October 4, 2004). Consortium for Research on Renewable Industrial Material s CORRIM (2004). Understanding the Value of Wood, (January 17, 2005). Demographia Smart Growth and Urban Cont ainment: Misguided Urban Policy. (2005). (March 6, 2005). Dolan, P., Lampo, R. and Dearborn, J. (1999) Concepts for Reuse and Recycling of Construction and Demolition Waste. USACERL Technical Report, 99/58. Environmental Protection Agency AP 42. (1986). Iron and Steel Production. (January 10, 2003). Environmental Protection Agency AP 42. (1995). Transportation and Marketing of Petroleum Liquids. (January 8, 2003). Environmental Protection Agency AP 42. ( 1997). Brick and Structural Clay Product Manufacturing. (January 2, 2003). Falk, R. (2002). Wood-Framed Building D econstruction: A Source of Lumber for Construction? Forest Products Journal, 52(3), 8-15.

PAGE 106

96 Falk, R. and Lantz, S. (1996). Feasibility of Recycling Timber from Military Industrial Buildings. Proceedings for Use of R ecycled Wood and Paper in Building Applications, Madison, WS. Sponsored by the USDA and the Forest Products Society. Falk, R., Devisser, D., Cook, S. and Stans bury, D. (1999). Effect of Damage on the Grade Yield of Recycled Lumber. Fore st Products Journal, 49(7/8), 71-79. Falk, R. and Green, D. (1999). Stress Gradi ng of Recycled Lumber and Timber. In: 1999 Structures Congress: Structural Engi neering In The 21 Century; 1999 April 18-21; New Orleans, LA. Reston, VA: Sponsor ed by the American Society of Civil Engineers. 650-653. Falk, R., Green, D., Rammer, D. and Lantz, S. (2000). Engineering Evaluation of 55Year-Old Timber Columns Recycled from an Industrial Military Building. Forest Products Journal, 50(4), 71-76. Florida Administrative Code 62-701.200. (2003). (August 1, 2003). Fort McClellan Pelham Range. ( 2005). Global Security.org. (April 22, 2005). Franklin Associates. (1998). Characteri zation of Building-related Construction and Demolition Debris in the United States. Report No. EPA 530-R-98-010. Prarie Village, KS. Goedkoop, M., Hoffstetter, P., Muller-Wenk, R. and Spriensma, R. (1998). The Ecoindicator 98 Explained. International Journal of LCA, 3, 352-260. Goedkoop, M.J. and Spriensma, R. (1999). T he Eco-indicator 99 a Damage Oriented Approach for LCIA. Ministry VROM, The Hague, Amersfoot, The Netherlands: PR Consultants. Goedkoop, M., Oele, M. and Effting, S., (2003). PRe Consultants, SIMAPRO 5.1, Database Manual. Amersfoot, The Netherlands: PR Consultants. Green, D., Falk, R. and Lantz, S. (1999). E valuation of Lumber Recycled from an Industrial Military Building. Fore st Products Jour nal, 49(5), 49-55. Guinee, J. and Heijungs, R. (1993). A Pr oposal For The Classification Of Toxic Substances Within The Frame Work Of Life Cycle Assessment Of Products. Centre of Environmental Science, Leid en University. Chemosphere, 26, 19251944.

PAGE 107

97 Guine, J.B., ed., M. Gorre, R. Heijungs, G. Huppes, R. Kleijn, A. de Koning, L. van Oers, A.W. Sleeswijk, S. Suh, H.A. Udo de Haes, H. de Bruijn, R. van Duin, M.A.J. Huijbregts, E. Lindeijer, A.A.H. Roorda, B.L. van der Ven and B.P. Weidema. (2002). Handbook on Life Cycle Assessment: Operational Guide to the ISO Standards. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Guy, B. (2001). How Cost Effective Is D econstruction? (Statisti cal Data Included). BioCycle. 42(7), 75. Guy, B. and Williams, T., (2004). Polluti on Prevention through the Optimization of Building Deconstruction for DoD Facil ities: Ft. McClellan Deconstruction Project. Final Report for the Department of Defense Regional P2 Program Region 4, administered by the University of Sout h Carolina. Columbia, South Carolina. ICF Incorporated. (1995). Construction and Demolition Waste Landfills. Contract No. 68-W3-0008. (July 25, 2003). Jambeck, J., Townsend, T. and Solo-Gabriele, H. (2004). Leachate Quality from Simulated Landfills Containing CCA-Treated Wood. Environmental Impact of Preservative-Treated Wood Conference, The Florida Interdisciplinary Center for Environmentally Sound Solutions (FIC ESS). Orlando, FL. February 8-11. Khattak, A., Amerlynck, V. and Quercia, R., (2005). Are Traveling Times And Distances To Work Greater For Resi dents Of Poor Urban Neighborhoods? (November 10th, 2005). Lippiatt, B. (1998). Balancing Environmental and Economic Sustainability. The Construction Specifier. April 1998. 35-42. Mcphee, M. (2002). Latest Trends in Dec onstruction: Interview with a Pioneer. BioCycle, 28-32. Murray, C. and Lopez, A., (1996). The Global Burden of Disease. WHO, World Bank, and Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA National Association Of Home Builders (NAHB ) Research Center. Materials Salvaged Through Deconstruction. (2003). Case St udy: Riverdale Village Apartments. (September 15, 2005). Rammer, Douglas R. (1999). Evaluation of Recycled Timber Members In: Bank, Lawrence C., ed. Materials and cons truction--Explori ng the connection. Proceedings, 5th ASCE materials en gineering congress; 1999 May 10-12; Cincinnati, OH. Reston, VA: Sponsored by the American Society of Civil Engineers, 46-51.

PAGE 108

98 Sivaraman, D. and Lindner, A. (2004). A Comparative Life Cycle Analysis of Gasoline-, Battery-, and Electricity Po wered Lawn Mowers. Environmental Engineering Science, 21(6), 768-785.

PAGE 109

99 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Elizabeth OBrien received her Bachelor of Science in environmental engineering from the University of Florid a in 2003 and her Master of Engineering in environmental engineering sciences from the University of Florida in 2006. Ms. OBrien is currently working at BCI Engineers and Scientists in Minneola, Florida, designing stormwater treatment systems. From January 2004 A ugust 2004 she worked with Jones, Edmunds and Associates as a consultant to the St. Johns River Wate r Management District on the Lake Apopka Clean Up Project. This projec t uses a constructed wetland to decrease the phosphorus levels in Lake Apopka.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0014324/00001

Material Information

Title: Life Cycle Analysis of the Deconstruction of World War II Army Barraks at Ft. McClellan in Anniston, Alabama
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0014324:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0014324/00001

Material Information

Title: Life Cycle Analysis of the Deconstruction of World War II Army Barraks at Ft. McClellan in Anniston, Alabama
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0014324:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text












LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS OF THE DECONSTRUCTION OF MILITARY
BARRACKS: A CASE STUDY AT FT. MCCLELLAN, ANNISTON, ALABAMA















By

ELIZABETH O'BRIEN


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF ENGINEERING

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2006





























Copyright 2006

by

ELIZABETH O'BRIEN















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to first acknowledge and thank the Department of Defense for the

grant funding that made this project possible. I am also grateful to Brad Guy and Timothy

Williams for their leadership and guidance of the deconstruction team and for their work

in collecting and organizing the data used in the life cycle assessment. I would also like

to thank Costello Dismantling Company for its help in the deconstruction and demolition

of the military barracks at Ft. McClellan.

I acknowledge and thank Dr. Angela S. Lindner, my supervisory committee

chairperson, for her time, hard work, leadership, and guidance during this project. I thank

my committee members Drs. Timothy Townsend and Charles Kibert for their direction,

time, and support. I am also very grateful to my research group for feedback and support

throughout this project. I acknowledge and thank my family, roommates and friends for

all of their support and guidance.
















TABLE OF CONTENTS

page

A C K N O W L E D G M E N T S ......... .................................................................................... iii

LIST OF TABLES ............. ..... ........................ ............. ............ vii

LIST OF FIGURES ............. .. ..... ...... ........ ....... .......................... viii

ABSTRACT ........ .............. ............. ...... .......... .......... ix

CHAPTER

1 IN TR OD U CTION ............................................... .. ......................... ..

A C ase for D econstruction................................................................................ 2
A dv antag es ....................................................... 2
D isadvantages ....................................................................... ... ..... . .........4.....4
Is R euse of N on-V irgin W ood Possible?.................................... ..................... 5
A C ase for V irgin W ood ........ .......... ............... ...................... ............... 8
Research Scope .......... .................. .......................... 12

2 REVIEW OF LITERA TURE ......... ................. ................................ ............... 14

A m ount of Construction Each Y ear ........................................ ....................... 14
Amount of Deconstruction/Demolition Each Year ............. .....................................15
Increased Availability of M materials .......... ........... .. ........... .. ............ 15
How are Virgin Trees Turned Into Usable Wood? ..........................................16
V irgin W ood Processes......................... ..........................................16
H arvesting ............................................. 16
S a w m ill ..................................................................................................... .. 1 7
The D construction Process ............................................... ............................ 18
R aw M material Extraction.............................................. ............................ 18
M material R efi n in g ....................................................................... ................ .. 2 1
U se/R eu se ................................................................. .................... 22
Disposal ....................................................... ........ 23
Disadvantages of Unlined Landfills .............. ............................................. 25
Costs of Deconstruction Verses Demolition.......................................................28









3 LIFE CYCLE ANALY SIS .......................................................... ............... 33

A b stract .................................................... ............................ 33
Introdu action ....................................... ........................................................ 34
M eth o d s ...................................... ..........................3 7
Description of Fort McClellan Barracks ..................................... .......37
The Deconstruction Process and Four Scenarios Studied ............... ................37
L ife C ycle A naly sis ..............................................................39
F functional U nit .................................. .................................................. ..........39
Scope and Goal Definition ................. ................. ............................ 39
F ig u re 3 -2 ................................................................3 9
F figures 3-3 and 3-4 .........................................................40
D ata Inventory ...................... ................ .............................. 41
Im pact A ssessm ent ................................................................................ 42
A ssum options and Lim stations .............................................................................. 42
Sensitivity A analysis ........................ ............ ................ ........... 44
R results and D discussion ........................ .................. .................. ........... 45
D ata Inventory .................................................. .. .... ..................... 45
Time Requirements for Removal of Barrack Components ..............................45
Labor and Machine Time and Mileage Requirements and Material Yields........47
Fuel and Electricity R equirem ents ........................................... .....................49
E m issio n s ................................51........... ...............
Im p act A n aly sis ................................................................53
Case 1: No Salvaging...................... .... ....... .. .......... .......... ........ 53
Case 2: Salvaging and No Long-Distance Transportation to a Storage Facility
(L local R eu se) ........................................ ...........................................55
Case 3: Salvaging and Transport to Austin, TX, for Reuse ............ ...............56
Sensitivity Analysis ................. ........ ............... ...... .... ........... ....57
Time for Deconstruction or Demolition Activities ..........................................57
Com m uting D instance ............................................................................ 58
Recycling ...................................................................... .......... 58
Transportation R equirem ents ........................................ ......................... 58
Time Required for Paint and Nail Removal ................................................59
C o n c lu sio n s..................................................... ................ 5 9

4 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMENDATIONS..............................76

S u m m a ry ............... ..... ............................................................................................... 7 6
C o n c lu sio n s........................................................................................................... 7 6
Recommendations................ ....... .. ... ......................79

APPENDIX

A DATA COLLECTION AND DAILY NARRRRATIVE ................ .................... 81

Introdu action to th e F orm ......... ................. .............................................................8 1
Key to Form .................... ................................83


v










T e a m .......................................................................................................8 3
C om p leted b y ...........................................................83
D a te ................................................................................................................. 8 3
T im e ...........................................................8 3
N a m e ............................................................................... 8 3
B u ild in g .....................................................................................................8 4
R o o m .............................................................................8 4
L o c a tio n .......................................................................................................... 8 4
A activity ....................................... ................................................... .............. 85
HDec (hand deconstruction) ................................ ............... 85
H D em (hand dem olition) ..................... .................... ................. 85
MDec (mechanically assisted deconstruction)................... .............87
MDem (mechanically assisted demolition) ...................................... 87
N (non-productive)..................... ........... ......... 87
P (processing)...................................88
S (su p e rv isin g ) ............................................................................................ 8 8
A ssem b ly ....................................................... 8 8
E quipm ent .............................................. 88

B INVENTORY OF EMISSIONS ....................................... .........90

L IST O F R EFE R EN C E S ............................................................................... 95

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H ........................................................................................ 99
















LIST OF TABLES


Table page

2-1. C&D W aste M material Categories and Sources .................................. ............... 19

2-2. Amount of Chemical Constituents in Wood Products (Construction and
D em olition W aste Landfills 1995)...................................................... ............... 26

3-1 Time Requirements for Removing Components of Barracks Using the Four
Scenarios Varying in Degree of Manual Deconstructiona' b........... ............... 61

3-2 Labor and Machine Requirements and Material Yields of the Four Scenarios
S tu d ie d .....................................................6 2

3-3 Fuel and Electricity Requirements for Associated Processesab ...............................63

3-4 Emissions from the Scenario Involving 100% Manual Methodsa.............................64

3-5 Emissions from the Scenario Involving 44% Manual Methodsa..............................65

3-6 Emissions from the Scenario Involving 26% Manual Methodsa............................66

3-7 Emissions from the Scenario Involving 100% Mechanical Methodsa, b...................67

B -l: R aw M material E m missions ............................................................................ ...... 90

B -2: Em missions to A ir .................. .................. ................. ........ .. ............ 91

B -3: Em missions to W after ....................................................... .. ............ 93

B -4 : E m missions to L and ............ ... .............................................................. ........ ....... 94
















LIST OF FIGURES


Figure pge

3-1 World War II Army Barracks at Fort McClellan ............................................... 68

3-2 Stages Involved in the Deconstruction Process............... ............. ............... 69

3-3 Total Impacts Calculated Using the EDIP Method Not Including Reuse of
Salvaged M materials. ........................ .............................. .. ........ .... ..... ...... 70

3-4 Total Impacts Calculated Using the CML Method Not Including Reuse of
Salvaged M materials. ..................... ................. .........................................71

3-5 Total Impacts Calculated Using the EDIP Method Including Reuse of Salvaged
Materials But No Transportation to a Warehouse.................................................72

3-6 Total Impacts Calculated Using the CML Method Reuse of Salvaged Materials
But No Transportation to a W warehouse ........................................ ............... 73

3-7 Total Impacts Calculated Using the EDIP Method Including Reuse of Salvaged
Materials and Transport to the Habitat for Humanity Warehouse in Austin,
T ex a s. ............................................................ ................ 7 4

3-8 Total Impacts Calculated Using the CML Method Including Reuse of Salvaged
Materials and Transport to the Habitat for Humanity Warehouse in Austin,
T ex a s. ............................................................ ................ 7 5















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Engineering

LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS OF THE DECONSTRUCTION OF MILITARY
BARRACKS: A CASE STUDY AT FT. MCCLELLAN, ANNISTON, ALABAMA


By

Elizabeth O'Brien

May 2006

Chair: Angela Lindner
Major Department: Environmental Engineering Sciences

Nearly 2.5 million ft2 of barracks must be removed from military facilities

throughout the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4. While manual

deconstruction offers promise for environmental, economic, and social benefits, the

combination of mechanical and manual methods for minimal impact to the environment

and public health is unknown. Here, life cycle analysis was used to determine an

optimum level of manual deconstruction of barracks at Ft. McClellan in Anniston,

Alabama. Four scenarios were compared with varying degrees of time required for

manual deconstruction, 100% Manual, 44% Manual, 26% Manual, and 100%

Mechanical, on the barracks. Data were collected directly from the site and applied using

SimaPro modeling software (Pre Associates, The Netherlands), considering three post-

deconstruction options. Materials salvaged using either 100% or 44% Manual

deconstruction and reused within a 20-mile radius of the deconstruction site yielded the

most favorable environmental and health impacts; however, given the significant impacts









involved in the life cycle of diesel fuel required for transportation, the need for

developing reuse strategies for deconstructed materials at the regional level is

emphasized.














CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Each year, the building industry in the United States is reported to generate nearly

136 million tons of construction and demolition (C&D) waste, amounting to 35-40

percent of the total amount of municipal solid waste (MSW) produced annually (Dolan et

al. 1999). Approximately 60 percent of this C&D waste originates from the demolition

of buildings, and 80-90 percent of this waste is estimated to be either reusable or

recyclable (McPhee 2002). While the reuse and recycling of C&D-related waste offers

potential environmental advantages, the building and deconstruction industry has not

fully embraced these practices (Lippiatt 1998).

Reuse and recycling of currently landfilled construction and demolition materials

offer potential benefits in terms of decreased landfill use and raw material extraction. A

reduced amount of raw material extraction is a benefit to the environment because the

extraction of raw materials may lead to resource depletion and biological diversity losses.

The extraction of raw materials normally occurs at sites far from manufacturing plants

and the transport of raw materials and manufacturing of building products consume

energy. The generation of this energy produces emissions linked to global warming, acid

rain and smog. Also the waste generated from the manufacture and transport of the raw

materials decreases the space available for disposal in landfills. All of these activities

from raw material extraction to landfilling are potential sources of air and water

pollution. The goal of this project is to discover the best way to lower building-related

contributions to environmental problems (Lippiatt 1998).









A Case for Deconstruction

Most buildings are removed using demolition processes. Demolition is an

equipment-intensive operation. Most of the crew is involved in operation of machinery

and have very little physical contact with the actual building materials. Larger materials

(usually metals, sometimes concrete and masonry) can be separated during demolition

using machinery (Falk and Lantz 1996). Deconstruction, on the other hand, "is the

systematic disassembly of buildings in order to reuse and recycle as many of the

component parts as possible, before or instead of standard mechanized demolition"

(Mcphee 2002). Deconstruction uses hand labor and physical contact with the building

by the workers and involves a methodical disassembly of building parts with similar care

taken in this process as devoted to its reverse process of construction. Because of this

physical contact with the building, deconstruction takes about twice as long as demolition

(Falk and Lantz 1996).

As an alternative to demolition, deconstruction has advantages and disadvantages:

Advantages

S Recycling building materials conserves resources by diverting used materials from

the landfill and avoiding use of virgin resources. For every recovered square foot

of wood used in new construction, a corresponding square foot of virgin wood is

not consumed. Therefore, salvaging reduces the use of natural resources. The

diversion of bulky and difficult-to-handle C&D waste from the municipal solid

waste (MSW) stream will increase the operating life of local landfills and will

result in fewer associated environmental impacts such as groundwater

contamination (Dolan et al. 1999).









* Deconstruction and the resulting reuse of building materials results in avoidance of

some of the costs of landfilling, primarily transportation and tipping fees.

* Recovering materials may generate a credit or otherwise subsidize the overall

building disposal costs. A generated credit would allow the owner of the

deconstructed building to receive money or materials from the user of the recovered

materials.

* Landfill failures can result in remediation costs being assigned to former landfill

contributors. By reducing landfill use, there could be a reduced future liability

(Falk and Lantz 1996).

* Due to the increasing cost of materials manufactured with virgin materials, recycled

materials are becoming much cheaper in comparison.

* Salvaging reduces the total cost of materials since only the cost of removal,

refurbishing, and transport is incurred by the salvage (NAHB 2003).

* The availability of high-quality virgin materials for the manufacture of building

materials is decreasing. In many cases, the sources of raw materials are great

distances from installations or building projects, and high transportation costs make

contractors look for a local replacement.

* Many state and regional waste authorities restrict the disposal of bulk waste, such

as furniture, appliances, and building equipment, to special solid waste handlers or

landfills. This, in turn, has driven up the disposal tipping fees. In most cases, any

level of salvage reduces the cost of disposal.

* Timber that is recovered properly from older buildings is gaining acceptance in

meeting the demand for large old-growth timber (Falk, R. and Lantz, S. 1996).









* Salvage recovers the highest percentage of the "embodied" resources in the

materials or subsystems. The energy and raw materials consumed in the original

manufacture of the materials or systems are not lost to landfill disposal (NAHB

2003).

Disadvantages

* Building disposal may be more management-intensive for the building owner if

multiple contracts are needed for the various types of abatement and disposal.

* Deconstruction takes twice as long as demolition.

* Demolition is more machine-intensive, while deconstruction is more labor-

intensive. Because of the increased number of workers on the deconstruction site,

there is an increase in the emphasis on site safety and coordination.

* The markets for nonvirgin building materials are very unstable. The acceptance of

salvaged material is still in transition from local markets to national and

international markets. Therefore, the value of the recovered materials is still

difficult to predict (Falk and Lantz 1996).

* Salvaged materials are harder to sell. As yet, they do not have a standard grading

system. So it is hard to tell for what application each board can be used.

* Before the deconstruction process, a determination of whether the materials and/or

assemblies can be removed in a cost-effective and safe manner must be made. This

is vital information in assessing the economic feasibility of the project.

* Even when markets for the material exist, deconstruction may not be financially

justifiable if there is not enough material.









* If there is too much material and not enough storage space the salvage operation

may not be able to occur. If the material has to be stored for an indefinite period of

time, some types of materials, such as wallboard, will lose their economic value. If

they are not stored properly, degradation of their material properties may occur

(Dolan et al. 1999).

* There are negative environmental impacts, such as dust generation, noise and

vibrations (Thormark 2002).

* Deconstruction discards different waste than construction or renovation and

demolition. Deconstruction is more likely to contribute contaminated materials to

landfills because all reusable materials are separated, leaving for disposal materials

contaminated by potentially toxic substances, such as lead paints, stains, and

adhesives (Dolan et al. 1999).

Is Reuse of Non-Virgin Wood Possible?

The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) has 2,357,094 square feet of excess

buildings that are in need of removal from military bases throughout U.S. EPA Region 4,

encompassing the states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North

Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee (Falk et al. 1999). The U.S. military is disposing

of these barracks because the federal procurement law and military regulations listed

under the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, CFR 32 162.2, will not allow federal tax

dollars to be spent on the maintenance of facilities that are in surplus to its needs (Falk et

al. 1999). In response to these regulations, the U.S. Army is considering deconstruction

of its barracks and salvaging of materials in order to accomplish its minimization goals

and subsidize the overall disposal costs of the buildings, thus lowering funding









requirements (Falk et al. 1999). However, there is a question as to whether 100% manual

deconstruction of military barracks will yield optimum economic and environmental

savings, particularly for those barracks built before World War II.

The possibility of recovering timber and lumber from buildings is dependent on

both physical and economic factors, which include:

* wood condition, dimensions, and species

* type and number of fasteners per piece

* exposure or protection from the elements

* labor cost

* allowable building disposal period

* site configuration and building height

* allowable on site recovered materials storage time

The demand for nonvirgin timber and lumber can increase due to the following:

* Harvesting restrictions on high-quality, large-diameter, old-growth timber restrict

its availability at any price.

* Prices of forest products are steadily increasing.

* Exposed timber frame construction demands high-quality large timber.

* Older species-specific wood may be desired for use in new log home construction

and interior remodeling of older buildings.

* North American species may be considered "exotic" creating a demand in those

markets.

* The more nonvirgin timber and lumber is used the more familiar buyers, designers,

and builders will become with it.









The demand for nonvirgin timber and lumber is restricted by the following factors:

* There are no grading standards or design rules specifically for nonvirgin wood

materials; application of virgin material standards and rules on nonvirgin wood

may have the effect of downgrading nonvirgin materials.

* Lumber used at a site must be graded. Without a grade, a "timber grader" must be

present, or the materials will be rejected.

* Lack of consistent supplies and markets for nonvirgin timber and lumber.

* Owners and disposal contractors are not aware of the value of nonvirgin timber and

lumber so they make no attempt to recover them (Falk and Lantz 1996).

Variability of the Quality of Lumber

Service-related defects, such as drying checks, splits, bolt and nail holes, notches

from other framing members or utilities and exposure to weather and decay, can affect

the quality of recycled lumber. Depending on the building type and use, boards also may

have been exposed to chemicals and extreme temperatures. Most importantly, structural

members have often experienced an unknown load history (Green et al. 1999).

When timber is first cut it is full of water. Before the days of drying kilns in mills,

wood was allowed to dry naturally. This process takes several years for large timbers.

As the wood dries out, the timbers shrink. The location of the cut on the tree determines

the kinds of splits or checks that occur in the wood. A split is a separation of the wood as

a result of the tearing of the wood cells (Falk et al. 2000). "A separation of the wood that

occurs across or through the growth rings is a check. A separation that extends from one

surface of a piece to the opposite or adjoining surface is a through check" (Falk et al.

2000 73). If the timber was cut from the center (the "heart" of the tree), cracks (checks)









will form in a radial pattern outward from the center. If the timber was cut from the

outside part of the tree ("free of heart center"), there will be less checking. "Free of heart

center" timbers check less, but they cost more because they have to be cut from a much

bigger tree (Falk et al. 2000).

Heart checks have little effect on the strength of the recycled timber columns, but

they lower the modulus of rupture (Stress Grading of Recycled Lumber and Timber

1999). Checks also have little effect on column compressive strength. Although the

checks have little effect on the quality, the damage incurred during deconstruction lowers

the quality of dimensional lumber from the reconstructed buildings on average one grade

(Falk and Green 1999).

The direct reuse of wood materials as a construction product faces many obstacles.

The duration of loads, moisture cycling and fabrication changes during the service life of

the wood are difficult to determine but quantifying the remaining strength of the wood is

necessary. Currently, there is no way to grade wood except on an individual piece-by-

piece basis. This is a major obstacle to the reuse of timber. Typically, manufacturers

will reuse heavy timbers only for post and frame buildings because they are dry and

stable (Green et al. 1999). Another obstacle to the direct reuse of wood materials occurs

as a result of use or the dismantlement process. Defects often exhibited by recycled

lumber can include mechanical damage (broken ends and edges of members, splits due to

disassembly), damage from fasteners and hardware (bolt holes, clusters of nail holes),

and notches from other framing members or utilities (Green et al. 1999).

A Case for Virgin Wood

Since 1953, 16 million acres of southern yellow pine timberland have been lost in

the South. Suppression of wildfires, reduced prescribed burning, southern pine beetles,









urban development, high-grading, and a lack of artificial regeneration on privately owned

timberlands are all factors that have contributed to the decline of timberland. Tree-

planting programs on agricultural lands have slowed the decline of timberland. In

addition, according to the Southern Forest Resource Assessment, an increase in southern

yellow pine timberland could occur if 23 million acres of former cropland and

pastureland were planted to pines during the next four decades. This effort would

probably require subsidies (South and Buckner 2003).

Each American uses the equivalent of a 100-foot tree every year. The American

population has increased from 76 million in 1900 to more than 250 million people in

1990. Therefore, over 14-billion 100-foot trees were grown and used from 1900 to 1990.

And, due to good forest practices, two-thirds of the original forestland is left.

Many people believe that, to obtain environmental benefits from the forests, it is

best to leave the trees untouched. More often, the opposite is true. Forests with young

trees that are growing and healthy generally have more environmental benefits than older

forests whose trees are stagnant or dying. Tree farming using modern forestry knowledge

produces young healthy forests (Trees 1992).

Trees, unlike steel and aluminum, are a renewable resource. In 2002, forest

landowners planted nearly 1.7 billion seedlings. Besides planting new trees, forest

landowners managed the natural regeneration of millions of other trees giving America

nearly two and a half million acres of new, growing forests. For decades, America has

been growing more wood than is harvested or lost to insects and disease. And since the

beginning of the 1980s, the total amount of forestland in America has increased by 27

million acres (Trees 1992).









Trees produce 1.07 pounds of oxygen and use 1.47 pounds of carbon dioxide for

every pound of wood they grow. An acre of trees can grow approximately 4,000 pounds

of wood a year, using 5,880 pounds of carbon dioxide and giving off 4,280 pounds of

oxygen in the process (South and Buckner 2003).

Forests benefit our population in two ways. The first is by producing wood.

People use an average of 15,824 board feet of lumber and up to 10,893 square feet of

panels in each house that is built. Over 600 pounds of paper per a person are produced a

year for books, diapers, packaging, and all the other paper products. Trees are also a

benefit due to the oxygen they produce. One person needs 365 pounds of oxygen per

year, and that oxygen is manufactured through plants and trees (South and Buckner

2003). America is slowly becoming a paperless society as electronic copies become the

more cost and time-efficient way to do business. Before the industrialization of our

nation, tree harvesting was minimal. However, now that our nation is industrialized, the

harvesting of trees is one of the best ways to counteract the production of air pollution.

As trees age, they consume less carbon dioxide, so growing new trees allows more

carbon dioxide to be taken up and oxygen to be released making our air more breathable.

The harvesting of trees is important because it gives new trees room to grow and keeps

carbon dioxide stored in old wood.

As forests age and become more overcrowded, little growth occurs; however, trees

begin to use oxygen instead of releasing oxygen; and more wood may decay than grow.

For every pound of wood that decays (or combusts), 1.07 pounds of oxygen are used, and

1.47 pounds of carbon dioxide are released (South and Buckner 2003). As a result of this









reversal of CO2 removal/oxygen release, care must be taken to avoid wood decay or

combustion and to ensure that new trees are in abundance.

Besides creating more breathable air, trees cool the air by providing water

evaporation. Trees act like huge pumps cycling the water up from the soil and back into

the air (South and Buckner 2003). A 100-foot tree with 200,000 leaves, for example, can

remove 11,000 gallons of water from the soil and release it into the air in one growing

season. This cooling effect of water evaporation by latent heat transfer is said to be

equivalent to air conditioning for 12,168 square foot rooms. In fact, one solution to

combat global warming is forest regeneration and maintenance (South and Buckner

2003).

When a forest grows naturally, it goes through cycles. A wild forest may start out

with as many as 15,000 small seedlings per acre. Over a typical 60- to 100-year cycle, at

least 14,700 of the original trees 98 percent will die as the trees compete for space.

Modern forestry finds ways to use this natural mortality and improve and maintain forests

at the same time (South and Buckner 2003).

Modem forestry uses many different types of harvesting, depending on many

factors, including the terrain and the conditions that are needed to plant a forest (South

and Buckner 2003). More than half of the timber harvested each year in the United

States is used in some form of solid wood product: lumber, panels of veneer, or chips for

both structural and nonstructural applications, and miscellaneous products, such as posts,

poles, and pilings. Although a significant amount is used in manufacturing and shipping,

construction activity accounts for the majority of solid wood products consumption (more

than 60 percent of lumber and more than 80 percent of structural panels). As a result,









consumption and prices of lumber are highly sensitive to fluctuations in new housing and

other construction activity (Adams 2002). Therefore, use of virgin wood maintains the

production of trees, however, salvaging wood prevents the already harvested trees from

decaying in landfills.

Research Scope

The focus of this paper is the life cycle comparison of four identical barracks

located at Fort McClellan in Anniston, Alabama, deconstructed with varying degrees of

hand and mechanical methods, ranging from 100% mechanical demolition to 100%

manual deconstruction. Using data carefully collected during the deconstruction and

demolition processes, the specific emissions and resulting environmental impacts of the

four scenarios are compared using LCA methods and are reported herein.

Since steel and masonry building materials were being redirected to other parts of

the war effort, many of the army facilities that were built during the World War II era

were built of timber. Many of these facilities were classified as surplus to the nation's

defense requirements at the end of the Cold War era in the early 1990's. The current

situation in the military is contrary to the past trend of adding buildings to the industrial

inventory while continuing to use existing buildings. In the past, any disposal of

buildings was incidental to other ongoing operations and, as such, was often handled on

an individual basis. This disposal was based on administrative decisions and disposal

practices. The typical disposal practice for such facilities has been demolition, with the

debris placed in a landfill (Falk, R. and Lantz, S. 1996). Several army bases have been

closed since 1990, and many of the World War II barracks are no longer used (Falk, R.

and Lantz, S. 1996). Since federal tax dollars cannot be spent to maintain surplus

facilities, many of these army facilities must be demolished. In 1995, over 250,000,000









board feet (BF) of lumber were estimated to be available for reuse from the World War II

wood buildings then slated for demolition (Falk 2002).

At Ft. McClellan in Anniston, Alabama, deconstruction and demolition was

performed on three barracks on site with varying degrees of mechanical and manual

labor. This project involves a life cycle assessment (LCA) to determine if the reuse of

wood salvaged from the deconstruction of the barracks is a viable alternative to using

virgin wood. The Environmental Protection Agency states an LCA "examines the

environmental releases and impacts of a specific product by tracking its development

from a raw material, through its production and to eventual disposal." An LCA was

performed on all four scenarios to compare the inputs and outputs of each scenario in the

form of environmental impacts, energy consumed and labor required. This project was

completed to help the DOD determine the square footage of barracks that need removal

and to compare and contrast environmental impacts of deconstruction and demolition.

This project will have a direct impact on the ability to plan the most environmentally

effective deconstruction of the barracks contained in EPA Region 4. This plan is

intended to aid the U.S. Army to meet its waste minimization goals, to provide materials

at lower cost for new construction on bases on or close to deconstruction sites, and to

increase the number of civilian jobs. The hypothesis of the project is that 100% manual

deconstruction will have the lowest environmental impacts of any of the four scenarios

because it is assumed the machinery will be used for the least amount of time and fewer

materials will be landfilled. Therefore the least amount of emissions should be produced

in the 100% manual deconstruction scenario.














CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Amount of Construction Each Year

Over the last three decades lumber consumption has increased by nearly one-third,

and structural panel use has more than doubled. The Resources Planning Act (RPA)

Timber Assessment projects that the consumption of solid wood products will continue to

grow in the future through the expansion of both construction and nonconstruction uses

due to America's growing population and increasing wealth (Adams 2002).

It is projected that, every year for the next 50 years, 1.43 million new households

will be constructed, thus creating approximately 71 million additional separate living

units. Approximately, 1.93 million houses will also be improved each year for the next

50 years. The primary driver of the new construction and improvements is an aging,

healthy, retired population acquiring second homes (Adams 2002).

Reflecting the trend of an aging population and the declining number of people per

household, the average size of new housing units is projected to stabilize over the next 40

years and then rise in the final decade of the projection. By 2050, the average size of a

single-family unit will increase from the current average of 2,160 square feet to 2,600

square feet. Multiple-family housing will expand from 1,000 to 1,200 square feet, and

mobile homes will grow from 1,350 to 1,950 square feet (Adams 2002). In 2004, single-

family houses had already increased to an average size of 2,225 square feet (CORRIM

2004). Since 1991, the consumption of lumber has been growing steadily. A historical

high of 68.2 billion board feet (bbf) consumed was reached in 1999 (Adams 2002).









Amount of Deconstruction/Demolition Each Year

The average age of housing in the United States is over 30 years, necessitating their

improvement or demolition. According to the Census Bureau, approximately 245,000

dwelling units and 45,000 non-residential units are demolished every year, creating

approximately 74 million tons of debris a year. Using deconstruction to remove

buildings can convert demolition waste into construction materials. For example, by

deconstructing one-fourth of the buildings instead of demolishing them, approximately

20 million tons of debris could be diverted from landfills each year (NAHB 2003).

Increased Availability of Materials

The past century has seen a major population boom in the United States. During

this time many new residential homes, commercial and industrial buildings, bridges, and

other structures were built from sawn lumber and timber. As these buildings become

ready to be torn down, much of this lumber may be available for reuse. Over three

trillion board feet of lumber and timber have been processed in the U.S. since 1900.

Much of this wood is still residing in existing structures. When these structures reach the

end of their service lives, become obsolete, or change use, contemporary practices

emphasize quick, cheap disposal in landfills (Green et al. 1999). Recently, public interest

has been expressed in finding environmentally acceptable and efficient material reuse

options that focus on deconstruction and reuse of materials in new construction and

remodeling activities (Green et al. 1999).

Along with growing public interest in increasing the amount of recycling/reuse of

C&D waste, federal agencies, such as the United States Environmental Protection

Agency (USEPA) and General Services Agency (GSA), have developed policies to

promote an increase in the use of recycled content products. Building materials have not









been emphasized in these procurement guidelines until recently. Increased recycling of

C&D waste promises to "close the loop" of material procurement and reuse by increasing

the amount of materials available (Dolan et al. 1999).

How are Virgin Trees Turned Into Usable Wood?

* The life cycle of timber products includes the following stages:

* Growing timber

* Harvesting timber/cutting it down

* Processing/making it into a useable product

* Installation into a building

* Maintaining, preserving, painting

* Replacement

* Disposal via landfill, incinerator/burning or recycling

* Transport at each stage

Virgin Wood Processes

Harvesting

Timber used for the construction of new houses and the renovation of old houses

all comes from one source-trees. The harvesting of trees occurs in three stages: the

felling and bunching of trees, the movement of the trees from the forest to the site where

they are loaded on the truck and the loading of the trees onto the truck (Long 2003).

A feller buncher is used in the first stage (felling and bunching of trees). The feller

buncher cuts down a group of trees using a saw blade that is located on the bottom of the

feller buncher between two clamps. There are also two more sets of clamps located

above the saw blade. All three sets of clamps are brought together at the same time. As









the saw blade cuts the tree, the two upper sets of clamps grab hold of the tree. Normally

feller bunchers cut trees that are between 8" and 18" in diameter. It cuts several trees at

a time, lays the trees down, and moves on to cut down the next tree (Long 2003). Photos

of feller bunchers can be accessed at

http://www.deere.com/enUS/cfd/forestry/deere forestry/fellerbunchers/tracked/703G

general.html, http://catused.cat.com/equipment/view-equipment-

detail.html?equipmentPK=Eq1.545735F, and http://www.franklin-

treefarmer.com/fellerbunchers/Fellerbunchers.html.

A rubber-tired skidder delimbs the downed trees by directing them through steel

grates and then moves them from the forest to the loading area (Long 2003). Photos of

rubber-tired skidders can be accessed at http://www.vannattabros.com/skidderl.html.

Log loaders are used to sort the wood by size and to pick the trees up from the ground

and load them on eighteen-wheeler trucks, which carry the logs to the mill (Long 2003).

Photos of log loaders can be observed at http://www.vannattabros.com/drott.html and

http://www.madillequipment.com/loaders.html.

Sawmill

Logs are converted into lumber in a sawmill after they are unloaded from the

eighteen- wheeler truck. The first step is to cut the logs to specified log lengths, and then

the logs are sawn by a chipping saw or a bandsaw, edgers, a trimmer and a resaw. The

focus of these processes is to maximize the lumber extraction. The timber is cut into two-

inch thick boards of varying widths and lengths, and sorted by size before it is kiln-dried.

The lumber is then planed using a plane saw and graded by graders. The kilns, which are

controlled by computers, dry rough, green lumber with a moisture content of about 50%

to a desired moisture content of about 10% in approximately 24 hours. Lumber is planed









to the desired size and finished in the planermill. Then the lumber is shipped to

consumers (Long 2003).

The Deconstruction Process

Raw Material Extraction

Deconstruction is used to extract materials that will be reused in new construction

and remodeling activities. The main raw material that comes from deconstruction is

reusable wood. Other raw materials that can be salvaged include showers, urinals,

mercury ballasts, and doors.

Before deconstruction begins, the building is surveyed to determine what can and

cannot be salvaged. Visible defects, subtle signs of wear and tear, and the ease with

which materials can be removed are observed. Deconstruction is both labor-intensive

and time-consuming, comparable to building a new structure only in reverse order

(Yeung and David 1998). Deconstruction starts with removing the shingles from the roof

and pulling out nails to take out the sheathing. The roof boards are then pried loose,

handed down, further denailed, sized and stacked. Next, workers take nails from the

rafters, knock the boards apart, and hand them down to be denailed and sorted. Then the

ceiling joists are knocked off and lowered down (Block 1998). This process continues

throughout the whole building.

Deconstruction can be contrasted with the sorting and salvaging of demolition

debris. The biggest problem with sorting and salvaging of demolition debris is that,

during demolition, the debris is mixed. Even during the deconstruction process, when the

structure is carefully dismantled by manual labor, the mixing of different types of

materials is still possible. For example, removing the exterior wall in a load-bearing

masonry system will result in a combination of masonry materials including concrete









blocks or bricks, reinforcing steel, metal ties and grout (Dolan et al. 1999). These

dissimilar materials must be separated if they are to be recycled or reused.

The composition of C&D waste varies depending on the type of project and the

method of construction and demolition. In general, wood comprises one-quarter to one-

third of the C&D waste stream. As shown in Table 2-1, C&D waste can be divided into

sixteen categories of materials, which can be further- divided into several different

subcategories of materials. The information listed in Table 2-1 includes all of the

individual components that may be found in a building. Many of these classes of

materials, such as concrete, masonry, and ceramics are inert and thus not susceptible to

degradation by bacterial activity once landfilled. There are, however, several components

of C&D waste that are not inert in nature and, therefore, are putrescible. The best

example of a material the will putrefy under the proper conditions in a landfill is wood.

Also several types of these materials can be considered chemically-reactive, such as paint

and paint thinner, and they must be handled in a special manner (Dolan et al. 1999).

Table 2-1. C&D Waste Material Categories and Sources
Waste Material Demolition Source Construction Source
Asphalt Roads, bridges, parking lots, roofing materials, Same
flooring materials
Brick Masonry building equipment white goods, Same
appliances installed equipment
Ceramics/clay Plumbing fixtures, tile Same
Concrete Foundation, reinforced concrete frame, Same
sidewalks, parking lots, driveways
Contaminants Lead-based paint, asbestos insulation, fiberglass, Paints, finishes
fuel tanks
Fiber-based Ceiling systems materials, insulation Same
Glass Windows, doors N/A
Gypsum/plaster Wall board, interior partitions Same









Table 2-1 continued
Waste Material Demolition Source Construction Source
Metals, ferrous Structural steel, pipes roofing, flashing, iron, Same
stainless steel
Metals, nonferrous Aluminum, copper, brass, lead Same
Paper/cardboard N/A Corrugated cardboard,
packaging
Plastics Vinyl siding, doors, windows, signage, plumbing Same
Soil Site clearance Same, packaging
Wood, treated Plywood: pressure- or creosote-treated, laminates Same
Wood, untreated Framing, scraps, stumps, tops, limbs Same

The amount of C&D waste produced in the United States depends on several

variables including:

* The extent of growth and overall economic development that will drive the levelof

construction, renovation, and demolition;

* Periodic special projects, such as urban renewal, road construction and bridge

repair, and unplanned events, such as natural disasters;

* Availability and cost of hauling and disposal options;

* Local, state and federal regulations concerning separation, reuse, and recycling of

C&D waste;

* Availability of recycling facilities and the extent of end-use markets (Dolan et al.

1999).

The composition and quality of waste materials will vary greatly from building to

building. Any of the 16 categories of waste found in Table 2-1 is expected to be found in

a typical residential, commercial or institutional project. The physical composition of

building materials changes dramatically depending on the age of the project (for

renovation and demolition projects), resource availability and construction/demolition

practices used. There are three main factors that affect the characteristics of C&D waste:









the structure type (e.g., residential, commercial or industrial building, road, bridge),

structure size (e.g., low-rise, high-rise), and activity being performed (e.g., construction,

renovation, repair, demolition). Some additional factors that influence the type and

quantity of C&D waste produced are the size of the project (e.g., custom built residence

versus tract housing), the location of the project (e.g, waterfront versus inland, rural

versus urban), materials used in the construction (e.g., brick versus wood), the demolition

practices (e.g., manual verses mechanical), schedule (e.g., rushed versus paced), and the

way the contractor keeps track of and takes care of materials (Dolan et al. 1999).

Salvaging materials has several advantages for both the construction industry and

solid waste management. It recovers the most resources and the initial energy and raw

materials used for the virgin manufacture are not lost to landfill disposal. Also, salvaging

materials reduces the overall cost of the materials since only the cost of removal,

refurbishing and transport are included in the final price of the material. Salvaging

materials also reduces the cost of disposal (Dolan et al. 1999).

Material Refining

Once the wood is removed from the building, it must be cleaned before it can be

reused. The first step taken to make the wood reusable is denailing. Denailing is

accomplished using a denailing gun, which operates reverse of a nail gun. Removal of

nails without damaging the wood using a denailing gun requires approximately 30% of

the time necessary to remove the boards from the building (Guy 2005). At a typical

deconstruction site, a denailing gun is powered by a generator and runs approximately 8

hours a day (Guy 2005).

Painted wood is not stripped unless it is covered in lead-based paint (LBP). Wood

covered with paint containing no lead can be stripped by the consumer if needed. If the









end of the wood is rotten, it is still resold and the consumer can remove the end. If

however, nails are clustered at the rotten end, it is cut off before sale to a customer (Guy

2005).

The processing of lumber after a deconstruction process takes approximately 0.008

labor hours per linear foot of lumber. Processing the lumber involves 3 steps: moving the

lumber from an original pile to the denailing station, denailing the boards using a

compressor and a denailing gun, and restacking the boards (Guy 2005).

Use/Reuse

The wood salvaged from deconstruction is ideally reused in new construction and

renovation projects; however, several barriers exist to making this practice a reality. The

largest barrier is the difficulty project managers and solid waste authorities have in

identifying markets for the debris. Another barrier is the accurate characterization of

C&D waste due to the high variability of the content and quantity of C&D waste. "This

variability is due to the nature of the waste, the dispersion of C&D activities, inconsistent

waste management regulations, range of disposal options, and the variance in cost of

disposal options (Dolan et al. 1999 58)." Damage is incurred on C&D waste as a result

of 1) the original construction process (nail hoes, bolt hoes, saw cuts, notches), 2)

building use (drying defects, decay and termite damage), and/or 3) the deconstruction

process (edge damage, end damage, end splitting, and gouges). The main reason for the

inconsistencies in reusable wood is damage during the deconstruction process (Falk and

Green 1999).

Joists, particularly those located on the first floor, decay more frequently than other

timbers because of their proximity to the ground. Water leakage causes the joists in

bathroom areas to decay most often (Falk et al. 1999). Larger timbers (such as support









columns) command a high price and are regularly recycled, whereas dimensional lumber

is not often reused (Falk and Green 1999).

There are several potential advantages of reusing recycled lumber. First, a

significant quantity of recycled lumber is derived from old-growth timber and may have a

tighter grain structure. Second, recycled lumber is relatively dry, with less tendency to

warp on the job site (Falk et al. 1999). Third, salvage yards sell recycled lumber at about

50% of retail lumber prices (Falk 2002).

Disposal

The Florida Administrative Code (FAC) allows the use of C&D debris facilities in

addition to Class I, II and III landfills. Rule 62-701.200 (25) defines C&D debris as:

* Discarded materials generally considered to be not soluble in water and non-

hazardous in nature, including but not limited to steel, glass, brick, concrete,

asphalt material, pipe, gypsum wallboard, and lumber, from the construction or

destruction of a structure as part of a construction or demolition project or from the

renovation of a structure, including such debris from construction of structures at a

site remote from the construction or demolition project site. The term includes

rocks, soils, tree remains, trees, and other vegetative matter (that normally result

from land clearing or land development operations for a construction project), clean

cardboard, paper, plastic, wood, and metal scraps from a construction project;

* Effective January 1, 1997, except as provided in Section 403.707(13)(j), F.S.,

unpainted, nontreated wood scraps from facilities manufacturing materials used for

construction of structures or their components and unpainted, non-treated wood

pallets provided the wood scraps and pallets are separated from other solid waste









where generated and the generator of such wood scraps or pallets implements

reasonable practices of the generating industry to minimize the commingling of

wood scraps or pallets with other solid waste; and

* De minimis amounts of other non-hazardous wastes that are generated at

construction or demolition projects, provided such amounts are consistent with best

management practices of the construction and demolition industries;

* Mixing of construction and demolition debris with other types of solid waste will

cause it to be classified as other than construction and demolition debris (FAC 62-

701.200).

Landfills are typed as Class I, II and III. Class I landfills receive an average of 20

tons or more of solid waste per day. Class II landfills receive an average of less than 20

tons of solid waste per day. Class I and II landfills receive general, non-hazardous

household, commercial, industrial and agricultural wastes, following Rules 62-701.300

and 62-701.520, F.A.C. C&D waste is disposed of in a Class III landfill. In rule 62-

701.200 of the Florida Administrative Code (FAC) Class III landfills are defined as those

that receive only yard trash, construction and demolition debris, waste tires, asbestos,

carpet, cardboard, paper, glass, plastic, furniture other than appliances, and any other

materials approved by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). Any

materials approved by the FDEP for disposal are not expected to produce leachate that

endangers public health or the environment. Putrescible household waste is not accepted

in Class III landfills.

Since Class III landfills do not receive MSW for disposal, they are not required to

be lined automatically. Special requirements for Class III landfills are contained in Rule









62-701.340(3)(d), F.A.C., which states that Class III landfills can be exempt from some

or all requirements for landfill liners, leachate controls and water quality monitoring it

that no significant threat to the environment will result from the exemption. The

language in this rule results in the need for a liner in a Class III landfill to be determined

on a case-by-case basis by each department district office. The determination of each

case will be made by the Department in a way that will protect both human health and the

environment (ICF 1995).

The average cost of disposal of C&D waste in Florida is $32.06/ton, ranging

anywhere from $5.00/ton in Okaloosa County to $92.00/ton in Monroe County (ICF

1995). This average cost of disposal is seemingly high, most likely because disposal

costs at private facilities, which are significantly lower, were not included.

Disadvantages of Unlined Landfills

Leachate is formed when water washes over garbage in landfills, soaks through the

landfilled material, and exits the other side carrying contaminants. The fate of hazardous

constituents in C&D materials, such as acrylic acid, styrene, vinyl toluene, nitrile and

copper (Table 2-2) may include leaching into nearby groundwater aquifers or

volatilization into the surrounding air. As a result, potential impacts of C&D waste

disposal in unlined landfills may include drinking water contamination and fire hazards.













Table 2-2. Amount of Chemical Constituents in Wood Products (Construction and
Demolition Waste Landfills 1995)
Wood Product Chemical Constituent Amount of Note
Chemical(s) in
Wood
Product
pallets and skids, pentachlorophenol < 10 ppm a
(hardwood/softwood) lindane dimethylphthalate
copper-8-quinolinolate
copper naphthenate
pallets, plywood phenolic resins 2-4% a
pallets, glued epoxy 2-4%
painted wood, lead-based paint lead 1400-20,000 ppm b
(before 1950)
painted wood, acrylic-based acrylic acid, styrene, vinyl
paint toluene, < 0.01%
nitriiles
painted wood, "metallic" aluminum powder, copper
pigments acetate, < 0.01%
phenyl mercuric acetate, zinc
chromate, titanium dioxide,
copper ferrocyanide
plywood, interior grade urea formaldehyde (UF) resins 2-4% c
plywood, exterior grade phenol formaldehyde (PF) resins 2-4% c
oriented strandboard phenol formaldehyde resins, or 2-4%
PF/isocynate resins
waterboard urea formaldehyde resins, or 5-15% UF d
"Aspenite phenolic resins 2.5% PF, 2% wax













Table 2-2. continued
4-8%,
overlay panels phenol formaldehyde resins sometimes
up to 10%
plywood/PVC laminate urea fomaldehyde 2.5% UF
polyvinyl chloride 10% PVC
particleboard urea formaldehyde resins 5-15% UF d
UF resins with polyvinyl
particleboard with PVC laminate chloride 4.5%UF
10% PVC
hardboard phenolic resins 1.50%
fencing and decks: pressure CCA or ACA 1-3% e
treated southern pine CCA or ACA 1-3% e
fencing and decks: surface
treated pentachlorophenol 1.2-1.5% f
utility poles, laminated
beams,
freshwater pilings, bridge
timbers,
decking, fencing
creosote containing
railroad ties, utility poles 85% PAHs 14-20% g
freshwater pilings, docks creosote coal tar 15-20%
marine pilings, docks creosote/chlorpyrifos 15-20%
a. Hardwood pallets are used primarily in the eastern U.S.; softwood and plywood pallets are used
primarily in the western U.S.
b. Lead level is highly dependent on the age of the paint; before 1950 lead comprised as much as
50% of the paint film. Legislation in 1976 reduced the standard to 0.06% by weight.
c. Plywood may be surface-coated with fire retardants, preservatives and insecticides, or pressure-
treated with CCA.
d. May be sealed with polyurethane or other sealant to prevent off gassing of formaldehyde.
e. Dominant wood preservative; actual levels will be lower due to evaporation or leaching after
treatment.
f. Restricted use due to industry change and concern over dioxin linkage; not permitted
for residential uses.
g. Losses after treatment estimated to be 20-50% over 10-25 years; not recommended for
residential use.











Costs of Deconstruction Verses Demolition

When well-trained crews are employed for the deconstruction of buildings,

deconstruction is very competitive with demolition because deconstruction companies are

relatively inexpensive to start and multiple streams of revenue occurring during each

deconstruction job. These revenue streams are the job contract, reduced tipping fees, a

percentage of the resale of materials, and tax deductions for the donation of materials to

nonprofit organizations. The most successful deconstruction companies either own or

partner with a retail yard that sells salvaged materials (high-value architectural pieces,

dimensional lumber, windows, doors, hardware, and more) at affordable, but profitable

prices (Mcphee 2002). A well-trained deconstruction team can contend with the price of

mechanical demolition. For example in Hartford, Connecticut, deconstruction teams

deconstructed a building at a cost of $2/square foot this was a 33 percent savings over

mechanical demolition. Also deconstruction projects can reduce tipping costs by as

much as 50 to 85 percent (Mcphee 2002).

Due to the decreased amount of available landfill space and the increasing costs of

managing landfill tipping fees, recycling C&D waste not only recovers valuable

resources, it saves money. Because of these changes in cost, C&D waste recovery and

reuse of waste is becoming economically feasible (Dolan et al. 1999).

The cost of buying these recycled materials on the market depends on the cost of

storage, collection, transportation, and other costs for the processor. The most important

driving force of cost is the demand for these materials. This depends on short-term

demand for and availability of virgin material. The scarcer a resource is, the higher the









resale cost and thus the more feasible deconstruction will be considered. There are at

least six key factors that drive the supply, demand, and pricing of recycled materials:

1. Export markets. The Far East, where fiber is in short supply, represents a

particularly strong export market for recycled materials.

2. Virgin capacities and recycled capacities. When the price and availability of virgin

commodities change, the price and availability of recycled commodities follow.

3. Geography. A West Coast generator with access to markets in the Pacific Rim has

different marketing opportunities than a generator in the Midwest.

4. Transportation costs. The distance to market plays a role in the pricing of all

commodities, whether recycled or virgin.

5. Endproduct demand. Recycled materials serve three key sectors of the economy:

automobiles, housing and retail. When the auto industry booms, so do the steel and

plastic industries. When housing booms, business increases for suppliers of steel,

paper, plastic and other virgin and recycled materials. Likewise, when retail sales

climb, so do paper and plastic packaging material sales.

6. Natural disasters around the world. When a community begins to rebuild after a

natural disaster, demand for recycled materials in all areas of the world spike

(Dolan et al. 1999).

To reduce the uncertainty associated with recycling/reusing the materials gathered

from large-scale or long-term projects, an explicit commitment among the general

contractor or project manager, hauler and market should be established (Dolan et al.

1999). This will ensure a market for the materials and guarantee that the deconstruction

is worth the extra time and effort.









The most critical component for reuse of C&D waste is the identification of a

market for the waste material. Once a market is found to exist, the material becomes a

commodity not a waste. For reuse of materials to be economically successful, there must

be a stable, profitable market. The Solid Waste Association of North America (SWANA)

suggests that, to have a market for the C&D waste, there are five requirements that must

be met and agreed upon by both the buyer and the seller: (1) specifications, (2) quantity,

(3) delivery conditions, (4) price, and (5) commitment (Dolan et al. 1999).

For most Army facilities, an extensive C&D waste reuse operation will require a

large investment of both time and money. Denison and Ruston (1990) listed factors that

should be considered by solid waste and project managers before beginning any type of a

reuse operation to ensure that the reuse project is both financially and technically

feasible:

1. quantity of waste generated

2. composition of the waste

3. materials targeted for recycling and the methods of recovery

4. expected value

5. necessary additional processing required to prepare the recovered materials for the

market

6. costs of recycling, handling, collecting, and processing

7. financial and logistical risks and uncertainties

8. availability of markets for recovered materials, current market prices, price

instability, and the potential effect of market development programs (Dolan et al.

1999).









Army Technical Manual Rule 5-634 states that the added costs (increased time,

effort, and equipment) plus the sales revenue of a recycling program will determine its

economic feasibility (TM 5-634, p 4-79). If the added costs exceed the avoided costs

plus revenue, the operation should not be performed (Dolan et al. 1999).

Many contractors are doubtful of the time and cost effectiveness of deconstruction,

thus hampering its general acceptance. When savings in disposal costs and the resale

value of building materials are considered, deconstruction becomes more attractive. An

even more appealing aspect of salvage and deconstruction is the environmental benefits,

including reduction of waste materials which may be incinerated or landfilled. This may

improve air and water quality and will reduce landfill use. Also sometimes lumber

recovered from deconstruction projects is vintage or priceless. Building materials yards

may have old growth timbers, architectural trimmings and antique doorknob (Yeung and

David 1998). Salvageable materials include plywood, lumber, hardwood flooring, bricks,

windows, concrete, plumbing fixtures, doors and knobs, hinges, paneling, insulation,

stairs and railings, asphalt roof tiles, moldings and baseboards and countertops. The

recycling of building materials gives its greatest benefit to the consumer, who purchases

the material at incredibly low prices (Yeung and David 1998).

The following equation can be used to determine the net deconstruction cost:

(Deconstruction + Disposal + Processing) (Contract Price + Salvage Value) = Net

Deconstruction Costs. The net cost for demolition use is calculated by the equation

(Demolition + Disposal) (Contract Price) = Net Demolition Costs. When the salvaged

materials are not resold or redistributed on-site or reused by the deconstruction contractor

in new construction, transportation and storage costs may be additional costs for









deconstruction. For deconstruction to be cost effective and competitive with traditional

demolition and disposal the sum of the savings from disposal, revenues from resale of

materials must be greater than the incremental increase in labor costs. To increase the

percentage of time spent in deconstruction activity and decrease overall time costs, a

building's materials should be deemed worth salvaging and with efficient resale

mechanisms and markets. Removing and reselling materials as quickly as possible can

overcome the disincentive for deconstruction created by the time costs of development

and building loans. Deconstruction is also more cost effective when the site is large

allowing the unwanted structure to be isolated from the other construction activity and be

deconstructed without delaying the site development. On the other hand when the new

construction will take place on the footprint of the existing structure, the time for removal

of the existing structure by deconstruction is a significant economic impediment (Guy

2001).














CHAPTER 3
LIFE CYCLE ANALYSIS

Abstract

Nearly 2.5 million ft2 of barracks must be removed from military facilities

throughout the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 4. While manual

deconstruction offers promise for environmental, economic, and social benefits, the

combination of mechanical and manual methods for minimal impact to the environment

and public health is unknown. Here, life cycle analysis was used to determine an

optimum level of manual deconstruction of barracks at Ft. McClellan in Anniston,

Alabama. Four scenarios were compared with varying degree of time required for

manual deconstruction, 100% Manual, 44% Manual, 26% Manual, and 100%

Mechanical, on the barracks. Data were collected directly from the site and applied using

SimaPro modeling software (Pre Associates, The Netherlands), considering three post-

deconstruction options. Materials salvaged using either 100% or 44% Manual

deconstruction and reused within a 20-mile radius of the deconstruction site yielded the

most favorable environmental and health impacts; however, given the significant impacts

involved in the life cycle of diesel fuel required for transportation, the need for

developing reuse strategies for deconstructed materials at the regional level is

emphasized.









Introduction

Each year, the building industry in the United States is reported to generate nearly

136 million tons of construction and demolition (C&D) waste, amounting to 35-40

percent of the total amount of municipal solid waste (MSW) produced annually (Dolan et

al. 1999). Approximately 60 percent of this C&D waste originates from the demolition

of buildings, and 80-90 percent is estimated to be either reusable or recyclable (McPhee

2002). While reuse and recycle of C&D-related waste offers potential environmental

advantages, the building and deconstruction industry has not fully embraced these

practices (Lippiatt 1998).

There are two different methods for the removal of buildings-deconstruction and

demolition-and the method used greatly influences the amount of salvaged (reusable)

material gained. Demolition, the most often used means of building removal, is

equipment-intensive, requiring machinery throughout the process for leveling the

building and separating the larger materials. Because most of the labor involves

machinery operation, the crew has very little physical contact with the actual building

materials (Falk and Lantz 1996). Deconstruction, on the other hand, involves the

methodical disassembly of buildings in order to reuse or recycle as many of the

component parts of the building as possible, before or instead of demolition (McPhee

2002). Deconstruction can involve hand labor only and always involves actual physical

contact with the building by the workers, thus resulting in time requirements that are

approximately twice that of demolition (Falk and Lantz 1996).

The additional time burden and perception of associated increased costs

accompanying deconstruction have hampered its practice. Another potential drawback of

deconstruction is the need to tend to a greater level of detail at every stage of the removal









process. For example, increased planning is required in order to assess the type and

amount of materials that can potentially be salvaged. The actual deconstruction phase

must involve greater oversight of the labor, while recovered materials must be stored and

protected on site before removal to their final destination. Also, most of the salvaged

lumber can only be used for non-structural applications, such as in decks and non-

supporting walls, unless the materials are re-graded (Falk et al. 1999). In order to

minimize the time and cost burdens of deconstruction while still ensuring gain of

salvaged materials, this practice can be combined with demolition. However, the degree

at which this combination of building removal practices becomes economically and

environmentally beneficial is not known.

This work presents results of a case study performed on military barracks at Ft.

McClellan in Anniston, Alabama, for the purpose of determining the benefits of

combining deconstruction and demolition. Military buildings in need of removal

throughout the U.S. offer tremendous potential for materials recovery and reuse. The

U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) has 2,357,094 square feet of excess buildings that

are in need of removal from military bases throughout U.S. EPA Region 4 alone,

encompassing the states of Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North

Carolina, South Carolina and Tennessee (Falk et al. 1999). The U.S. military is disposing

of these barracks because the federal procurement law and military regulations listed

under the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR 32 162.2) will not allow federal tax

dollars to be spent on the maintenance of facilities that are in surplus of its needs (Falk et

al. 1999, CFR 2004). In response to these regulations, the U.S. Army is considering

deconstruction of its barracks and salvaging of materials in order to accomplish its









minimization goals and subsidize the overall disposal costs of the buildings, thus

lowering funding requirements (Falk et al. 1999). However, there is a question as to

whether 100% manual deconstruction of military barracks will yield optimum economic

and environmental savings, particularly for those barracks built before World War II.

This project, funded by the U.S. DOD, sought to determine the optimum levels of

manual deconstruction and mechanical demolition of pre-World War II barracks using a

life cycle approach. Life cycle analysis (LCA) is a method that enables quantification of

the environmental and public health impacts of an activity or product throughout its

entire life. This "cradle-to-grave" approach is based on the knowledge that each stage in

a product's life has potential to contribute to its environmental impacts. Considering a

building's life cycle, these stages include raw material extraction and processing, material

manufacture (e.g., wood harvesting and milling), transportation, installation (e.g.,

construction), operation and maintenance, and, ultimately, recycling and waste

management (e.g., salvaging of materials for recycling or reuse) (Lippiatt 1998).

The focus of this paper is the life cycle comparison of four identical World War II-

era barracks. Data were carefully collected from a previous study on three Ft. McClellan

barracks, deconstructed using different methods of manual effort that were accompanied

by different time requirements for manual involvement. The specific emissions and

resulting environmental impacts and cost savings or burdens of the three scenarios are

compared to traditional mechanical demolition using LCA methods and are reported

herein.









Methods

Description of Fort McClellan Barracks

U.S. Army facility, Ft. McClellan, in Anniston, Alabama, was established in 1917,

with a primary mission of training for combat, a service it fulfilled during World War I,

World War II, and the Vietnam War. This facility was also the home of the Women's

Army Corps School, the U.S. Army Chemical Center and School, the Military Police

School, and the Training Brigade. The base was decommissioned in 1995; and, upon its

official closing on May 20, 1999, it occupied 45,679 acres of land with 100 barracks of

approximately 415 m2 each in need of removal (Fort McClellan 2005). Figure 3-1 shows

a typical row of barracks at Ft. McClellan. They are identical, two-story, wood-frame,

World War II-era barracks similar in typology and construction to thousands of older

barracks found on military installations throughout the United States.

The barracks in the U.S. EPA Region 4 were typically built with Southern yellow

pine, a strong wood readily available in the Southeast and considered salvageable. Other

components with potential resale value in the barracks include showers, urinals, toilets,

windows, doors, electrical wiring, lighting, emergency exit signs, a brick fireplace, and

the metals associated with the air conditioning ducts and the large structural support

columns. The metals were removed by hand before the demolition of the building, and it

was found that the structural support columns were salvageable under careful demolition

practices.

The Deconstruction Process and Four Scenarios Studied

The deconstruction and demolition of the barracks were conducted from April-June

of 2003. Personnel involved in this project participated in either a deconstruction team or

an LCA team. The deconstruction team was responsible for hiring a dismantling









contractor, coordinating the dismantling of each barrack in a systematic approach, and

collecting data during the deconstruction process. With the aid of Costello Dismantling

Co., Inc. (Boston, MA, USA), contracted in the early stages of the project, the

deconstruction team carefully documented in 15-minute intervals at the deconstruction

site the following information: type and amount of material salvaged or disposed, method

of material removal (manual or mechanical), time required to salvage and/or demolish,

time required for machine operation, total labor time and transportation requirements, as

previously described in detail (Guy and Williams, 2004). The LCA team transferred the

data collected from the site and applied these data to the modeling efforts.

As stated previously, the primary goal of this project was to assess the optimum

combination of manual and mechanical methods of barracks removal, as measured by

minimum environmental/public health life cycle impacts. To this end, four scenarios

were designed and compared. The first scenario involved removal of one barrack using

entirely manual deconstruction (labeled as "100% Manual"). The second and third

scenarios involved manual deconstruction only 44% and 26% of the total time required

for removal, respectively, with the remainder of the time involving traditional mechanical

methods. These two scenarios are labeled henceforth as "44% Manual" and "26%

Manual," respectively. The fourth scenario involved removing a barrack using only

mechanical methods of demolition, as traditionally used, and this scenario is denoted as

"100% Mechanical." The percentages of time used for mechanical demolition and

manual deconstruction were determined by dividing the total time required for building

removal into the total time required for machine operation and/or labor.









Life Cycle Analysis

All data collected from the deconstruction phase were carefully databased for use in

the life cycle analysis (LCA) modeling that followed ISO 14000 guidelines (Guinee et.

al., 2002). The ultimate objective of the LCA effort was to guide the Department of

Defense (DOD) in the best management practices for removing the WWII-era barracks

that remain in EPA Region 4. The scenario yielding lowest environmental impacts would

be considered the most preferable option in this study. The development of the LCA

model and its relevant stages are discussed in more detail below.

Functional Unit

The four scenarios were compared using a functional unit of "per square foot of

barracks." This functional unit allowed comparison of inputs and outputs and the

ultimate impacts from each scenario. All results presented herein are based on this

functional unit.

Scope and Goal Definition

The relevant stages included in this LCA are the deconstruction/demolition process,

representing "raw material extraction"; disposal of materials by landfilling; transportation

between the stages; and recycling and reuse of salvaged materials by replacing virgin

materials.

Figure 3-2

Figure 3-2 shows these stages divided into individual steps, starting with

preparation for deconstruction by transportation of equipment and labor to the site and

removing asbestos (Steps la and 1) and hazardous waste (Step 2). Each rectangle (Steps

1, 2, 5, 13-16) represents an activity that is involved in preparation for demolition of the

barracks, preparation of salvaged materials for reuse, and the processes in the outer









avoided virgin wood production loop. Each oval (Steps 3, 4, 6-12) represents a part of

the barrack disposed of in the landfill or salvaged for reuse. Time requirements for each

relevant step under each scenario were collected at the site for subsequent LCA

development. The only steps shown in Figure 3-2 relevant to the 100% Mechanical

scenario are transportation of labor and equipment to the site, asbestos and hazardous

waste removal and transportation to disposal sites (Steps 1, la, lb, 2 and 2a), whereas all

subsequent steps apply only to the other three scenarios.

Figures 3-3 and 3-4

In this LCA, three options were considered for salvaged material. The first option

was performed from the perspective of savings in landfill volume requirements and

reduction of leachate production that occurred when materials were salvaged. No reuse

of salvaged materials was considered in this first option and represents a case where no

reuse options are available. The second option was also performed from the perspective

of savings in landfill volume requirements and reduction of leachate that was produced

when materials were salvaged. However, this option also included the reuse of the

materials by transporting them to a local storage facility within 20 miles of the

deconstruction site for their reuse or recycle, thus assessing impacts of a regional market

for these materials. The third option considered reuse and recycle of the salvaged

materials beyond the deconstruction and landfill sites by incorporating transportation to

the Habitat for Humanity (HfH) warehouse in Austin, TX, thus assessing impacts of a

national market for these materials. For both the second and third options, if use of the

salvaged material avoided the production and preparation of the virgin wood that it

replaced, then the avoided virgin wood production loop (Steps 13a-16) and the recycling

of MEP materials (Step 5a) were involved.









Data Inventory

Both primary (derived directly from the deconstructed and demolished barracks)

and secondary (derived from literature and regulatory agency publications and databases)

data were collected and databased in LCA software, SimaPro 5.1 (PRe Consultants,

Ameersfort, The Netherlands). SimaPro contains inventory data that has already been

gathered for common products and processes in databases created by ETH-ESU (Uster,

Switzerland), Buwal 250 (Bern, Switzerland), and Franklin Associates (Prairie Village,

Kansas, USA), among others (Goedkoop and Oele 2001). As previously described, the

primary data collected included the amounts of hazardous, salvaged, recycled and

landfilled materials, the amount of time each piece of equipment was used, the number of

workers, and the worker labor time. In addition, the weights of salvaged and landfilled

materials were found by weighing the hauling trucks before and after filling. The

secondary data included types of equipment and materials used (site-specific for project),

fuel type and requirements of each piece of equipment (JLG 2004, Bobcat 2004,

Caterpillar 2004, Grove 2004, Homelite 2004, Stihl 2004, DeWalt 2004), amount and

composition of leachate from all deconstruction materials (Jamback 2004), equipment

usage for production of virgin wood in the forest and at the sawmill (Long 2003),

emissions for production of bricks used in the barracks construction (EPA 1997),

recycling and producing steel (EPA 1986), diesel and gasoline fuel combustion emissions

(EPA 1995), data for the production of diesel fuel and gasoline (EPA 1995) and for the

U.S. electricity mix (SimaPro 5.1). The LCA compared the inputs and outputs of each

alternative scenario in terms of emissions, the value of the material, and requirements of

dollars, energy, and labor.









Impact Assessment

While a number of weightings schema used in LCA impact assessment have been

developed and are available to LCA practitioners, the need for an increased

understanding of how these metrics are developed, their uncertainty and variability, and

potential limitations and benefits of their application has been recently identified

(Thomas et al. 2003). In this study, two methods, Centrum Voor Milieukunde Leiden

(CML) and Environmental Design of Industrial Products (EDIP), were chosen for

calculation of the relative impacts of Global Warming, Ozone Depletion, Acidification,

Eutrophication, Human Toxicity, and Ecotoxicity (Guinee and Heijungs 1993; Goedkoop

et al. 1998; Goedkoop and Spriensma 1999; CML 2001; Goedkoop and Oele 2001).

Each method, included in the SimaPro software, uses a different approach for calculating

impacts but consider similar contributing factors for each impact. Comparing the results

of these two approaches will enable determination of the reliability of the observed

trends. A detailed description of these methods can be obtained in Sivaraman and

Lindner (2004).

Assumptions and Limitations

The following is a list of assumptions made throughout this assessment to enable

comparison of the four scenarios:

1. Each barrack contains the same quantity of hazardous material, asbestos, and wood

coated with lead-based paint that must be disposed; therefore, these emissions were

not accounted for in the LCA.

2. Transportation: Note that all assumptions of distances traveled were considered for

their effect on the results in the sensitivity analysis.









3. The workers made a 20-mile roundtrip to and from work each day in a 1995 model

midsize car. Each worker drove his/her own car; however, carpooling was

considered for its effect on the results in the sensitivity analysis. A 20-mile

distance served as a worst-case scenario because this represents approximately

twice the distance most workers travel to work (Khattak et. al. 2005, Demographia

2005).

4. Equipment was transported to the site on a flat bed truck from within a 20-mile

radius. Because this distance varies for every site, this mileage was tested in the

sensitivity analysis (transport distance).

5. A 30-mile distance for transport of equipment to and from the site of harvesting

was assumed (Long 2003), and harvested wood was assumed to be transported 60

miles to the sawmill (Long 2003). A transport distance of finished lumber of 100

miles was assumed to exist from the sawmill to the construction site for virgin

wood (Long 2003).

6. Salvaged wood was transported 80 miles from the deconstruction site to the new

construction site. While a 500-mile radius is considered to be a cutoff point for

environmental savings for delivery of materials to a construction site, this lower

value was assumed to ensure that the expense of transporting and buying the

salvaged material does not exceed that of the virgin materials (Smith 2003).

7. Except for small equipment (chainsaws, chopsaws, and weedeaters), each piece of

equipment used at the barracks site required a separate flat bed truck for hauling.

8. The capacity of each truck was at least capable of handling 5,500 lbs of wood,

equal to a cord of wood.









9. Other than the use stage, the life cycle stages of the machinery used throughout the

deconstruction or demolition process were not considered.

10. Sources of emissions included from the creation of virgin timber were harvesting,

transporting the wood, milling the wood, and transporting the lumber to the

construction site.

11. The data collected at the barracks in Ft. McClellan are applicable to all other

barracks within U.S. EPA Region 4.

12. Methods for asbestos abatement and lead assessment are the same whether for

demolition or deconstruction. The wood deposited into the landfill was untreated

chemically, but most of it was painted with lead-based paint. Wood coated with

lead-based paint produces lead-contaminated leachate; however; the effects of this

wood were not accounted for in the leachate because there was the same amount in

each barrack. Because the landfill is unlined, the leachate from all other materials

contained within the barracks was accounted for using data reported in Jamback

and Townsend (2004), the only available resource for this type of data.

13. The source of electricity was assumed to be the average U.S. mixture of 56% coal,

21% nuclear, 10% hydropower, 10% natural gas, and 3% crude oil. The safety

concerns of spent nuclear fuel were not considered.

Sensitivity Analysis

Assumptions and variables that were tested for their sensitivity to model impacts

included the time spent to both deconstruct and demolish the barracks, the distances the

workers traveled, the distances the materials and machinery were transported, the

recycling of the steel, and the time requirements for preparation of the materials for reuse.









Results and Discussion

Data Inventory

Time Requirements for Removal of Barrack Components

As shown in Table 3-1, each of the barrack components was partitioned into broad

categories of windows and doors, interior partitions, hazardous waste (composed

primarily of mercury thermostat switches, lead-acid batteries in exit lights and emergency

light fixtures, fluorescent tubes and ballasts), mechanical, electrical and plumbing (MEP)

materials (including sinks, toilets, showers, light fixtures, wiring and conduit, ducts, and

air handlers), interior finishes and framing, roof, walls and floors, and foundation. The

time required to remove each building component following the relevant set of steps

conducted in each scenario is also provided in Table 3-1. Asterisks in Table 3-1 denote

all components that were removed involving some degree of mechanical methods.

Removal of hazardous materials (fluorescent lights and exit signs) and the

foundation of each of the barracks, mechanically performed in all scenarios, required the

same amount of time (5.0 and 3.3 hrs, respectively). Removal of windows and doors,

interior partitions, and MEP materials required the same amount of time for the three

scenarios that involved hand deconstruction (100% Manual, 44% Manual, and 26%

Manual) but a significantly lower time for the 100% Mechanical scenario. The windows

and door frames coated with lead-based paint and the MEP materials were manually

removed from the barracks involving hand deconstruction. The wood containing lead-

based paint was not considered hazardous waste because of the low concentrations of the

paint, and, therefore, it was disposed of in a C&D landfill. The windows and door frames

from the 100% mechanically demolished barrack were disposed of thus yielding no time

requirement, whereas the time for removing MEP materials under this scenario was lower









than the other three because only the light fixtures, electrical wiring and conduits were

removed before the demolition of the building. The 3.1 hours required to remove interior

partitions from the 100% mechanically demolished barrack involved recovery of the

large support columns only.

The same amount of time was needed for the salvaging of the interior finishes and

framing for the 100% Manual and the 44% Manual scenarios but a decreased amount of

time was needed in the 26% Manual scenario. This decreased time is explained by the

fact that the columns and wall studs were cut using chainsaws to speed the process of

deconstruction and so that the second story floor could be dropped onto the first story

floor for deconstruction.

As shown in Table 3-1, less time was required for removal of the roof, walls and

floors of the barracks with increasing use of mechanical methods. This is true with the

exception of the removal of the second story floor. The removal of the second story floor

took longer in the 26% manual scenario than in the 44% manual scenario although it still

took less time than the 100% manual scenario. In the 44% Manual scenario, the second-

story floor was cut into ten-by-ten foot pieces and dismantled on the ground, whereas the

second-story floor in the barrack subjected to 26% Manual methods was dropped onto the

first-story floor and dismantled. The two different methods of removal for the second

story floor in the 26% and 44% manual scenarios were experimental to determine the

fastest way to deconstruct the second story floor. It was found that it is faster to remove

the second story floor in ten-by-ten foot pieces because it is easier to remove the wood

when it is in smaller pieces. The time for the removal of the first- story wall also varied

greatly between the 44% Manual and 26% Manual scenarios. The former, involving









manual removal of sheathing and siding, required approximately 62 hours, and the latter,

involving cutting at the floor base and direct disposal in a dumpster for ultimate

landfilling, required approximately 9 hours. For more information on the methods used

to deconstruct and demolish the barracks and the time differences for the removal of the

different components of the building please refer to Guy and Williams (2004).

Labor and Machine Time and Mileage Requirements and Material Yields

Table 3-2 presents the total labor and machine time and transportation requirements

for the material yields from each of the four scenarios. As expected, the scenario

involving all manual deconstruction demanded the greatest number of work days and

mileage requirements of the work crew, 17.7 days and 2160 miles, respectively,

compared to the range of 12.7 to 1.5 days and 1440 to 120 miles for the other scenarios,

decreasing with less manual deconstruction. Interestingly, the time requirement for

machine operation and mileage requirements for delivery of machinery were maximum

in the 44% Manual scenario (277.8 hrs, 140 miles, respectively) because an additional

piece of equipment, a crane, was used in this scenario to lift the roof off the building so

that the salvageable pieces of the roof could be saved while the rest of the building was

demolished. It is important to note that machines were necessary in the 100% Manual

scenario for collection, movement and cleaning of materials.

The 100% mechanical demolition scenario required the least amount of transport

mileage of equipment and machine hours because only two pieces of equipment were

involved, the Bobcat T200 Turbo (Bobcat, West Fargo, ND) and Caterpillar 320C

excavator (Caterpillar, Inc. Pleasanton, CA), to simply topple the building with no

manual removal processes. Also, unlike the three scenarios with manual involvement

where materials were separated and moved to various locations on site, the 100%









Mechanical scenario resulted in materials transferred directly to an on-site dumpster for

subsequent disposal.

The amount of recycled material was the same for each barrack that used hand

deconstruction (Table 3-2). In 100% mechanical demolition, the building was knocked

down and put in the C&D landfill without removing the recyclable steel. As anticipated,

the yield of salvageable material decreased with diminishing levels of manual labor. The

weight of salvaged material ranged from 2,552 lbs from the barrack that was entirely

mechanically deconstructed to 59,089 lbs from the entirely manually deconstructed

barrack. The barrack that was mechanically deconstructed yielded salvaged material in

the form of large wood columns, the foundation of the building and plumbing and

electrical fixtures. This is a total of 2,552 lbs of salvaged wood, which is 1.8% of the

total weight of the building. Additional components salvaged with manual methods

included non-damaged wood, showers, urinals, toilets, air conditioning ducts, and some

of the bricks from the chimney (if clean of mortar).

The amount of hazardous material (141 lbs) was the same for each barrack, as each

barrack contained the same components, including primarily mercury thermostat

switches, lead-acid batteries in exit lights and emergency light fixtures, fluorescent tubes

and ballasts. As salvaged material yields increased, the amount of material sent to the

landfill decreased. Therefore, as also anticipated, the amount oflandfilled material

decreased with increasing manual labor rates. The amount of material landfilled ranged

from 140,055 lbs for 100% mechanical demolition to 82,486 lbs for 100% manual

deconstruction.









Fuel and Electricity Requirements

The hourly fuel and electricity requirements for transportation of the labor force

and machinery and for the operation of each of the machines are provided in Table 3-3,

along with the relevant stages of their involvement, previously introduced in Figure 3-2.

Seven different pieces of machinery that were used during the deconstruction and

demolition of the military barracks are also listed in Table 3-3. Each of these pieces of

equipment was used for a different purpose and for varying amounts of time depending

on the scenario. The JLG Lift 600S (JLG Industries, Inc., McConnellsburg, PA) was

used to raise the workers above the roof in order to cut and remove panelized sections in

the 100% Manual and 26% Manual scenarios. The Bobcat T200 Turbo was used to move

the loose salvaged material and floor panels to the designated places for pick up and

disposal in all 4 scenarios. The Caterpillar 320C (excavator) was used to knock down the

100% mechanically demolished building and to push over the building in the 26%

Manual scenario. In all the other scenarios, the Caterpillar excavator was used to pick up

the floor panels from the second floor and flip over the first floor panels. The Crane

Grove TMS 760E (Grove, Pensacola, FL) was used for the removal of the roof in the

44% Manual scenario. The Homelite Chainsaw (Homelite, Port Chester, NY) and Stihl

Chopsaw (Stihl Inc., Jacksonville, FL) were used to cut the roof into panelized sections

either on the ground or in the air with the help of the JLG Lift 600S. The chopsaw was

also used to cut the first and second floor panels in the Manual scenarios. The chainsaw

was used to cut the roof rafter for roof panelizations, the second floor joists and beams

for panelization, and the columns and wall studs in the 26% Manual scenario so that the

second floor could be dropped onto the first floor and dismantled there. The DeWalt









DG7000E (generator) (DeWalt Industrial Tool Company, Baltimore, MD) was used to

remove nails and paint from the salvaged wood with attached tools in all four scenarios.

The 100% Manual scenario required operation of the lift, bobcat, excavator and

chopsaw for 4, 4, 0.5 and 3 total hours, respectively (data not shown). The same

equipment was used in the 26% Manual scenario, requiring increased times for use of the

lift, bobcat, excavator and chopsaw of 5, 1, 6 and 7 hours, respectively. In the 44%

Manual scenario, the lift, bobcat, and excavator were also used in addition to the

chainsaw and crane (for a total of 6, 9.5, 1, 3, and 4.5 hours, respectively). Only the

bobcat and excavator were required in the 100% Mechanical scenario, both used for 2

hours total. As shown in Table 3-3, the chopsaw, chainsaw, and generator required

gasoline (0.20, 0.12, and 0.63 gallons/hr, respectively) (Stihl 2004, Homelite 2004,

DeWalt 2004), whereas the other equipment required diesel fuel in larger volumes

(ranging from 2.50 to 8.10 gallons/hr) (Bobcat 2004, Caterpillar 2004, Grove 2004, JLG

2004).

The fuel and electricity requirements for harvesting and processing virgin wood are

also provided in Table 3-3. The primary equipment pieces involved in harvesting of

wood are feller bunchers, rubber-tired skidders, and log loaders. The 29 gallons of diesel

fuel used during the transportation of this equipment to and from the forest was

overwhelmingly greater than in-use fuel consumption. In fact, the consumption during

transportation of the equipment to the forest for harvesting was greater than any of the

other diesel fuel consumption requirements incurred during transportation, including

transport of the downed trees to the sawmill, of the lumber to the construction site, of the

recycled steel to the recycling facility, and of the waste materials to the landfill.









Electricity requirements for sawmill operation (6.2E-03 kWh per pound of wood) and

recycling of steel (2.1 kWh per pound of recycled steel) were also accounted for, as

shown in Table 3-3. It is important to note that, for every pound of salvaged wood, one

pound of virgin wood is avoided. Thus, the values provided in Table 3-3 represent

"savings" in relation to using all virgin materials in reconstruction applications, and their

resulting emissions will be considered as "emissions savings" rather than contributions.

Emissions

Tables 3-4, 3-5, 3-6 and 3-7 show the primary environmental emissions that result

from each of the four scenarios per square foot of barrack. The emissions shown in these

tables represent the second option where material salvaged is reused or recycled within

20 miles of the deconstruction site. Emissions from the other two options-no salvaging

or reuse and transportation of all reusable materials to Austin, TX-are considered in the

discussion of impact analysis results below. While the SimaPro modeling software

included hundreds of emissions from the included life cycle stages, only those in highest

quantity and/or risk to the public and environment were considered. These emissions

have been broken down into four categories-criteria pollutants, greenhouse gases,

metals, and miscellaneous chemicals-which have been further separated by life cycle

stage, during salvaging of material (Stage 13 in Figure 3-2), disposal (Stages lb, 2a and

the waste from stages 3-12), use of equipment during deconstruction (Stages 3, 4 and 6-

12), and transport of equipment and labor to and from the site (Stage la). The emissions

with negative values in Tables 3-4, 3-5, 3-6 and 3-7 represent savings as a result of

replacing virgin materials with salvaged materials.

The most highly emitted species from all four scenarios were carbon monoxide

(CO), carbon dioxide (C02), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), nitrogen oxides (NOx),









and methane (CH4). The remaining chemical emissions, dioxin, arsenic, lead, and

mercury, are listed in the tables because of their known toxicity. Total CO2 and CH4

emissions increased and VOC and CO emissions decreased with decreasing degree of

manual involvement. Despite small increases in emissions of CO from the disposal

stages from the 100% Manual to the 100% Mechanical scenario, the decrease in CO and

VOC emissions from equipment (resulting from decreasing use of the generator used to

clean salvaged materials) and transportation (resulting from the decreasing transportation

mileage from the commute to/from the site by the labor) overwhelmingly influence the

total CO and VOC values. As expected, the C&D landfill contributed the largest

emissions of CO2 and CH4 regardless of the scenario, and the increases in materials

disposed of in the landfill resulted in an increase in these emissions with decreasing

degree of manual involvement. Also, emissions of arsenic, lead, and mercury in leachate

from the landfill increased as manual involvement in the deconstruction decreased

because the amount of materials that are landfilled increased. These metals in particular

leach from the wood and the joists (Tables 3-4 3-7).

Total emissions of NOx are highest in the 100% Mechanical scenario (87.7 g/ft2

barrack, Table 3-7) and lowest in the 44% Manual scenario (46.9 g/ft2 barrack, Table 3-

5), with total emissions from the 100% Manual and 26% Manual scenarios (74.6 and 49.5

g/ft2) falling in between these values. The lower emissions of NOx as the amount of

manual involvement in the manual deconstruction scenarios decreased can be explained

by the decreased usage of cars for transportation of workers. The number of days the

workers drove to the site decreased as fewer manual methods were used which, in turn,

decreased the NOx production from the combustion of the gasoline. The 100%









Mechanical scenario yielded the highest NOx emissions because the steel was not

recycled. The recycling of steel produced negative emissions of NOx (emissions savings)

for the manual deconstruction scenarios, thus allowing 100% manual deconstruction to

yield lower NOx emissions than 100% mechanical demolition.

Impact Analysis

An impact assessment was performed on each of the four scenarios to determine

their effects on Global Warming, Ozone Depletion, Acidification, Eutrophication, Human

Toxicity, and Ecotoxicity. As stated earlier two published impact assessment methods,

CML and EDIP, were used for this LCA to compare and contrast the results of three

hypothetical cases-1) where no reuse was considered, 2) where reuse but no

transportation to a salvage warehouse was considered, and 3) where both salvage and

transportation to the Habitat for Humanity warehouse in Austin, TX were considered.

Case 1: No Salvaging

Figures 3-3 and 3-4 show impacts (calculated using EDIP and CML 2000,

respectively) resulting from the scenarios where no reuse was considered. In this option,

all salvaged materials are disposed of in a landfill. All scenarios that involve manual

deconstruction show comparable or larger contributions to all impact categories

calculated by the EDIP method (Fig. 3-3) compared to the mechanical demolition

scenario. All of the environmental impacts were lowest for the 100% Mechanical

scenario because of the significantly lower emissions resulting from lower total mileage

for transportation of the employee's to/from the site and the lowest total hours of

equipment use. Specifically, ecotoxicity and human toxicity impacts are higher in the

scenarios involving manual methods because of the increased need of diesel fuel and

gasoline for machine and automobile operation, respectively. These impacts are most









affected by the emissions of mercury and lead during the production of the fuels, not

emissions resulting from their use in the associated equipment. The global warming

potential is higher for higher percentages of manual deconstruction because of the

increased transportation of workers and corresponding production- and use-related

emissions of CO and CO2. The increase in machine and transportation requirements in

all of the manual scenarios also yielded increased SOx and NOx emissions that increased

acidification and eutrophication impacts. Most of the SOx emissions were released in the

production of the diesel fuel and gasoline required by the machines and automobiles,

whereas the NOx was released primarily during the use of these fuels. The ozone

depletion potential was elevated because of the increased production requirements of

diesel fuel, needed in larger quantities in the manual scenarios. The production of diesel

fuel involves CFC emissions, thus yielding increased ozone depletion impacts.

The CML 2000 impact analysis method results revealed less significant influence

of 100% Mechanical methods on impacts (Fig. 3-6) and, in most cases, comparable

impacts among all of the scenarios. The reason for this difference from the EDIP results

is because the impact assessment categories are normalized by CML 2000, whereas EDIP

does not normalize the impact assessment results. Normalization attempts to achieve the

expression of impacts on a global or regional basis, and the CML 2000 approach

normalized the impacts to the most problematic species that is known for each impact

category. Global warming is expressed as kg of C02, ozone depletion, as kg of CFC-11,

human toxicity and ecotoxicity, as kg of 1,4-DB, acidification, as kg of SO2, and

eutrophication, as kg of PO4-3. The impacts for EDIP are expressed based on the

environmental emissions that occur and their effects on the local area. Regardless of the









differences in results from the CML 2000 and EDIP impact assessment methods, both

show that, if the salvaged materials are not reused, then manual methods of

deconstruction yield potential for increased or comparable impacts compared to

traditional demolition methods.

Case 2: Salvaging and No Long-Distance Transportation to a Storage Facility (Local
Reuse)

Figures 3-5 and 3-6 show the impacts calculated using the EDIP and CML 2000

impact analysis methods for each of the four scenarios where material is salvaged and

delivered to local reuse and recycling facilities. The EDIP impact results (Fig. 3-5)

showed that, unlike when no salvaging is considered, the 100% Mechanical scenario

yielded significantly higher impacts compared to the scenarios involving manual

methods. Differences observed in impacts from the manual scenarios were not large.

However, of the manual methods, the 100% Manual scenario yielded the least impacts to

global warming and ozone depletion. Acidification and toxicity impacts were lowest in

the 44% Manual scenario, with the latter resulting in a negative value because of

emissions savings. Eutrophication impacts were lowest in the 44% and 26% Manual

scenarios, whereas ecotoxicity impacts were the lowest in the 100% and 44% Manual

scenarios, both yielding negative impact values. These small differences in impacts

involving manual methods were directly related to the amount of wood salvaged and to

the amounts of diesel fuel, gasoline and electricity used in the processes. Manual

deconstruction avoided the production of virgin wood, thus avoiding electricity emissions

from this stage and yielding decreases in the ecotoxicity, ozone depletion and global

warming impacts. The 100% Manual scenario, involving increased use of machinery and









cars, yielded higher human toxicity, acidification and eutrophication impacts than its

other manual counterparts.

Like the EDIP method results, the CML 2000 method revealed that impacts from

the 100% Mechanical scenario were the highest when salvaging but no long-distance

transport of the salvaged materials was involved. The CML 2000 approach also showed

that the 100% Manual scenario yielded the lowest impacts in all categories except

acidification, which was lowest (and negative) in the 44% Manual scenario (Fig. 3-6). In

comparing only the impacts from the manual scenarios, the 26% Manual scenario was

largest in all cases and yielded no negative impacts using the CML 2000 method.

Case 3: Salvaging and Transport to Austin, TX, for Reuse

The impacts determined by the EDIP and CML methods for each of the four

scenarios that included transportation of the salvaged materials to the Habitat for

Humanity warehouse in Austin, TX, (approximately 885 miles) are shown in Figures 3-7

and 3-8, respectively. The 100% Mechanical scenario yielded the lowest impacts in all

instances because of its significantly lower transportation requirements. The

transportation of the salvaged material to Austin, Texas increased the environmental

impacts for each of the scenarios in which materials were salvaged. Likewise, impacts

increased with increasing manual involvement because of the greater emissions related to

fuel production and use during transportation accompanying the larger weight of

salvaged materials. The results of both the EDIP (Fig. 3-6) and CML 2000 (Fig. 3-7)

impact assessment methods showed that the negative impacts of transport distance of the

salvaged materials far outweigh the savings in emissions that occur by reusing the

materials.









Sensitivity Analysis

The previous results show the influence of both material salvaging for reuse and

transportation to a storage warehouse on the environmental and health impacts of each

scenario compared. Other variables tested for their influence on impacts were time for

deconstruction or demolition activities, driving distance carpoolingg), degree of recycling,

transport distance of equipment, and time for material preparation.

Time for Deconstruction or Demolition Activities

The importance of the pace of dismantling and demolishing the barrack by each of

the four scenarios on the environmental and health impacts was determined by increasing

and decreasing the baseline rates achieved. Baseline rates of dismantling achieved by the

deconstruction team were 105.5, 182.4, 231.7, and 388.4 lbs/hr for 100%, 44%, 26%

manual deconstruction and 100% mechanical demolition, respectively. The demolition

rates achieved were 1028.5, 608.2, 729.3, and 600.1 lb/hr for the 100%, 44%, 26%

manual deconstruction and 100% mechanical demolition scenarios, respectively. These

rates were found by dividing the lbs of material salvaged and landfilled by the labor

hours minus the machine hours and machine hours respectively.

The rate of dismantling material for salvage was observed to influence the

emissions much more than the disposal rate because the slower rate of hand demolition

greatly increased the amount of time the workers spent at the site and thus the times

required for driving to work and using the generator. For the scenarios involving manual

deconstruction, decreasing the rate of dismantling by 5 lb/hr increased human toxicity by

21%, acidification by 4%, and eutrophication and ozone depletion by 3%, whereas very

little change in the impacts was observed in the 100% Mechanical scenario because no

salvaging of materials was performed. Increasing the rate of dismantling by 5 lb/hr









showed that human toxicity was also most sensitive by resulting in a decrease of 27.4%,

while acidification and eutrophication decreased by 6% and ozone depletion by 4.0%.

Increasing and decreasing the rate of demolition resulted in no significant change in

impacts.

Commuting Distance

Decreasing and increasing the commuting distance of 20 miles assumed in the

baseline case by 5 and 10 miles and in the number of people/car from 1 in the baseline

case to 4 tested for their sensitivity on the impacts from the 100% Manual scenario. The

importance of carpooling to the site by increasing the number of occupants to four was

evident by a decrease in eutrophication by 561%, in acidification by 77.5%, and in

human toxicity by 39%. Less dramatic results were observed with increasing the driving

distance by 5 miles, where the largest changes were observed in impacts on

eutrophication, acidification and human toxicity (2.12%, 0.290% and 0.146% increases,

respectively).

Recycling

When recycling was removed from the scenarios involving manual methods,

acidification, eutrophication, and ecotoxicity decreased as much as 23.5%, 36.4% and

77.9%, respectively (for the 100% Manual scenario).

Transportation Requirements

Driving distances for transportation of demolition equipment, salvaged material,

recycled material and landfill material, for moving equipment to the woods, felled wood

from the woods to the mill and boards from the mill to the store or site were increased

and decreased by 5 and 10 miles from their assumed transport distances (listed in the

Assumptions and Limitations section). Most of the emissions categories did not increase









or decrease significantly. Global warming, ozone depletion, acidification and

eutrophication changed the most as a result of elevated emissions resulting from

increased diesel fuel requirements. For example, when the mileage of an eighteen-wheel

truck was increased by 5 miles, eutrophication increased by 18.3%, acidification

increased by 2.38%, global warming increased by 2.11%, and ozone depletion increased

by 1.25%.

Time Required for Paint and Nail Removal

According to the deconstruction team's past experience, 30% of the total time for

manual deconstruction involves paint stripping and denailing the wood and thus use of

the generator. However, this time percentage was increased and decreased by 5 and 10%

to account for differences in methods and experience levels of deconstruction teams. The

results show that large changes in acidification, eutrophication and human toxicity occur

when the generator times for paint stripping and denailing runs were altered.

Acidification increased the most, 106%, when the time for material preparation was

increased by 5%, while eutrophication and human toxicity impacts increased by 48.5%

and 26.1%, respectively. Thus, the amount of time spent on material preparation can

greatly affect the environmental impacts that occur from manual deconstruction.

Conclusions

Of the three options considered, that involve salvaging and reuse within a 20-mile

distance yielded the lowest impacts. Both the CML 2000 and EDIP methods resulted in

significantly lower environmental and health impacts when manual methods of

deconstruction were used. Of the three manual scenarios considered with salvaging, the

100% and 44% Manual scenarios yielded, for the most part, the lowest impacts.

Compared to the scenarios involving manual methods of deconstruction, the 100%









Mechanical scenario was the fastest option, as anticipated, and, if the salvaged wood does

not replace virgin wood in other building applications, this traditional means of building

removal was shown to be the best option in terms of environmental emissions and

resulting impacts. However, if the reuse of salvaged wood is assumed to avoid the

production of virgin wood then either the 100% Manual or 44% Manual scenario would

be preferred because of the decrease in environmental emissions and thus impacts. The

LCA model presented herein is most sensitive to changes in car mileage and the amount

of time the generator runs. It is recommended, therefore, that the deconstruction occur on

or near the site where the materials will be reused, for the workers to live near the site,

and for the amount of time spent on material preparation to be minimal.

Social and economic impacts of deconstruction and demolition processes were not

quantified in this study. Economic impacts of deconstruction have been discussed by

Guy and Williams (2004), however. Because deconstruction takes longer and is more

labor-intensive, it provides work for a crew for several days. Deconstruction also

provides lower-cost building materials, which, in turn, can lower the cost of new

construction or can allow people who cannot afford virgin materials to buy materials of

good quality to make repairs on their own homes. Given that the Department of Defense

must dispose of nearly 2.5 million square feet of army barracks in the U.S. EPA Region 4

alone, incorporating some degree of manual deconstruction offers potential benefits well

beyond those quantified in this study. Given the influence of transportation of salvaged

materials for reuse applications, it is recommended, however, that a strategy be

developed to foster reuse within the deconstruction site region.












Table 3-1 Time Requirements for Removing Components of Barracks Using the Four Scenarios Varying in Degree of Manual
Deconstructiona, b


100% Manual


Component


Windows and
Doors
Interior
Partitions
Hazardous
MEP
Interior
Finishes and
Framing
Roof
2Wall
2Floor
lWall
1Floor
Foundation


Time
(hours)


44% Manual


% Total Time
Time (hours)


26% Manual


% Total Time
Time (hours)


100% Mechanical


% Total Time
Time (hours)


% Total
Time


9.57 1.46% 9.57 2.01% 9.57 2.64% 0.00 0.00%


18.97
5.05
9.54


73.55
137.15
52.75
147.69
64.30
133.07
3.26*


2.90%
0.77%
1.46%


11.23%
20.94%
8.05%
22.55%
9.82%
20.32%
0.50%


18.97
5.05
9.54


73.55
95*
45.28
71.92*
62.27
80.84*
3.26*


3.99%
1.06%
2.01%


15.48%
19.99%
9.53%
15.13%
13.10%
17.01%
0.69%


18.97
5.05
9.54


50
77*
29.12*
84.4*
9.29*
65.9*
3.26*


5.24%
1.39%
2.63%


13.81%
21.26%
8.04%
23.31%
2.57%
18.20%
0.90%


3.09*
5.05
1.03*


3.09*
6.18*
2.06*
5.15*
2.06*
4.12*
3.26*


8.81%
14.39%
2.94%


8.81%
17.61%
5.87%
14.68%
5.87%
11.74%
9.29%


aAll of the sections of the barrack within which machines were used are indicated with an asterisk (*), and all sections that do not have
an asterisk next to them used hand deconstruction only.
bMEP = Mechanical, electrical and plumbing materials, 2Wall = Second story wall, 2Floor = Second story floor, lWall = First-story
wall, 1Floor = First-story floor.












Table 3-2 Labor and Machine Requirements and Material Yields of the Four Scenarios Studied
Labor and Machine Requirements Material Yields
Hazardous
Labor Equipment Salvage Recycle Material Landfilled
Scenario Labor Machine Transportation Transportation Weight Weight Weight Weight
(Days) (Hours) (Miles) (Miles) (Lbs) (Lbs) (Lbs) (Lbs)

100% Manual 13.64 80.22 2160 120 59089 1032 141 82486

44% Manual 9.74 146.59 1440 140 57291 1032 141 84284

26% Manual
7.32 139.75 1080 120 48134 1032 141 93441

100% Mechanical 1.46 23.42 120 40 2552 0 141 140055









Table 3-3 Fuel and Electricity Requirements for Associated Processesab
Processes Involved Gasoline Diesel Electricity
Stagesc (gal) Fuel (gal) (kWh)


Labor
Transportation (1 laborer, 1 day of
work)
Deconstruction
Transportation To and From the Site
Lift (hr)


Bobcat (hr)
Excavator (hr)
Crane (hr)
Chopsaw (hr)

Chainsaw (hr)
Generator (hr)
End-of-Life Stages
Salvaging Wood (1 lb)
Harvesting
Transportation of Equipment to and
from the Forest
Feller Buncher (1 lb)
Rubber Tired Skidder (1 lb)
Log Loader (1 lb)
Transport from Site to Sawmill (1 lb)
Sawmill
Electricity (1 lb)
Transportation from the Sawmill to
Construction the Site (1 lb)
Recycling Steel (1 lb)
Electricity (1 lb)
Transportation to Recycling Facility
Landfill (1 lb)
Transportation to Landfill


8.0E-01 --


7,8
6,7,9,
10, 11,
12
7, 12
7
7, 11
7, 8, 9,
10, 11
13


6.4E+00
2.5E+00


5.0E+00
8.1E+00
4.0E+00
2.0E-01 --

1.2E-01 --
6.3E-01 --


2.9E+0 1
1.7E-03
2.8E-03
3.1E-03
9.OE-03


6.2E-03


3.OE-03


2.1E+00
1.6E-02 --


1.6E-02


aValues of fuel requirements by the equipment are presented on an hourly basis, and
values of electricity.
bAll fuel usage values were obtained by contacting the manufacturers of the machines
and asking for average fuel usage values.
CStage numbers refer to the specific stages involved and shown in Figure 3-2.
dMileage workers drove to/from the site was assumed to be 20 miles, equipment
transported from within a 20 mile radius to site, 30 miles to/from the forest, 60 mile
transport for harvested wood to sawmill, 100 mile transport from sawmill to construction
site and an 80 mile transport distance for salvaged material to new construction site.









Table 3-4 Emissions from the Scenario Involving 100% Manual Methodsa


Salvaged
Material Disposal


Recycled
Material


Equipmentb Transportation'


Criteria Pollutants
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO) 3.52E+03 -8.29E+01 6.94E+01 9.36E-01 1.94E+03


Nitrogen
Oxides (NOx) 7.46E+01
Air Toxics
Dioxin -8.16E-12


-7.06E+01 4.79E+01 -9.59E-01 5.55E+01

-2.76E-11 1.50E-11 1.87E-13 3.17E-12


Greenhouse Gases
Methane
(CH4) 8.49E-01 -2.29E+00 2.43E+00 3.03E-02 5.09E-01


Carbon
Dioxide (C02) 3.45E+02
Metals
Arsenic (As) 1.62E-05
Lead (Pb) -4.72E-04
Mercury (Hg) 3.05E-06


-1.46E+03 1.57E+03 -2.72E+02 3.86E+02


-4.49E-05
-7.08E-05
-1.71E-05


4.73E-05
8.38E-05
1.56E-05


5.92E-07
-5.09E-04
1.95E-07


9.88E-06
1.76E-05
3.26E-06


1.59E+03


4.28E+01

1.08E-12




1.70E-01


1.11E+02

3.32E-06
5.92E-06
1.09E-06


Miscellaneous Chemicals
Volatile
Organic
Compounds
(VOCs) 1.69E+02 -2.61E-01 0.00E+00 -2.46E-02 9.40E+01 7.53E+01
aThe functional unit is per ft2 of barrack removed. The emissions in this table are
expressed in terms of g/ft2 of barrack removed.
bEquipment includes a lift, bobcat, excavator, chopsaw, chainsaw andweedeater.
cTransportation includes labor and equipment.


Emission


Total









Table 3-5 Emissions from the Scenario Involving 44% Manual Methodsa

Salvaged Recycled
Emission Total Material Disposal Material Equipment Transportation'


Criteria Pollutants
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO) 2.22E+03 -8.04E+017.09E+01 9.36E-01


Nitrogen
Oxides (NOx) 4.69E+01
Air toxics
Dioxin -6.96E-12


-6.84E+014.90E+01 -9.59E-01

-2.68E-11 1.53E-11 1.87E-13


Greenhouse Gases
Methane
(CH4) 9.87E-01 -2.22E+00 2.48E+00


Carbon
Dioxide (C02) 5.38E+02
Metals
Arsenic (As) 6.68E-05
Lead (Pb) -3.00E-03
Mercury (Hg) 3.98E-06

Miscellaneous Chemicals
Volatile
Organic
Compounds
(VOCs) 1.04E+02


3.03E-02


-1.42E+031.61E+03 -2.72E+02


-1.46E-04 1.97E-04
-7.50E-05 9.49E-05
-1.66E-05 1.60E-05


5.92E-07
-3.04E-03
1.96E-07


-2.53E-01 0.00E+00 -2.46E-02


1.17E+03


3.83E+01

3.46E-12


5.57E-01


5.22E+02

1.09E-05
2.13E-05
3.58E-06






5.38E+01


1.06E+03


2.90E+01

8.65E-13


1.37E-01


8.92E+01

2.67E-06
5.28E-06
8.79E-07






5.02E+01


aThe functional unit is per ft2 of barrack removed. The emissions in this table are
expressed in terms of g/ft2 of barrack removed.
bEquipment includes a lift, bobcat, excavator, chopsaw, chainsaw andweedeater.
cTransportation includes labor and equipment.









Table 3-6 Emissions from the Scenario Involving 26% Manual Methodsa
Salvaged Recycled Equipment Transportation
Emission Total Material Disposal Material b c


Criteria Pollutants
Carbon
Monoxide
(CO) 1.62E+03 -6.76E+017.85E+01 9.36E-01


Nitrogen
Oxides (NOx) 4.95E+01


Air toxics
Dioxin


-5.75E+01 5.43E+01 -9.59E-01


-5.68E-13 -2.25E-11 1.70E-11 1.87E-13


Greenhouse Gases
Methane
(CH4) 1.69E+00 -1.86E+002.75E+00 3.03E-02


Carbon
Dioxide (C02) 9.69E+02
Metals
Arsenic (As) 1.13E-04
Lead (Pb) -2.97E-03
Mercury (Hg) 8.86E-06

Miscellaneous Chemicals
Volatile
Organic
Compounds
(VOCs) 7.38E+01


-1.19E+03 1.78E+03 -2.72E+02


-1.22E-04 2.20E-04
-6.30E-05 1.05E-04
-1.40E-05 1.77E-05


5.92E-07
-3.04E-03
1.96E-07


-2.13E-010.00E+00 -2.46E-02


8.15E+02


3.20E+01

4.13E-12


6.67E-01


5.75E+02

1.30E-05
2.55E-05
4.29E-06


3.64E+01


7.94E+02


2.18E+01

6.49E-13


1.03E-01


6.70E+01

2.00E-06
3.96E-06
6.60E-07






3.76E+01


aThe functional unit is per ft2 of barrack removed. The emissions in this table are
expressed in terms of g/ft2 of barrack removed.
bEquipment includes a lift, bobcat, excavator, chopsaw, chainsaw andweedeater.
'Transportation includes labor and equipment.













Table 3-7 Emissions from the Scenario Involving 100% Mechanical Methodsa, b


Disposal Equipment'


Transportationd


Criteria Pollutants


Carbon Monoxide (CO) 2.52E+02 -3.58E+00


Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 8.77E+01 -3.05E+00
Air toxics
Dioxin 2.62E-11 -1.19E-12


1.18E+02 4.85E+01 8.92E+01


8.13E+01 6.40E+00 3.04E+00

2.54E-11 1.70E-12 2.66E-13


Greenhouse Gases
Methane (CH4)


4.34E+00 -9.87E-02


4.12E+00 2.75E-01


Carbon Dioxide (C02) 2.19E+03 -6.63E+00
Metals
Arsenic (As) 8.46E-05 -1.94E-06
Lead (Pb) 1.50E-04 -3.06E-06
Mercury (Hg) 2.77E-05 -7.40E-07


1.99E+03 1.79E+02 2.78E+01


8.03E-05
1.42E-04
2.64E-05


5.36E-06
9.51E-06
1.77E-06


8.34E-07
1.48E-06
2.74E-07


Miscellaneous Chemicals


Volatile Organic
Compounds (VOCs) 6.18E+00 -1.13E-02 0.00E+00 2.01E+00 4.18E+00
aThe functional unit is per ft2 of barrack removed. The emissions in this table are
expressed in terms of g/ft2 of barrack removed.
bRecycled Material is not applicable for 100% mechanical. Hazardous waste not
accounted for in all 4 scenarios.
cEquipment includes a bobcat, excavator and weedeater.
dTransportation includes labor and equipment.


Emission


Total


Salvaged
Material


4.28E-02





































Figure 3-1World War II Army Barracks at Fort McClellan










































Avoided
16. Sawmill Virgin 14. Transp
Wood ofMachin
Production

.... ." / 15. Harvesting


13a.
.......... Salvaged
Material
Avoids
Virgin
Wood


Figure 3-2 Stages Involved in the Deconstruction Process


















100%


90%


80%-


70%


60%-


50%-


40%-


30%-


20%-


10%


0%
Global Warming Ozone Depletion Acidification Eutrophication Human Toxicity


Impacts


0100% Mechanical

E26% Manual

044% Manual

3100% Manual


Ecotoxicity


Figure 3-3 Total Impacts Calculated Using the EDIP Method Not Including Reuse of Salvaged Materials.


I
















100%


80% -




S 60%- U 100% Mechanical
.l 026% Manual
S- 0 44% Manual
0
0 40%- E3100% Manual




20%




0%
Global Ozone Acidification Eutrophication Human Ecotoxicity
Warming Depletion Toxicity
Impacts


Figure 3-4 Total Impacts Calculated Using the CML Method Not Including Reuse of Salvaged Materials.
























100% Mechanical
0
20%- 26% Manual
E44% Manual
00.. 100% Manual

L -200/..

-400/..

-60%

-80%-

100%
Global Ozone Acidification Eutrophication Human Toxicity Ecotoxicity
Warming Depletion

Impacts


Figure 3-5 Total Impacts Calculated Using the EDIP Method Including Reuse of Salvaged Materials But No Transportation to a
Warehouse.


























0 i100% Mechanical
n 40% U 26% Manual
[] 44% Manual
CM 100% Manual
O 20o/..


00/..


-200/..


-40%
Global Ozone Acidification Eutrophication Human Toxicity Ecotoxicity
Warming Depletion

Impacts


Figure 3-6 Total Impacts Calculated Using the CML Method Reuse of Salvaged Materials But No Transportation to a Warehouse.

















































Global Warming Ozone Depletion Acidification Eutrophication Human Toxicity
Impacts


S100% Mechanical
*26% Manual
044% Manual
S100% Manual


Ecotoxicity


Figure 3-7 Total Impacts Calculated Using the EDIP Method Including Reuse of Salvaged Materials and Transport to the Habitat for
Humanity Warehouse in Austin, Texas.


100%


80%-


60%




40%-


20%-




0%-



























S100% Mechanical
S26% Manual
O 44% Manual
S100% Manual


Global Warming


100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%


Impacts





Figure 3-8 Total Impacts Calculated Using the CML Method Including Reuse of Salvaged Materials and Transport to the Habitat for
Humanity Warehouse in Austin, Texas.


Ozone Acidification Eutrophication Human Toxicity Ecotoxicity
Depletion













CHAPTER 4
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Summary

An LCA was performed comparing deconstruction and demolition of World War II

army barracks to determine the contribution of each life cycle stage to the total

environmental impacts and to compare impacts of material reuse and disposal. Before

this LCA was conducted, a combination of deconstruction and demolition was performed

on three barracks. Once the time requirements for each stage of these processes were

found, four modeled scenarios were produced. An LCA was then performed on these

four scenarios using SimaPro. The four life cycle stages considered for the

deconstruction process were deconstructing the building, cleaning the salvaged materials,

salvaged material reuse, and disposal. The four life cycle stages considered for the

demolition process were harvesting of trees, processing of trees to boards at the sawmill,

use of materials in buildings, and disposal. The LCA was performed according to ISO

14040 standards and included scope and goal definition, inventory analysis, impact

assessment, and interpretation. Impact assessment was performed using two published

impact methods-CML and EDIP.

Conclusions


Results from the inventory analysis have shown that demand for virgin material is

highest for 100% mechanical demolition. The largest amount of emissions to water, air

and soil is derived from the disposal of the materials into landfills when compared to all

the other process considered throughout this LCA. In fact, in most cases the salvaging of









the materials had an almost opposite effect on the environment than did the disposal of

the materials into landfills. This is due not only to the effects of disposal of materials into

the landfill but also to impacts resulting from reproduction of that material. Salvaging

materials circumvented both landfilling and reproduction of new virgin materials, thus

yielding environmental savings.

The impact assessment methods used showed some variation based on the chosen

model. According to the EDIP method of analysis, the 100% Manual and 44% Manual

deconstruction scenarios were shown to be superior when material was salvaged and

transported nearby. The largest emissions that occurred for 100% manual deconstruction

scenario, shown in Table 3-4, were C02, CO, NOx, and VOCs, ranging from 7.46E+01

g/ft2 NOx to 3.52E+03 g/ft2 CO. Both CO and CO2 emissions were greater than observed

in the 100% mechanical deconstruction scenario, primarily because of increased

generator operation and labor transportation requirements. The transportation of labor

and the use of the generator were also the largest contributors to the nitrogen oxides and

VOC's in this scenario. Table 3-5 illustrates that in the 44% manual scenario, the largest

emissions were CO2, CO, NOx, and VOCs ranging from 2.22E+03 to 4.69E+01. The

major sources of these emissions are also transportation of labor to/from the site and

generator operation. An increased amount oflandfilled material contributes to increased

CH4 emissions and, in part, to increased CO2 and CO emissions when compared to the

100% manual deconstruction scenario. With less time spent at the site less transportation

of workers occurred to and from the site and with less salvaged material the generator

was used for a smaller amount of time thus all of the emissions for this scenario were less

than the 100% manual emissions. As seen in Table 3-6 the 26% manual scenario had the









same top 4 emissions and the same contributing processes to the emissions ranging from

4.95E+01 to 1.62E+03. Due to the higher transportation of machinery and the lower

amount of salvaged materials, the largest producer of carbon dioxide was the

transportation of equipment, followed closely by the transportation of labor and the use of

the generator. As with the 44% manual scenario the emissions were lower than the 100%

manual and the 100% mechanical scenario due to less material being landfilled and less

time being spent in transportation of labor and cleanup of the salvaged materials. Table

3-7 provides emissions resulting from 100% mechanical demolition of a barrack. The

highest total emissions in this scenario were greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2,

3.40E+02 g/ft2) and carbon monoxide (CO, 2.52E+02 g/ft2). Also high were emissions

of nitrogen oxides (NOx), volatile organic compounds (VOCs) and methane (CH4). The

greatest contributor of C02, CO, NOx and CH4 was the landfill used for disposal of waste

materials, whereas the main source of VOC's was the transportation of labor and

equipment to and from the site. Equipment operation was also a significant contributor to

CO2 emissions.

A sensitivity analysis was performed on the results from the impact assessment to

determine the influence of variables on the environmental impacts considered. The

model produced in SimaPro was most sensitive to changes in the mileage driven by

workers onsite machine use and the operation time of the generator. It was shown that

environmental impacts decrease with higher levels of materials salvaged. However,

detrimental impacts were shown to rise with transportation distance to the new

construction site or to a storage facility. Impacts also increased with increasing

deconstruction time because of the increased number of days workers drove their cars to









the site. Ideally, salvaged materials would be reused at a construction site located on or

near the property where the building is deconstructed.

The results found from this project will be used by the DOD to aid in development

of best management practices for the 2,357,094 square feet of army barracks, slated for

removal within EPA Region 4 and the countless more square footage of buildings in need

of removal on bases throughout the U.S. The implementation of these practices by the

DOD will decrease the impact of the disposal of these buildings on both public health and

the environment through decreased environmental impacts.

While cost and societal impacts of deconstruction were not considered in this study,

some discussion of these aspects is worth mention. While increases in environmental

savings were shown herein, the availability of materials for reuse has tremendous social

implications. Jobs are created by deconstruction, and companies and individuals unable

to afford large amounts virgin materials would be able to access materials at a decreased

cost. With careful planning and execution, deconstruction costs less than demolition

considering the resale value of the materials and decreased landfill disposal costs and

certainly provides greater positive contributions to society.

Recommendations


The most significant limitation to this study was the small number of scenarios

studied. Because the most efficient way to take down a building in terms of time and

environmental impacts is a combination of hand deconstruction and mechanical

demolition, it would have been beneficial to have more scenarios that combined the two.

This would give a more accurate representation of the most effective way to take down a

building. It is recommended that for each building, contractors should determine the






80


amount of available materials that could be salvaged and the worth of these salvageable

materials. In doing so, the building can be removed using a combination of

deconstruction and demolition methods, resulting in maximum environmental savings

from prevention of disposal of the reusable materials and production the new replacement

materials.















APPENDIX A
DATA COLLECTION AND DAILY NARRRRATIVE

Introduction to the Form

The heart of the data collection method is the data collection form. The form

guides the documentation of each worker. It gives information on where they are

working, what they are doing, and what equipment they are using. Since each form

covers 15 minutes of activity, one is completed every 15 minutes from the start to the end

of each workday. Later, the forms are entered into a spreadsheet format that allows the

data to be sorted in different ways. This information was collected by the deconstruction

team.










Team : Deconstruction

Completed by: Date Time: 7:30-7:45


Name Building Room Location Activity Assembly Equipment

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10









Key to Form

Team

Starting in the upper left hand corner, the first box identifies the team which is

going to be recorded on the form. For this project, we had two main teams. The first one

was the Deconstruction Team, which was primarily composed of the demolition

contractor and crew. This was the team that was responsible for removing the materials

from the building. The other was the Processing Team. This Team was composed of

Americorp and Habitat for Humanity (HfH) volunteers. This Team was responsible for

taking the deconstructed materials, getting them into a ready-for-use state, and

transporting them to the HfH storage facility.

Completed by

Record of who completed the data form.

Date

Date form was completed.

Time

15-minute interval that the form documents. When a worker changes activity, the

amount of time is rounded to the nearest quarter hour.

Name

Recording the name of each worker organizes the data collection and allows

someone who wasn't present at the deconstruction site to follow an individual worker's

activity through a day in order to get a mental picture of the deconstruction process.

Additionally, when the labor hours are reported, it is possible to break down the labor by

skill level and pay-rate. The name entry will be used to sort the data for this part of the

analysis.









Building

To begin with buildings 839, 840, and 841 were deconstructed. Each building was

basically identical, so it was important to write down which building was being worked

on. No one reading the data forms later would be able to infer the building number solely

by the description of what was taking place that day. In the event that work was being

done simultaneously on two or more buildings, it became difficult to always notice who

was working on which building, but at the same time it remained critical to be accurate in

assigning the correct building number to the entry for the analysis and comparison of

methods.

Room

On the back of each data collection clipboard, there was a small plan of each floor

of the building. Each room was numbered. To track the progression of work, a record

was kept of where each person was working. If the worker is inside the building, the

number of the room where they were working was recorded. Other designations included

roof, ext for exterior and site for work not occurring specifically on the building.

Location

This column was used to more specifically record where work was being done. If

the worker was on the roof, the slope he or she is on (north or south) was recorded. If the

worker was on the exterior, the side of the building was recorded (north, south, east, or

west). If the worker was inside, records were kept of which surface was being worked

on. Data was kept by using such designations as "F" for floor, "C" for ceiling, and N, S,

W, or E for wall surfaces.









Activity

This column was used to identify what type of work was being done. While the

activity categories were simplified as much as possible, they still encompass the variety

of tasks that will occur during the project. An attempt was made to explain the range of

tasks that can fall under each category. In completing this column the data collector

needed to exercise careful observation and good judgment in order to understand what

each worker was doing and into which category that activity fell. If the collector was not

sure what someone was doing, he was to obtain clarification from the worker. If the

collector was not sure which category to use, a supervisor was to be consulted.

HDec (hand deconstruction)

This category includes all work associated with removing materials that had

potential for processing and salvage from the building using hand labor. It includes

the use of hammers, crowbars, or hand-held power tools such as circular saws or

sawzalls. It would also include the use of a man-lift, forklift, or crane provided that

this equipment is being used to transport workers or individual pieces of building

materials. The key to differentiating between "Hand" and "Mechanically-Assisted"

work is that hand methods are directed towards removing the materials piece-by-

piece from the building and mechanically-assisted methods are directed towards

removing large sections or assemblies from the building with separation into

individual pieces occurring later.

HDem (hand demolition)

This category includes all work associated with removing materials from the

building by hand for disposal. It includes the use of hammers, crowbars, or hand-

held power tools such as circular saws or sawzalls. The key to differentiating









between deconstruction and demolition is that with deconstruction the materials are

handled with a level of care sufficient to preserve their condition and suitability for

reuse. Demolition will generally be faster and less gentle than deconstruction.

This project is primarily directed towards research into the methods, labor, and

costs involved in deconstruction. Actual salvage of building materials is a

secondary benefit. Also, the amount of actual salvage will be limited by the

widespread use of lead-based paint on the wooden building materials, making them

unsuitable for reuse. In the case of most of the smaller pieces of dimensional

lumber, stripping the lead-based paint is simply not cost effective or

environmentally beneficial. For these reasons, many of the parts of the building

will be dismantled using deconstruction techniques in order to document the

process, while still eventually ending up in the dumpster. 2x4 small wall studs for

instance are typically salvageable. In this project, since they are painted they will

be disposed in a landfill. However, since the information on salvage time and costs

will be needed in the accurate planning of future projects, the wall studs were

deconstructed rather than demolished. Generally, meetings were held at the start of

each day, to discuss the planned activities for the day, what methods were used, and

which materials were being demolished or deconstructed. Any worker who was

unsure about any activity was told to ask for clarification immediately, because the

accurate distinction between how much time was spent on each building

deconstructing for theoretical salvage or demolishing for theoretical disposal was

critical.









MDec (mechanically assisted deconstruction)

This category includes all work associated with removing materials with

potential for processing and salvage from the building with mechanical assistance.

This includes both mechanical labor time and any hand labor time that is needed to

prepare for the mechanical work. For instance, on one of the buildings, the

deconstruction method involved removing large panels of the roof using a crane.

The time spent actually lifting the panels off by crane is MDec, and so is any time

spent bracing a panel by hand so that it will stay in one piece while being lifted off,

cutting the panel free from surrounding materials, and attaching the lifting

mechanism.

MDem (mechanically assisted demolition)

This category includes work associated with removing materials from the

building with mechanical assistance for disposal.

N (non-productive)

Non-productive time includes all "on-the-clock" time that is not spent in any of

the other categories. Activities such as water breaks (though not lunch), discussing

what to do next, receiving instruction, tool and work station set-up at the beginning

of the day and break-down at the end, miscellaneous clean-up (though not disposal

of an individual material that has just been demolished getting materials to the

roll-offs is part of demolition), building ramps or sawhorses, running caution tape,

and many other activities that do not directly contribute to the removal or

processing of the building materials are non-productive.









P (processing)

Processing includes all the work done to prepare the materials for reuse after

they have been removed from the building. This includes denailing, cleaning,

trimming, sorting, bundling, and loading for transport.

S (supervising)

Supervisory work is time spent by a job supervisor instructing, directing,

coordinating, etc.

Assembly

This column is used to record which part of the building is being worked on. When

the labor time is analyzed, this column will be used to describe how much effort is

needed to salvage each part of the building as well as the whole. For the purpose of data

collection, the buildings are divided into the following assemblies:

R (Roof)

2W (Second floor walls)

2F (Second floor).

1W (First floor walls)

1F (First floor)

Fnd (Foundation)

MEP (Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing systems)

Equipment

This column is used to record what tools were used for the work. To be sure, the

most critical tools to record are the tools that require energy to operate (electric saws or

drills, as well as heavy equipment such as cranes, manlifts, forklifts, bobcats, etc.). Some

workers will change hand tools often, switching between a crowbar and a flatbar as they









work. In these cases, it is more important to document that they are using a set of prying

tools, rather than exactly which one they use at any given time. The equipment

information is useful to provide an image of what was being done at any given time for

someone who was not present and to help calculate energy consumption for the life-cycle

analysis component of the project. Keeping these goals in mind will help simplify what

can become the most tedious section of data collection. Generally, it allows future

project decision makers to know what type of work was being done and to calculate how

long energy consuming equipment was being operated.















APPENDIX B
INVENTORY OF EMISSIONS

(When accounting for the recycling of steel and subtracting emissions for the

production of virgin materials using EDIP.)

Table B-l: Raw Material Emissions


44% Manual


26% Manual 100% Mechanical


water kg 3.61E+04 3.61E+04 3.61E+04 O.00E+00
coal kg -9.97E+01 -9.37E+01 -6.86E+01 3.39E+00
crude oil kg -2.22E+03 -2.02E+03 -1.38E+03 4.27E+02
energy MJ 3.34E+03 3.35E+03 3.37E+03 -5.57E+00
lignite kg 4.47E+01 4.47E+01 4.47E+01 .00OE+00
limestone kg -7.39E+00 -7.03E+00 -5.59E+00 1.98E-01
natural gas kg -1.70E+02 -1.56E+02 -1.09E+02 2.90E+01
oil kg 3.60E+00 3.60E+00 3.60E+00 O.00E+00
steel scrap kg 5.50E+02 5.50E+02 5.50E+02 .00OE+00
uranium kg 1.64E+00 1.64E+00 1.64E+00 1.43E-05
wood/wood
wastes kg 1.65E+00 -1.51E+00 -1.04E+00 3.03E-01


Substance


Unit


100%
Manual