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