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