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