Music city showdown: Nashville project compares benefits of re-using segregated and salvaged materials - Demolition Case Study

C&D Recycler, Jan-Feb, 2003 by Bob Brickner

Within the materials markets of Nashville, the Method #3 cost proposal for adding a large-scale red brick segregation] cleaning/stacking/palletizing activity for future reuse came in at slightly more than $1 million. The cost to set up and operate a segregation/cleaning operation for the entire project was proposed at a marginal cost of $170,000. This created a total cost that was 18.9 percent more expensive than the Method #2 option ultimately selected. Equally important was the fact presented in Levy's RFP response that they only expected to be able to recover about 30 percent of the face-brick available on the outside of the project buildings.

CONCLUSIONS

In finalizing the Metro contract with Levy, Metro also received a supplemental price from Levy of $9.00 per cubic yard for bringing additional fill material Onto the site (price delivered and spread onto the site) if needed for final site grading of the new construction Work Zone.

Based on their proposal, Levy estimated a total of 12,400 cubic yards of fill materials would be generated from the buildings, including their foundations. With an established value of $9.00 per cubic yard, upfront cooperation on keeping the material on site and having it reduced by the demolition company to meet the specifications of the construction contractors saved the two projects an estimated $111,600.

During final contract negotiations, Ray Bell decided to use another demolition firm for its Project, while Metro did contract with Levy for handling the Guardian Building No. 2.

The TDOT-Ray Bell Gateway Project generated approximately 11,800 cubic yards of "Fill Material" that was reduced to specifications and left on the Work Zone site. Another 3,800 cubic yards of fill material was hauled off site.

The material hauled to land fill was 3,720 cubic yards. Additionally, the TDOT-related Projects generated approximately 122.5 tons of concrete reinforcing bar and 254 tons of scrap metal. All of this metal was recycled. Another 150 tons of metal and rebar was recycled from the Metro DES building, with approximately 600 cubic yards of materials land filled.

Metro was very pleased with the overall savings associated with the "selective demolition" project that was created due to the ability to understand the "future needs" of the follow-on new construction contractors of both the Gateway Bridge and the Metro DES project. If there was no demolition-new construction coordinator, it is expected that the demolition company would have removed all the existing building materials, including footers down to subgrade, and left a "clean site" for the two new construction companies, potentially at a cost $58,750 higher than proposed. This would have wasted a lot of materials and consumed valuable landfill space in the Metro area.

While it would have been nice to preserve used bricks for reuse at other Metro projects, the current economics within the Nashville area (as determined by this public REP process) did not justify an extensive brick salvage/reuse project.