97% Waste Reduction at Smith College Ford Hall through Deconstruction, Reuse, and Recycling

Smith College’s Ford Hall is a 140,000 square foot brick and steel structure designed house Smith’s engineering, chemistry, and computer science programs. Ford Hall uses sustainable design, construction, and operating elements not only for their environmental and economic benefits, but also as teaching tools. In this light Smith sought to maximize and document the financial costs and benefits of jobsite reuse and recycling as a demonstration for Smith students, faculty, and staff – and for the broader academic community – of what can be accomplished with aggressive and imaginative waste management.

Ford Hall was built on the site of a downtown residential/commercial block that was a local landmark, and its demolition triggered controversy. Deconstruction was an important part of Smith’s response, assuring the community that the affected structures would be recovered and reused. Deconstruction was comprehensive down to interior finishes, furniture and appliances, flooring, trim, mantels, doors, windows, cabinets and casework, kitchen and bath fixtures, exterior benches and landscaping elements (e.g., pavers).

This level of attention carried through to demolition of the remaining shells. “Source separation” – that is, onsite separation of wastes into their constituent components – was practiced as much as possible, yielding homogeneous loads of wood, metals, wood, and ceiling tiles. This practice had no impact on the demolition schedule, and had the double benefit of reducing disposition costs and increasing recycling rates. Similar practices were employed as the new Ford Hall was erected and finished.

When the project wrapped up, IRN had helped Smith and contractor, William A. Berry achieve a 97% reuse and recycling rate. But what Smith really wanted to know was the cost. Had reuse and recycling been cost effective, or were they an expensive environmental add-on?

The Answer: Including the cost of waste management planning and documentation, Berry’s project managers calculated savings of about 25% compared to their budgeted waste disposal cost (that is, the cost without recycling). There was an increase in labor for daily site cleanup, but this was more than offset by the savings in disposal costs. At the end of the project, Berry had kept nearly 2,500 tons of usable materials out of landfill, achieved three LEED points and saved some serious money for itself and its client. And Smith had enduring lesson for its students in the economic value of sustainability, and in the advantages of getting materials back into the economy, and not down into the landfill.

See www.wastemiser.com for a complete case study and documentation of reuse and recycling results.