Intel Cafeteria and Construction Waste Management

1

IntelCafeteria and Construction Waste

Management

Ashley MaioranoChemical Engineering

Kaitlin McGillvrayCivil Engineering

Elise NakamuraBiotechnology

July 4, 2005

2

Agenda

The purpose of this presentation is to make formal recommendations in Intel’s cafeteria and construction waste management

Goal Cafeteria Waste

– Data Analysis and Results– Recommendations

Construction Waste– Data Analysis and Results– Recommendations

Recycling Market

3

Benefits

Reduces waste sent to the landfill

Increases recycling rate

Saves money

Preserves the environment

4

Problem Statement

Intel Costa Rica is currently recycling 72 percent of waste.

The company wants to improve the recycling rate by focusing on cafeteria and construction waste.

5

Goal

To assist Intel by giving a proposal to reduce the volume of waste that Intel sends to landfill focusing on cafeteria and construction waste.

6

Methodology Part 1

Perform cafeteria waste analysis

Conduct composting experiment

Research composting systems

7

464 lbs of food waste

+

147 lbs of yard waste

+

1000 lbs of sludge waste

1611 lbs of waste produced (per day)

Waste Analysis

8

In the Cafeteria

Trashcans located in inconvenient places

Waste is not being segregated

9

Recommendation for Cafeteria

Use segregated trashcans

Put in convenient locations

10

In the Kitchen

Waste is not being segregated All waste is sent to landfills

11

Recommendation for Kitchen

Segregate Organic from Inorganic Waste

Place containers in convenient locations

12

Composting Experiment

To investigate composting using Intel’s waste and determine any problems that arise

Ratios in Parts by Volume

Sludge Food Yard

Bucket 1 6 0 0

Bucket 2 2 2 2

Bucket 3 1 1 4

Bucket 4 0 3 3

Bucket 5 1 3 2

13

Results of Experiment

Complications with Open Systems

Rate of Composting

14

Earth Tub

Composts 40-200 lbs of waste per day

Composting takes 3-4 weeks and 20-40 days to cure

8 tubs needed Cost: $8,495 per tub

15

Windrow System

Open System

Inexpensive

Concerns– Odor– Pests– Irrigation Needed– Labor-Intensive Image from google.com

16

Waste Production and Cost

Jan Feb March April

CR1 9,800 6,800 10,000 28,000

CR2 8,400 20,200 21,600 12,600

CR3 0 0 0 0

Cafeteria 22,800 21,000 23,400 26,400

Contractor 0 0 0 0

Total weight (lbs) 41,000 48,000 55,000 67,000

Total Cost (dollars)

246 288 326.40 402

17

Waste Reduction and Cost

Reduce Cafeteria Waste by 60 percent– Includes vegetable waste (50% of total cafeteria

waste) and leftover waste from meals (10% of total cafeteria waste)

– Save 92 tons/year from being sent to the landfill

Savings of $1,107 (per year) on disposal weight alone

18

Cost For Disposal in the Month of May

Service Cost ($) Quantity Total Cost

Rental Fee for Compactor

257 1 257

Trips to the compactor

48 8 384

Total Cost (month)

$641

The annual cost is 641 x 12 = $7,692

19

Reduction of Trips Made for Garbage Collection Costs

Cost Quantity Total Cost

Rental fee for Compactor

257 1 257

Trips to the compactor

48 4 192

Total Cost (month)

$449

Total Annual Cost with Reduction: $5,388

Savings per Year: 7,692 – 5,388 = $2,304

20

Total Savings in the Cafeteria

Weight of Disposal: $1,107

Cost of Transportation: $2,304

Total Saved on Disposal Fees: $3,411

21

Methodology Part 2

Agencies and companies researched

Determine Intel’s construction waste management practices

Create industry “best practices” model

Make recommendations based on model

22

Agencies and Companies

Consigli Construction of Massachusetts Simons Construction of the United Kingdom The Australian Government Department of the

Environment and Heritage Welsh School of Architecture Washington State Department of General

Administration Public Works and Public Services Canada Encluster Environmental Enterprise

23

Consigli Construction

2004 EPA WasteWise Award 2004 Environmental Merit Award 2004 Building Design & Construction Award 2004 Mass Preservation Awards OSHA Blue Safety Partnership Clark Distribution Center

– 65,000 square foot addition– 60,000 square foot renovation– Savings in disposal fees: $49,000

24

Simons Construction

Winner of the Green Apple Award,

2001-2004

Winner of the Linconshire Environmental Award, 2001 & 2003

25

Co-Mingled vs. Source Segregated Recycling

Co-Mingled– 15-93 percent recycling rate– Labor intensive– Space efficient

Source Segregated– 90+ percent recycling rate– Cost efficient

26

Waste Management Hierarchy

Reduce

Reuse

Recycle

Compost

Incinerate

Landfill

Source: Consigli Construction

27

Prior to Construction

Design to prevent waste – Example: design using standard size building

materials Establish the project specific waste

management plan– Identify waste– Identify disposal facilities

Assign role for someone to be responsible to implement waste management plan

28

Material Purchasing

Use tight estimatingAccurate Quantities + Over Order= Building+ Waste

Choose materials with minimal to no packaging

Ask for supplier coordination– Buy back– Take back– Returnable Pallets– Delivery Schedule

29

Site Arrangements

Identify sources of waste Place dumpsters

strategically – Size– Type– Location

Color code containers depending on the material disposed in them

Place segregated containers behind mixed containers

Empty containers regularly

30

Waste Checks

Recycling and Waste Management Record

DeliveryDate

BinSize

WasteType

Pick UpDate

TotalTonnageTakenAway

%Recycled

Comments

Track monthly Analyze cumulatively

31

Material Efficiency Indicator

Establish waste checks Analyze data Compare to other projects

– Average new construction yields 3.9 lbs of waste per square foot (Consigli Construction)

Use as a guideline for future projects

32

Servicios Ecológicos

Company that manages recycled materials for Intel

Created a program to employ single mothers and their families

Sends some materials to the United States and Central America to be recycled

33

What Problems Do They Face?

Minimal Market

Minimal Technology

Space Constraints

34

Researching a Regional Recycling Market

Contacted CNP+L for a regional recycling market– There are minimal recycling markets in Central America

Mercado de Residuos y Subproductos Industriales (MERSI)

– Provides information to companies on handling industrial residues and subproducts

– Provides information on recycling and reducing– Aids companies in selling materials to other companies

35

Researching a Recycling Market in the United States

Researched recycling companies in the United States to provide a market for Costa Rica– RecyclingMarket.Net

Compiled a spreadsheet with companies, what they are able to recycle, and their contact information

36

Benefits of an Expanded Recycling Market

More materials can be recycled

There will be contact with the United States to learn about new technology

Servicios Ecológicos can expand their company and provide more jobs for the community

37

Make recycling program mandatory for all employees

Make recycling program mandatory for all subcontracted employees

Include a section on segregation

Educating Employees

38

Acknowledgements

Anibal Alterno Mario Barquero Francisco Cespedes Shane Cheatham Luis Chinchilla Erika Diaz Marco Esquival

Christian Garbanzo Arthur Gerstenfeld Randy Helgeson Pedro Zolano Susan Vernon-

Gerstenfeld Doctor Verde Staff

39

Questions???