Intel Cafeteria and Construction Waste Management Ashley Maiorano

Intel Cafeteria and Construction Waste Management Ashley Maiorano Chemical Engineering Kaitlin Mc. Gillvray Civil Engineering Elise Nakamura Biotechnology July 4, 2005 1

Agenda The purpose of this presentation is to make formal recommendations in Intel’s cafeteria and construction waste management l Goal l Cafeteria Waste – – l Construction Waste – – l 2 Data Analysis and Results Recommendations Recycling Market

Benefits 3 l Reduces waste sent to the landfill l Increases recycling rate l Saves money l Preserves the environment

Problem Statement l l 4 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.

Goal l 5 To assist Intel by giving a proposal to reduce the volume of waste that Intel sends to landfill focusing on cafeteria and construction waste.

Methodology Part 1 6 l Perform cafeteria waste analysis l Conduct composting experiment l Research composting systems

Waste Analysis 464 lbs of food waste + 147 lbs of yard waste + 1000 lbs of sludge waste 1611 lbs of waste produced (per day) 7

In the Cafeteria 8 l Trashcans located in inconvenient places l Waste is not being segregated

Recommendation for Cafeteria 9 l Use segregated trashcans l Put in convenient locations

In the Kitchen l l 10 Waste is not being segregated All waste is sent to landfills

Recommendation for Kitchen § Segregate Organic from Inorganic Waste § Place containers in convenient locations 11

Composting Experiment l To investigate composting using Intel’s waste and determine any problems that arise Sludge Food Yard 12 Bucket 1 6 0 0 Bucket 2 2 Bucket 3 1 1 4 Bucket 4 0 3 3 Bucket 5 1 3 2 Ratios in Parts by Volume

Results of Experiment 13 l Complications with Open Systems l Rate of Composting

Earth Tub l l 14 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

Windrow System l Open System l Inexpensive l Concerns – – 15 Odor Pests Irrigation Needed Labor-Intensive Image from google. com

Waste Production and Cost Jan March April CR 1 9, 800 6, 800 10, 000 28, 000 CR 2 8, 400 20, 200 21, 600 12, 600 CR 3 0 0 22, 800 21, 000 23, 400 26, 400 0 0 41, 000 48, 000 55, 000 67, 000 246 288 326. 40 402 Cafeteria Contractor Total weight (lbs) Total Cost (dollars) 16 Feb

Waste Reduction and Cost l Reduce Cafeteria Waste by 60 percent – – l 17 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

Cost For Disposal in the Month of May Service Rental Fee for Compactor Trips to the compactor Total Cost (month) 18 Cost ($) 257 Quantity 1 Total Cost 257 48 8 384 $641 The annual cost is 641 x 12 = $7, 692

Reduction of Trips Made for Garbage Collection Costs Cost Quantity Total Cost Rental fee for Compactor Trips to the compactor Total Cost (month) 257 1 257 48 4 192 $449 Total Annual Cost with Reduction: $5, 388 19 Savings per Year: 7, 692 – 5, 388 = $2, 304

Total Savings in the Cafeteria 20 l Weight of Disposal: $1, 107 l Cost of Transportation: $2, 304 l Total Saved on Disposal Fees: $3, 411

Methodology Part 2 21 l Agencies and companies researched l Determine Intel’s construction waste management practices l Create industry “best practices” model l Make recommendations based on model

Agencies and Companies l l l l 22 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

Consigli Construction l l l 2004 EPA Waste. Wise Award 2004 Environmental Merit Award 2004 Building Design & Construction Award 2004 Mass Preservation Awards OSHA Blue Safety Partnership Clark Distribution Center – – – 23 65, 000 square foot addition 60, 000 square foot renovation Savings in disposal fees: $49, 000

Simons Construction 24 l Winner of the Green Apple Award, 2001 -2004 l Winner of the Linconshire Environmental Award, 2001 & 2003

Co-Mingled vs. Source Segregated Recycling l Co-Mingled – – – l Source Segregated – – 25 15 -93 percent recycling rate Labor intensive Space efficient 90+ percent recycling rate Cost efficient

Waste Management Hierarchy Reduce Reuse Recycle Compost Incinerate Landfill 26 Source: Consigli Construction

Prior to Construction l Design to prevent waste – l Establish the project specific waste management plan – – l 27 Example: design using standard size building materials Identify waste Identify disposal facilities Assign role for someone to be responsible to implement waste management plan

Material Purchasing l Use tight estimating Accurate Quantities + Over Order= Building+ Waste l Choose materials with minimal to no packaging l Ask for supplier coordination – – 28 Buy back Take back Returnable Pallets Delivery Schedule

Site Arrangements l l Identify sources of waste Place dumpsters strategically – – – l l l 29 Size Type Location Color code containers depending on the material disposed in them Place segregated containers behind mixed containers Empty containers regularly

Waste Checks Recycling and Waste Management Record Delivery Date 30 l l Bin Size Waste Type Pick Up Total % Date Tonnage Recycled Taken Away Track monthly Analyze cumulatively Comments

Material Efficiency Indicator l l l Establish waste checks Analyze data Compare to other projects – l 31 Average new construction yields 3. 9 lbs of waste per square foot (Consigli Construction) Use as a guideline for future projects

Servicios Ecológicos l l l 32 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

What Problems Do They Face? 33 l Minimal Market l Minimal Technology l Space Constraints

Researching a Regional Recycling Market l Contacted CNP+L for a regional recycling market – l Mercado de Residuos y Subproductos Industriales (MERSI) – – – 34 There are minimal recycling markets in Central America Provides information to companies on handling industrial residues and subproducts Provides information on recycling and reducing Aids companies in selling materials to other companies

Researching a Recycling Market in the United States l Researched recycling companies in the United States to provide a market for Costa Rica – l 35 Recycling. Market. Net Compiled a spreadsheet with companies, what they are able to recycle, and their contact information

Benefits of an Expanded Recycling Market 36 l More materials can be recycled l There will be contact with the United States to learn about new technology l Servicios Ecológicos can expand their company and provide more jobs for the community

Educating Employees l l l 37 Make recycling program mandatory for all employees Make recycling program mandatory for all subcontracted employees Include a section on segregation

Acknowledgements l l l l 38 Anibal Alterno Mario Barquero Francisco Cespedes Shane Cheatham Luis Chinchilla Erika Diaz Marco Esquival l l l Christian Garbanzo Arthur Gerstenfeld Randy Helgeson Pedro Zolano Susan Vernon. Gerstenfeld Doctor Verde Staff

Questions? ? ? 39