Innovative Approaches to Construction Waste

Patty, thanks for the reply.  That is no small undertaking to try to map anything that is happening on every project, so I applaud your ambition.  It makes sense to have an intern try to really start to unpack something like that. I agree that waste diversion is kind of ground zero for sustainability in construction.  It is our greatest area of environmental impact, so it seems we should focus our time and energy on this fundamental concept. I would be interested to hear about what your mandatory recycling policy looks like.  I would also be interested to know if you’re tracking what happens to the waste after it goes to the processors.  As Nathan mentioned, in Massachusetts we have facilities telling us their diversion rates are between 70 and 90% (before ADC gets taken out), but the statewide C&D diversion rate has plateaued at 30% even with laws requiring 50% diversion rates for all jobs.  So, there is some different math taking place in different ways.  For us, it seems like separating on the jobsite might be one of the only ways to really boost diversion rates.   The Living Building standard is awesome, but I wonder if there something we can do that’s above LEED, but maybe more scalable than the LBC requirements.  But, I too would be interested in anyone else’s feedback on LBC successes, because I think that is really what we are after.  Have you seen any innovative approaches to waste management that inspired you? Feel free to direct reply at sburke@consigli.com or call if you want to take the conversation offline.  Thanks!

Well I definitely want in on this!  Unfortunately, with this forum set up we don't have everyone's email contact.  Just so we don't suck the whole group into a scheduling thread, if Emily and Vandita can email me at sburke@consigli.com, we can coordinate a time and then post the time and a conference call number onto this thread for anyone that can make it.  Looking forward to it!

It looks like next Friday, 2/23 at 9 AM PST / 12 PM EST / 11 AM CST / 10 AM MST is what works for everyone. Conference Line: 605-468-8040 Access Code: 4037 Mark your calendar!

Okay, here are the notes from our SCL call regarding Construction Waste Management on 2/23.  My apologies if I missed anyone on the call or misrepresent or otherwise misstate who said what.  I was trying to listen more than take notes, so this is mostly from memory.  I'll see if I can get a recording of subsequent calls for those who can't make it.  Thanks! Attendees: Emily Naud and Alejandra Arce Gomez– GCI / Bay Area Nathan Gauthier – Shawmut / Boston Stacy Smedley – Skanska / Seattle Patty Lloyd – Leopardo / Chicago Steven Burke – Consigli / Boston   Nathan mentioned a lot of the issues related to the LEED v4 requirements.  Specifically, that a project cannot use visual inspection as a means of verifying diversion percentages of C+D waste under LEED v4.  However, this is exactly the method used by processing facilities, thereby invalidating our comingled waste diversion numbers despite the fact that most LEED review teams are probably either not aware of this rule or do not enforce it.  Additionally, this technically a requirement in LEED v3 as well. Patty brought up that Chicago has certified facility, but that it uses visual inspection as well.  There was also the mention that more generally there is typically a discrepancy between what is reported from waste processors as diverted material and how much material is truly being diverted.  Nathan mentioned that for the purposes of LEED waste is allowed to be considered as being diverted when applied for beneficial uses, like roadways within landfills.  His preference would be that no material going into a landfill would be considered as diverted material. That left us wondering where that leaves us?  How do we meet the requirement of LEED version 4 and increase the percent of material diverted?  The answer seemed like it would be reverting back to separating materials on the project site.  Despite the challenges of executing that in urban locations, Patty and Nathan mentioned that a wholesale shift from comingled to single stream is damaging to the comingled waste facilities who would see their investments in comingled processing technologies no longer being put to as much use.  Additionally, because of the infrastructure costs already spent to get facilities ready to handle large amounts of comingled waste, they may not even be capable of processing large amounts of single stream recycling if we wanted to switch back to that method of handling of C+D waste. I believe Patty talked about producer takeback programs and some of the issues that arise with those arrangements.  For example, someone mentioned that working with Armstrong and their ceiling tile takeback program, there was an issue with needing a minimum number of palettes (22?) and that Armstrong would not pick them up until that quantity had been collected.  Also, for Patty, the closest carpet processing to Chicago is in Indianapolis.  Interface and Shaw both offer programs, but Patty is wondering about the embodied carbon or efficiency implications of needing to transport collected materials to further away processing / remanufacturing facilities. The question was also raised about meeting the 2.5 pounds of waste generated / sq ft of floor area under new LEED v4 options.  Steven had looked at past projects and the closest his project came were around 6 pounds / sq ft, with most averaging much higher.  There was also a question on whether this was measured as solely construction waste or if it included demolition, and per the reference guide, it does include demolition.  Therefore, projects with demolition may not meet this option no matter how efficient their construction waste management is. Alejandra and Emily run a donation program with local area non-profits to boost the amount of materials diverted from jobsites.  They do not have anywhere to store materials, so to get around that, they send out “post cards” to different local non-profits and ask them in advance what their needs are: Desks, lamps, tables, etc.  That way, they have a running inventory of who needs what and where to send it, and there is no turnaround time.  They donate clean carpet tile to Habitat for Humanity. Stacy has worked on several LBC projects and talked about the close relationship with the waste hauler needed to meet the higher diversion goals, but she says it is possible.  Emily has worked on two LBC Materials petal projects as well.  Stacy said Skanska is currently working on an LBC project at Georgia Tech.  Stacy also mentioned that because of China’s new block/lower acceptance of on many U.S. waste / recycling items, the Seattle market is experiencing much lower numbers of mixed C+D that can be diverted.  Nathan mentioned that a local waste hauler who manages their own processing facility in MA is started a pilot program for trying to find uses for used drywall.  This would require an exemption of some kind from the state which would otherwise consider used drywall as a contaminated material, but they may allow its use in roadways or other applications.  This point was mentioned as an example of how different strategies may be applicable in other states, and that the sharing of these best practices in a nationally-focused report could be a good step forward in trying to increase the amount of material diverted from landfills. After Emily and Alejandra suggested the idea of a universally applicable infrastructure report for waste haulers to follow as a guide towards zero waste solutions, they offered to start advancing that conversation and lead the research effort.  They have since drafted and posted an outline to what this report could look like to the SCL group, which is available for download.  More to come.