SCL - Waste Management Model Action Plan

Hi Ali, great work.  The only comment I would say is that for all jobs to follow LEED v4 waste requirements might be setting the bar a little high. We might have trouble getting the buy-in on general construction jobs that are not seeking a third party certification.  I was thinking more of a diversion goal for contractors trying to reach on all of their projects as the baseline, and then maybe if they want to go above and beyond that then more to the LEED v4? Would love to hear what the rest of the contractors think.

1. Site separations typically means removal of higher value material from the C & D waste stream. Following the LEED requirement for site separations across all projects will likely unintentionally negatively impact C & D waste processors (that would be bad)
2. Even if using LEED as a model, removal of specific references to LEED may be less polarizing.  for some people LEED is a four letter word. ;)
3. My thinking is more along the lines of requiring all C & D waste to go to material recovery facilities (MRFs) (i.e. C & D recyclers, processors, etc.) and not allow hauls to transfer stations or directly to landfill.

Conor, I’m interested to hear what you imagine is a better solution to the argument that we can’t site separate for fear of negatively impacting C&D processors? Site separation is more labor intensive, but the diversion rates are significantly higher. If we go the route of only comingled our diversion rates are at the mercy of the processing facilities we have access to. Comingled is convenient and works for sites with no laydown area and is good for processors but it’s not working for our bigger goal of more diverted waste. If the solution is to work with processors to increase diversion rates that seems beyond the scope of a waste management plan. Would increased site separation inspire them to find ways to creatively increase diversion rates to compete for attention and business? I know you can’t speak for them but I’m curious to hear your thoughts since it seems like there are pros and cons to both options Steven Burke. LEED & WELL Faculty Sustainability Manager m: 774.462.2044 consigli.com From: Con

This is a great draft plan, thank you for putting together.  Instead of noting it as "per LEED v4" it might be better to provide a breakdown of the waste stream specific to the region. For example: Concrete, raw wood, metal, gypsum wallboard and cardboard can have their own dumpster during that scope of work. Understanding that urban areas often struggle with laydown, we have a typical co-mingled box and a smaller stream specific container, which aligns with the schedule.  We can also note that many areas have metal recyclers that will pay cash for scraps, therefore providing them with a financial incentive to separate. I've met directly with the C & D processors to work on solutions for waste diversion.  Their challenge is that they can only recycle what the market is demanding and since China quit taking our recycling, the demand has dropped significantly.  It may good to host a round table in your local community and get a handful of GC's in the room with C & D processors and work together to come up with a solution that best suits the community.  

Chiming in with my two cent's worth here. I have a tendency to over-simplify, so let me know what you think. The general accepted practice is reduce, reuse, then recycle. However, we have a tendency to jump right to recycle and skip the first two. The problem with this is it doesn't help us reduce our consumption. Consumption drives production, and production has an outsized footprint. We need to deeply consider reduce & reuse before moving on to recycle.   I believe LEED v4.1 provides an option for points that is based on pounds of waste generated when compared to square feet of building built - something like no more than 7.5 pounds of waste generated for each square foot of construction.    I feel like the guidelines should be broken into three specific, prioritized goals. Goal #1 would be a weight of waste generated per square foot of construction. 7.5 lbs/sq ft might be too difficult now, but we've been failing at recycling for years, and it's the wrong solution for the problem. Goal #2 should be focused on salvaging / re-using - not only in demo, but in product selection in new construction, as well as left over materials from projects (un-used paint, lengths of rebar, etc.) Goal #3 would then focus on recycling and diversion.   

Hi Steven, If I cook a meal for my family but I eat all the healthy food myself, give only water to my wife and only unhealthy desserts to my sons then I will not have a healthy family.  My wife will starve and die and disappear. My sons will last longer, but will be sick and polluted, perhaps bursting at the seams like a too-full landfill. Optimizing my health only doesn't necessarily better my family health.  It may, in fact, have unintended consequences of hurting the overall health of my family. I think project specific optimization and C & D waste processing industry optimization has a similar challenge. Yes, project site separation may produce better project specific data, but can starve good processors of valuable materials they may need to run the recycling operations and/or burden them with more material only suitable for landfill. To answer you request regarding my imagining a better solution, it's probably through continued discussions with the C & D processors to determine how we (CMs collectively in a region) can reduce landfill material they produce from C & D material we bring them. How can CMs help their C&D business run better? If we're not on first name basis with our local MRFs and having these conversations, that might be a good first step.