1 / 39

Intel Cafeteria and Construction Waste Management

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

reegan
Download Presentation

Intel Cafeteria and Construction Waste Management

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. IntelCafeteria and Construction Waste Management Ashley Maiorano Chemical Engineering Kaitlin McGillvray Civil Engineering Elise Nakamura Biotechnology 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. Waste Analysis 464 lbs of food waste + 147 lbs of yard waste + 1000 lbs of sludge waste 1611 lbs of waste produced (per day)

  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

  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

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

  19. Reduction of Trips Made for Garbage Collection Costs 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 estimating Accurate 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 • 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. Educating Employees • Make recycling program mandatory for all employees • Make recycling program mandatory for all subcontracted employees • Include a section on segregation

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

  39. Questions???

More Related