Model Construction Site Recovery Project Case Study. NIST MEP Environmental Program

Transcription

1 Model Construction Site Recovery Project Case Study NIST MEP Environmental Program

2 Model Construction Site Recovery Project Case Study FINAL REPORT CWC 2200 Alaskan Way, Suite 460 Seattle, Washington July, 1996 Prepared by O Brien & Company with Fletcher Wright Construction Sound Resource Management Group This recycled paper is recyclable Copyright 1996 by Clean Washington Center Report No. CDL-96-2

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... i 1.0 INTRODUCTION COMPARATIVE STUDY RESULTS BUILDING DESCRIPTIONS Control Building...3 Table 1: Cost/Tonnage Data for Waste Management Pilot Building...5 Table 2: Cost/Tonnage Data for Waste Management...6 Figure 1: Monthly Recycling Volumes...7 Table 3: Savings from Recycling and Waste Reduction Test Building...10 Table 4: Cost/Tonnage Data for Waste Management...13 Figure 2: Monthly Recycling Volumes...16 Table 5: Savings from Recycling and Waste Reduction SUMMARY...18 Figure 3: Summary of Recycling Results EFFECTIVE JOB-SITE RECOVERY RECYCLING PLUS PROGRAM RECYCLING PLUS TOOLS ACKNOWLEDMENTS...23 APPENDIX A: DATA COLLECTION PLAN... A-1 APPENDIX B: CONVERSION EQUIVALENTS...B-1

4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In the Spring of 1995, the Recycling Technology Assistance Partnership (ReTAP), a program of the Clean Washington Center provided funding for research and development of a model job-site recovery program using the Fletcher Wright building projects as demonstrations. In addition to Fletcher Wright Construction, the project team included O Brien & Company, as prime consultant, and Sound Resource Management Group, who provided training and research assistance. The project consisted of four elements: Assess existing job-site recovery research for lessons learned, pitfalls to avoid, best management practices to include. This entailed interviewing key personnel involved with demonstration projects as well as reviewing existing manuals, directories, or support materials developed as part of demonstration projects around the country. Collect and analyze waste disposal and reduction data (including recycling, reuse, and reduction information) on three very similar three-story office buildings constructed by Fletcher Wright Construction on a Corporate Campus. On the first building, typical disposal management methods were used; on the second building, the contractor performed some recycling and waste reduction; on the third, elements of a model program developed as part of the project were field-tested. Develop components of a company-wide job-site recycling and reduction program (including best management practices). The program, Recycling Plus includes a logo and manual, which includes a management guide, pull-out field guide, and pull-out subcontractor s kit. The assessment conducted at the outset of the project, as well as input from field personnel working on the second and third buildings, were instrumental in helping develop the manual. Program materials are intended to be customized, and the logo as well as a cost/materials tracking form are provided on disk. The manual presents the program in a menu-like style, with the intention that contractors can take what they like and leave the rest. The program i

5 design reflects key success elements identified in our research, including: convenience; committed key field personnel; a good understanding of available options and limiting factors; and focus on high potential materials and practices. Outreach to the construction industry. A major mailing of Recycling Plus program materials was conducted in March, 1996 to contractors in the State. The program will be introduced in workshops to members of key trade groups in the State, including the Associated General Contractors, which represents most major commercial contractors. Press releases to industry press are also part of outreach. The project shows how a company-wide model program based on lessons learned in the field can be used to promote cost-effective and efficient job-site recycling and waste reduction. Significant savings were achieved on the building projects included in the demonstration. On the second building, 45% recycling was achieved, representing approximately $17,000 savings. On the third building, 54% recycling was achieved, representing over $35,000 savings. Based on a materials flow analysis using monthly recycling records, it is estimated that one-half of the overall increase in recycling (between the second and third buildings) can be attributed to the use of Recycling Plus planning, motivation, communication, and evaluation tools developed and field-tested as part of the project. The remainder of increase in recycling (between the second and third buildings) is due to a significant increase in the amount of wood recycled: More wood was used to build the third building due to a change in building design (a doubling of garage size); and wood that had been reused on all three buildings was recycled as part of final cleanup. This case study is primarily to describe results of data collection on the three buildings used in the demonstration project. ii

6 1.0 INTRODUCTION Fletcher Wright Construction began developing a waste reduction program in the Fall of The primary goals of the program were to produce less waste and to recycle as much of the waste material generated as possible. At the same time, Fletcher Wright had been contracted to build three similar office buildings (approximately $30 million each) for a single client. Fletcher Wright saw this as a unique opportunity to quantify and compare results from their recycling efforts. They had built the first office building using traditional disposal methods. This building could be treated as a control building for comparison. In the second building, which coincided with the company s decision to begin developing a recycling program, Fletcher Wright hired a full-service recycling contractor and targeted wood, drywall, and cardboard for recycling. The recycling contractor provided labeled containers, leveled loads, resorted mis-sorted materials, tarped loads, and took materials to recycling facilities, all for a flat fee. The second building was considered a pilot project. In the Spring of 1995, the Recycling Technology Assistance Partnership (ReTAP), a program of the Clean Washington Center provided funding for research and development of a model job-site recovery program using the Fletcher Wright building projects as demonstrations. In addition to Fletcher Wright Construction, the project team included O Brien & Company, as prime consultant, and Sound Resource Management Group, who provided training and research assistance. The project team performed research, including compilation of best management practices from demonstration projects performed around the country; an analysis of monthly waste disposal and recycling records on both control and pilot buildings; and interviews of site personnel who had worked on both buildings. (A summary of this research is available from the Clean Washington Center.) Monthly disposal and recycling records showed 45% of the materials generated (by weight) were recycled, representing approximately $17,000 savings in waste 1

7 management. Interviews and photo documentation of the pilot project revealed significant additional potential in terms of recovering targeted materials from the waste stream. Project consultants worked with Fletcher Wright Construction to develop tools based on best management practices. These tools were to be part of the new Recycling Plus Program to be tested on the third building. In this test building, the same materials were targeted for recovery, with the addition of miscellaneous metals (excluding steel rebar). The same fullservice recycling contractor was used. Monthly disposal and recycling records for the test building showed 54% of the materials generated (by weight) were recycled, representing over $35,000 savings in waste management. 2.0 COMPARATIVE STUDY RESULTS A goal of this project is to compare the effectiveness of best management practices as applied through the Recycling Plus Program to conventional waste management practices (no recycling), and to a non-programmatic approach (some recycling). In order to make this comparison, quantitative and anecdotal data from all three buildings, the control building, the pilot building, and the test building, were collected using a data collection plan (see Appendix A). This data was summarized for each building and is reported below. (Conversion equivalents used for quantitative data are included in Appendix B.) 2.1 BUILDING DESCRIPTIONS The office buildings being compared are located on a suburban corporate campus in Redmond, Washington. The multiple-story concrete and steel framing buildings cost approximately $30 million each and took approximately 10 months to build. Square footage for the main buildings was 200,000 square feet each. Square footage for the parking garages for the control and pilot buildings was approximately 70,000 square feet each. Square footage for the parking garage for the test building was approximately 145,000 square feet. 2

8 2.1.1 Control Building Table #1 summarizes costs and tonnage data for overall waste management on the control building. A formal recycling program was not in place, and there was no recycling goal. Waste Disposal Data The control building generated 1,169 tons of waste material. Anecdotal Data Traditional waste disposal methods were used on the building. The only materials recovered during the project consisted of steel rebar scraps that had been put aside during the project and used as needed. Rebar left over at the end of the job was taken to scrap dealers. Rebates for the material were used for an end-of-project party. 3

9 Table 1 Control Building - Cost/Tonnage Data for Waste Management Total Tons Disposed: 1,169 Total Tons Recycled: 0 Waste Disposal Recycling Disposal/Recycling Basic Fees (1) $75, Dumpster Rental $1, Dumpster Service $23, Delivery/Mileage $8, Sorting Labor Container Damage Hazardous Waste $ City Fee $43, Sales Tax $ Solid Waste Tax $6, Total Costs $159, $0.00 Waste Disposal = $159, Total tons generated = 1169 tons Percent of waste recycled = 0% Average cost per ton = $ (1) Basic fees include labor 4

10 2.1.2 Pilot Building Table #2 summarizes costs and tonnage data for overall waste management on the pilot building. For the pilot building, a waste diversion/recycling goal of 35% was implemented. The pilot building generated 946 tons. Recycling Data Of the 946 tons generated on the pilot building, 425 tons or nearly 45% of the materials generated on the site were diverted through recycling, including: approximately 295 tons of wood, 123 tons of drywall, and 7 tons of cardboard. This represented a savings of $17,048 compared to a scenario in which no recycling occurred at all. Most of the savings were due to significant reductions in solid waste tax and city fees related to disposal. The monthly flow of targeted materials being recycled during the pilot project is shown in Figure #1. Waste Reduction Data The difference in overall tonnage between the control and pilot is primarily due to a change in the forming system used. In the control building, stick forming (using wood) was used for the main building, while steel forming was used for the parking garage. In the pilot building, steel forming was used for the main building, while stick forming was used for the parking garage. This waste reduction represented savings of $27,377. 5

11 Table 2 Pilot Building - Cost/Tonnage Data for Waste Management Total tons disposed: 521 Total tons recycled: 425 Waste Disposal Recycling Disposal/Recycling Basic Fees (1) $33, $38, Dumpster Rental $2, Dumpster Service $14, Delivery/Mileage $6, $90.00 Sorting Labor (2) -- $ Container Damage -- $ Hazardous Waste $ City Fee $12, Sales Tax $ $3, Solid Waste Tax $3, Total Costs $73, $43, Waste Disposal + Recycling = $116, Total tons generated = 946 tons Percent of waste recycled = 45% Average cost per ton = $ cost recycling per ton = $ cost disposal per ton = $ (1) Basic fees include labor (2) Additional labor provided by CWM to resort mis-sorted materials. 6

12 INSERT FIGURE 1 here: 7

13 Documented Savings Table 3 shows the total savings on the pilot building when including both quantified recycling and waste reduction data: $44,425, or nearly 30% when compared to the overall cost of waste management for the control building. Table 3 Savings From Recycling & Waste Reduction Control Building vs. Pilot Building Waste disposal costs $73, Recycling costs + $43, Total Waste Management Cost $116, Tons of waste disposed Tons of waste recycled Total Tons of Waste tons tons 946 tons Total waste management cost $116, Total tons of waste 946 Average Overall Cost per Ton $ Cost per ton of waste disposal $ Cost per ton of recycling - $ Savings per ton from Recycling $40.00 Tons of waste recycled Savings per ton from recycling x $40.00 Savings from Recycling $17, Total tons of waste on Control Building 1169 Total tons of waste on Pilot Building Total Source Reduction 223 tons Average cost per ton $ Total source reduction x 223 tons Savings from Source Reduction $27, Recycling Savings $17, Source Reduction Savings +$27, Total Cost Savings $44,

14 Anecdotal Data Again, steel rebar scraps had been put aside during the project and used as needed. Rebar left over at the end of the job was taken to scrap dealers. Rebates for the material were used for an end-of-project party. Information on the pilot recycling effort was gathered at a meeting at the job-site trailer with nearly 30 Fletcher Wright site personnel present, including project managers, superintendents, equipment operators, and laborers. The recycling subcontractor who provided services on the pilot building was also present. Additional information was gathered through follow-up phone interviews with individuals who had attended the meeting and others identified by the field crew as having pertinent information. In general, site personnel were pleased with the results on the pilot building. However, it was felt education and motivation of subcontractors and Fletcher Wright site personnel new to the site and to recycling were needed. In addition, specific areas of opportunity were identified: Using bins that better suited the project, such as: cranable bins that could be flown to upper stories, and smaller bins that could be set up close to the building (in particular for cardboard). Scheduling bins for materials on a timely basis. This included better projecting when materials would be generated and ordering bins in time (understanding recycling contractor s lead time requirements). Making sure bins are as close as possible to where material is being generated. This included actively communicating with forklift operator or recycling contractor to ensure bins moved with work activity. Avoiding contamination. Primarily this meant including a convenient trash option along with recycling bins and making sure signage on recycling bins was clear. It also meant using signs that could be quickly changed to accommodate quick transitions in use. 9

15 Making sure trades who generated the most recyclables knew what was expected of them, including the types of materials they should be recycling. The biggest challenge was to make recycling as convenient as possible, while coordinating with an accelerated building schedule. Conclusion Although substantial recovery of materials occurred on the pilot building, there was significant potential for increasing the amount of materials recovered, and perhaps categories of materials. This could be accomplished through improvements in the methods used on site to recover these materials. Of the materials targeted in the pilot building, it was felt significantly more wood and cardboard could potentially be recovered in the test building. In addition, it was felt enough metal waste was generated to justify targeting it for recycling in the test building Test Building Table #4 summarizes costs and tonnage data for overall waste management on the test building. A waste diversion/recycling goal of 45% was implemented for the building. The test building generated approximately 1209 tons. The following actions were taken on the building: A long-form visual waste audit was completed by the consultants early in the project. Recyclables were removed by hand from a waste dumpster. Approximately 50% of the dumpster s contents were estimated to be recyclable. Slides were taken of recyclable materials separated and piled next to dumpster as part of the audit. The slides and audit results were used as part of the kick-off meeting (see below). An updated version of the form used for this audit is included in the Recycling Plus Program Field Guide. A kick-off meeting was held in the job-site trailer early in the project to communicate with key site personnel what was expected of them with regard to the Recycling Plus Program. Over 15 individuals attended, including forklift operators, subcontractors, and Fletcher 10

16 Wright supervision. A checklist was developed for this meeting to review the kinds of actions that could be taken on the site to increase the level of recycling. In addition, specific requirements regarding what was acceptable in terms of recycled materials were discussed. For example, it was clarified what kinds of wood (with nails, plywood, painted, etc.) were acceptable to the recycling contractor. Hard-hat stickers were printed with the program logo and distributed to site personnel. Cranable bins were used on the job. Smaller bins to collect cardboard were placed on the site earlier in the project. Fletcher Wright purchased several smaller transfer bins that could be moved closer in to work activity. Metal was targeted for recycling. Rebar was not included in the documented recycling program, but was again put aside during the project and used as needed. Other metals were recycled in bins ordered from a local metals recycler and monitored by the recycling contractor. Short waste audits were conducted by the safety manager monthly and used to inform site personnel at safety meetings of areas for improvement. (A copy of the form used for this audit is included in the Recycling Plus Program Field Guide.) Excel spreadsheet forms were completed monthly by the safety manager to track costs and amounts of materials disposed and recycled. Signage showing percentage of materials recycled and participating subcontractors was used. Letters were sent to subcontractors at the end of the project, thanking them for their participation. Forklift operators were empowered to reinforce the recycling program with subcontractors and other site personnel. In one case of significant materials contamination, an operator informed the job superintendent, who required the subcontractor responsible to re-sort the materials. This type of action was taken only once, and appeared to be effective. 11

17 A mid-course assessment meeting was held in the job-site trailer, again using the checklist developed as part of the Recycling Plus Program. Over 20 individuals including forklift operators, subcontractors, laborers, and Fletcher Wright supervision attended. In particular, specific requirements regarding what was acceptable in terms of recycled materials were reviewed; policies regarding bin location, pick-up, and re-sorting were reviewed; and other aspects of the Recycling Plus Program were discussed. 12

18 Table 4 Test Building - Cost/Tonnage Data for Waste Management Total tons disposed: 552 Total tons recycled: 658 Waste Disposal Recycling Disposal/Recycling Basic Fees (1) $35, $58, Dumpster Rental $3, Dumpster Service $26, Delivery/Mileage $9, Sorting Labor (2) -- $ Container Damage -- $ Hazardous Waste $ City Fee $4, Sales Tax $ $4, Solid Waste Tax $2, Total Costs $83, $64, Waste Disposal + Recycling = $148, Total tons generated = tons Percent of waste recycled = 54% Average cost per ton = $ cost recycling per ton = $98.00 cost disposal per ton = $ (1) Basic fees include labor Additional labor provided by CWM to resort missorted materials 13

19 Recycling Data Of the approximately 1210 tons generated on the test building, 658 tons or 54% of the materials generated on the site were diverted through recycling, including: approximately 465 tons of wood, 147 tons of drywall, 26 tons of cardboard, and nearly 20 tons of metal. This represented a savings of $35,482. The monthly flow of targeted materials being recycled during the test building project is shown in Figure #2. Waste Reduction Data Waste Reduction cannot be quantified for the test building because total waste disposed and recycled from the site was greater than either the control or pilot buildings. The increase was due to: 1) final cleanup of general waste and wood used on all three sites, such as sitework forms, and some shoring; and 2) additional wood used to form the garage, which was twice as large as the garage on the control and pilot buildings. This can actually be seen by looking at Figure #2, where peaks in wood recycling illustrate when garage forms were removed, and when final cleanup occurred. Compare this to Figure #1, where less wood is recycled mid-job, and where much less wood is recycled at job completion. Documented Savings Table #5 shows the total savings on the pilot building when including quantified recycling and waste reduction data: $35,482, or 22% when compared to the overall cost of waste management for the control building. The savings due to recycling miscellaneous metals (excluding rebar) was $2,994. Anecdotal Data Although it cannot be documented in dollars saved and tons of waste not generated, source reduction and reuse measures were taken. Remember that in the control building project, stick forming (using wood) was used for the main building, while steel forming was used for the parking garage. In the pilot building project, steel forming was used for the main building, while stick forming was used for the parking garage. In the test building project, steel forming 14

20 was used for the main building, and a more efficient combination of framing and stick forming was used for the parking garage. In addition, according to the Project Manager, the subcontractor building the parking garage on the test building generally reused materials to a greater extent than the subcontractor building the parking garage on the pilot building. Although metal was targeted for recycling, site crews continued to set aside rebar in a pile on the ground. The rationale was safety, since the material was often sifted through for reuse, and this was easier and safer to do if the material was on the ground rather than in a container. Rebar left over at the end of the job was taken to scrap dealers. Rebates for the material were used for an end-of-project party. The metals recycled through the recycling program were generally lower value metals. Credits provided to the recycling contractor for these metals (by the metals recycler) were roughly equivalent to the value of monitoring services provided by him; neither credits nor charges were applied to Fletcher Wright s recycling bill. Feedback on forms used by site personnel during the test building project, such as the longand short-form waste audit forms, the monthly (Excel) tracking form, and the job-site action plan form, provided valuable insight for revisions for the final production of Recycling Plus Program materials. In general, the site personnel wanted shorter, simpler forms. 15

21 INSERT FIGURE #2 16

22 Table 5 Savings From Recycling & Waste Reduction Control Building vs. Test Building Waste disposal costs $83, Recycling costs + $64, Total Waste Management Cost $148, Tons of waste disposed Tons of waste recycled Total Tons of Waste tons tons tons Total waste management cost $148, Total tons of waste Average Overall Cost per Ton $ Cost per ton of waste disposal $ Cost per ton of recycling - $98.00 Savings per ton from Recycling $54.00 Tons of waste recycled Savings per ton from recycling x $54.00 Savings from Recycling $35, Total tons of waste on Control Building 1169 Total tons of waste on Pilot Building Total Source Reduction 0 tons Average cost per ton $ Total source reduction x 0 tons Savings from Source Reduction $0.00 Recycling Savings $35, Source Reduction Savings +$0.00 Total Cost Savings $35, (1) Source Reduction cannot be documented for Test Building because total waste disposed and recycled from the site was greater than either Control Building and Test Building. (See text) 17

23 2.2 SUMMARY Figure 3 shows a summary of the recycling results on the project. The difference in recycling results between the pilot and test buildings is 9%. Based on a materials flow analysis using monthly recycling records, it is estimated that one-half of the increase in recycling (between the pilot and test buildings) can be attributed to the use of Recycling Plus planning, motivation, communication, and evaluation tools developed and field-tested as part of the project. The remainder of increase in recycling (between the Pilot and Test buildings) is due to a significant increase in the amount of wood recycled, including the wood used in forming the nearly doubled parking garage, and wood that had been reused on all three buildings and was recycled as part of final cleanup. 18

24 INSERT FIGURE 3 19

25 3.0 EFFECTIVE JOB-SITE RECOVERY Research conducted in this project points out several key elements required for an effective jobsite recovery program. If not present, the cost benefits available through recycling or reuse may be reduced, and potentially eliminated. These elements are reflected in the design of the Recycling Plus Program and include: A Starting Point - Waste audits of typical projects can provide information about what wastes are generally being created by the company. They can also be quite motivational -- workers involved with the audit are generally amazed at what gets thrown out. Job-Specific Planning - Each site is different. An action plan taking into account local recycling and salvage options and site constraints will be most effective. Focus - The program should emphasize high potential materials and practices. With recycling, for example, that means targeting materials collected in the project area that the project will generate the most of, have the highest market value, and can be separated most easily. Leadership - Often this is supplied by an enthusiastic project manager who champions the recovery effort on the job-site. Teamwork - The champion needs a team to lead, which implies getting key field personnel (job superintendents, subcontractors, suppliers) on board with the program upfront. This requires a programmatic approach to training and incentives. Convenience - Job-site recovery must be as convenient as traditional methods of waste management, i.e., disposal. Simple measures, such as correct placement and clear labeling of recycling bins, can make or break a job-site recovery program. Monitoring - A regular system of keeping tabs on recycling and disposal activities is important if the project manager is to keep the project s recovery efforts on track. Ideally, 20

26 this includes quick visual checks of recycling and dumpsters for mis-sorting, tracking recovery rates on a monthly basis, and performing simple cost/benefit analyses. Feedback - The most effective program will provide opportunities, such as weekly project meetings or on final evaluation sheets, to report progress, identify problem areas, and determine solutions. 3.1 RECYCLING PLUS PROGRAM The Recycling Plus Program developed as part of this project includes eight basic steps, including: 1. Creating a Recycling Plus Job-Site Action Plan using the worksheet provided in the Field Guide. 2. Working with key field personnel and subcontractors to ensure buy-in and commitment to Job Site Action Plan. 3. Communicating Recycling Plus Goals and Action Plan to all key personnel using the communication tools provided in the Field Guide. 4. Motivating all key personnel using incentives and other motivational tools provided in the Field Guide. 5. Evaluating results on an ongoing basis using audit techniques and a mid-course assessment meeting to make improvements on the Job-Site Action Plan. 6. Rewarding successes through Awards Programs. 7. Communicating final results and recommendations for improvement to other Project Managers and Management Personnel. 21

27 8. Developing a Recycling Plus Job-Site Action Plan for the next project, reflecting overall program improvements. 3.2 RECYCLING PLUS PROGRAM TOOLS Recycling Plus Program materials developed and tested as part of the project are intended to be user-friendly, industry-appropriate, and easily customized. They are compiled in a Program Manual, which consists of: The Recycling Plus Management Guide: Written for management personnel to provide assistance in setting the program up. The Recycling Plus Field Guide: Provides field personnel with tips on how to customize, set up, maintain, and evaluate results of a Job-Site Action Plan incorporating Recycling Plus principles. Includes field-tested forms and information sheets, with step-by-step instructions accompanying original forms that can be photocopied for each job. The Field Guide is intended to be duplicated and distributed to project managers. A separate package of extra forms is available with the manual. The Recycling Plus Program Subcontractor Kit: The Subcontractor Kit is made up of several elements, some provided by corporate management, and some by field personnel. A sample Kit is provided with Recycling Plus materials and would be provided along with the Field Guide to Project Managers or other field personnel responsible for implementing and coordinating the Recycling Plus Program on the job site. Recycling Plus Visual Aids: Several visual aids that can be used by field personnel to communicate program and motivate personnel have been developed as part of the program. Clip art with signage examples, tip sheets, etc. are supplied with the Program manual, as well as a disk including the program logo and monthly cost/materials tracking form. The Recycling Plus Program Manual (including all Recycling Plus Program materials) is available from the Clean Washington Center, at th Avenue, 2700, Seattle, WA 98121; 22

28 Supplied with the Manual is a blank case study form to be completed by contractors who participate in the program and are willing to provide information about particular projects. 4.0 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Fletcher Wright Construction has a corporate mission to reduce waste and protect natural resources as a part of its construction projects. This case study is a product of that mission and a result of the personal commitment of several Fletcher Wright staff members including Al Bergman, Dave Buckel, Al Crozier, Ken Goldblatt, Al Olsen, Scott Streuli, and Mike Webber. Key information was also provided by Shawn Doherty of Construction Waste Management, a full-service recycling contractor working on the demonstration building projects. In addition, funding for expert technical assistance in developing this case study was provided by ReTAP (Recycling Technology Assistance Partnership). ReTAP is a program of the Clean Washington Center, Washington State s lead agency for the market development of recycled materials. ReTAP is an affiliate of the National Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP), a program of the U.S. Commerce Department s National Institute of Standards and Technology. The MEP is a growing nationwide network of extension services to help smaller U.S. Manufacturers improve their performance and become more competitive. ReTAP is also sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the American Plastics Council. Program research and development was provided by Kathleen O Brien of O Brien & Company (Bainbridge Island, Washington) and Jemae Pope of Sound Resource Management Group (Seattle, Washington). 23

29 APPENDIX A - DATA COLLECTION PLAN Information Source Control Building -- Baseline Materials Discarded - Type Materials Discarded - Amount Amount Per Pickup, # of Total Pickups Materials Discarded - Cost Cost Per Pickup, # of Total Pickups Associated Labor and Goods Cost Specific Activities Conducted Company s Monthly Recycling Report, Pilot Building (extrapolate); or assume unknown Waste Disposal Bills, Company s Monthly Disposal Record Waste Disposal Bills, Company s Monthly Disposal Record Equipment Rental Bills, Consult with Field Staff including equipment operators, laborers on time spent, hrly cost (labor/hrs). Consult Field Staff regarding disposal activities. Use questionnaire. A - 1

30 Pilot Building Materials Targeted - Basis for Choice Consult with Fletcher Wright Field Staff. Materials Discarded - Type Materials Recycled - Type Waste Disposal Bills, Company s Monthly Recycling report, Pilot Building Also King Cty/Cascadia report. Materials Discarded - Amount Materials Recycled - Amounts (1) by type, total Amount per pickup, # total pickups Waste Disposal Bills, Company s Monthly Disposal Record; Doherty s Invoices, Monthly Waste Reduction Report. Also King Cty/Cascadia report. Materials Discarded - Cost Materials Recycled - Cost by type, total Cost per pickup, # total pickups Waste Disposal Bills, Company s Monthly Disposal Record; Doherty s Invoices, Monthly Waste Reduction Report. Associated Labor and Goods Cost, by type, if different Specific Activities Conducted, by type, if different Equipment Rental Bills, Consult with Field Staff including equipment operators, laborers on time spent, hrly cost (labor/hrs). Use questionnaire. Consult Field Staff regarding disposal and recycling activities. Use questionnaire. Specific Problems Noted; Experience, by type, if different Consult Field Staff Use questionnaire. A - 2

31 Test Building - Recycling Plus Program Materials Targeted - Basis for Choice Materials Discarded - Type Materials Recycled - Type Consult with Fletcher Wright Field Staff. Waste Disposal Bills; Doherty s Invoices; Company s Monthly Recycling Report; Observe on-site. Materials Discarded - Amount Materials Recycled - Amount Amount per pickup, # total pickups Waste Disposal Bills, Company s Monthly Disposal Record; Doherty s Invoices, Monthly Waste Reduction Report. Observe on-site. Materials Discarded - Cost Materials Recycled - Cost Cost per pickup, # total pickups Waste Disposal Bills, Company s Monthly Disposal Record; Doherty s Invoices, Monthly Waste Reduction Report. Observe on-site. Associated Labor and Goods Cost (2), by type, if different Equipment Rental Bills, Consult with Field Staff including equipment operators, laborers on time spent, hrly cost (labor/hrs). Observe on-site. Use questionnaire. Specific Activities Required, by type, if different Specific Problems Noted; Experience, by type, if different Consult Field Staff regarding disposal and recycling activities. Use questionnaire Consult Field Staff. Observe on-site. Use questionnaire. (1) Doherty s Waste Management Service bills will be in cubic yards (volume). Will make conversions to tonnage (weight) if possible -- since tipping fees for disposal are for tonnage. Use conversions from Metro Portland, and Metro Waste Authority, Des Moines. (2) The true cost will vary depending on types of material handling equipment and transport used (trucking, backhoe, other), material collection method (interim mobile collection, centralized and stationary collection, other), number and types of materials used, the degree of commingling or contamination that is allowed or occurs, the source separation methods used, and the requirements of the recycler or recycling facility. It also depends on the type of construction and other job characteristics, such as whether it includes any demolition or renovation, space constraints, security issues etc. A - 3

32 APPENDIX B - DATA CONVERSION EQUIVALENTS Type of Material lbs/cubic yd. tons/cubic yd. cubic yds/ton Mixed Waste Mixed Wood Landclearing Debris (loose brush) Lumber (loose dimensional) Drywall Rubble 1, Asphalt (milled,ripped) 1, Concrete 4, Metals Cardboard Sources: Metro Solid Waste Department, Portland, Oregon, 1994; Metro Waste Authority, Des Moines, Iowa, B - 1