Intel
Cafeteria and Construction Waste
Management
Ashley Maiorano
Chemical Engineering
Kaitlin McGillvray
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
 Goal
 Cafeteria Waste
–
–

Construction Waste
–
–

2
Data Analysis and Results
Recommendations
Data Analysis and Results
Recommendations
Recycling Market
Benefits
3

Reduces waste sent to the landfill

Increases recycling rate

Saves money

Preserves the environment
Problem Statement


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

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

Perform cafeteria waste analysis

Conduct composting experiment

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

Trashcans located in
inconvenient places

Waste is not being
segregated
Recommendation for Cafeteria
9

Use segregated
trashcans

Put in convenient
locations
In the Kitchen


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

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
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

Complications with Open Systems

Rate of Composting
Earth Tub




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

Open System

Inexpensive

Concerns
–
–
–
–
15
Odor
Pests
Irrigation Needed
Labor-Intensive
Image from google.com
Waste Production and Cost
Jan
March
April
CR1
9,800
6,800
10,000
28,000
CR2
8,400
20,200
21,600
12,600
CR3
0
0
0
0
22,800
21,000
23,400
26,400
0
0
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

Reduce Cafeteria Waste by 60 percent
–
–

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 $1,107 (per year) on disposal
weight alone
Cost For Disposal in the Month of May
Service
Rental Fee for
Compactor
Trips to the
compactor
Total Cost
(month)
Cost ($)
257
Quantity
1
Total Cost
257
48
8
384
$641
The annual cost is 641 x 12 = $7,692
18
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

Weight of Disposal: $1,107

Cost of Transportation: $2,304

Total Saved on Disposal Fees: $3,411
Methodology Part 2
21

Agencies and companies researched

Determine Intel’s construction waste
management practices

Create industry “best practices” model

Make recommendations based on model
Agencies and Companies







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






2004 EPA WasteWise 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

Winner of the Green Apple Award,
2001-2004

Winner of the Linconshire Environmental
Award, 2001 & 2003
Co-Mingled vs. Source Segregated
Recycling

Co-Mingled
–
–
–

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

Design to prevent waste
–

Establish the project specific waste
management plan
–
–

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

Use tight estimating
Accurate Quantities + Over Order= Building+ Waste

Choose materials with minimal to no packaging

Ask for supplier coordination
–
–
–
–
28
Buy back
Take back
Returnable Pallets
Delivery Schedule
Site Arrangements


Identify sources of waste
Place dumpsters
strategically
–
–
–



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 Bin
Date
Size


30
Waste
Type
Pick Up Total
%
Date
Tonnage Recycled
Taken
Away
Track monthly
Analyze cumulatively
Comments
Material Efficiency Indicator



Establish waste checks
Analyze data
Compare to other projects
–

31
Average new construction yields 3.9 lbs of waste
per square foot (Consigli Construction)
Use as a guideline for future projects
Servicios Ecológicos



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

Minimal Market

Minimal Technology

Space Constraints
Researching a Regional Recycling
Market

Contacted CNP+L for a regional recycling market
–

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

Researched recycling companies in the
United States to provide a market for Costa
Rica
–

35
RecyclingMarket.Net
Compiled a spreadsheet with companies,
what they are able to recycle, and their
contact information
Benefits of an Expanded Recycling
Market
36

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
Educating Employees



37
Make recycling program mandatory for all
employees
Make recycling program mandatory for all
subcontracted employees
Include a section on segregation
Acknowledgements







38
Anibal Alterno
Mario Barquero
Francisco Cespedes
Shane Cheatham
Luis Chinchilla
Erika Diaz
Marco Esquival






Christian Garbanzo
Arthur Gerstenfeld
Randy Helgeson
Pedro Zolano
Susan VernonGerstenfeld
Doctor Verde Staff
Questions???
39