Stephen Chesko Construction Management The Stuckeman Family Building for The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture April 9th, 2005

V. Analysis II – L.E.E.D. Recycling/Waste Management Introduction In 1996 the United States produced 136 million tons of building-related construction and demolition debris.1 With this number increasing steadily yearafter-year, a solution would need to be introduced. The solution came when The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (L.E.E.D.) system established guidelines to divert waste from going to the landfill by means of recycling or reuse. By following these guidelines and establishing a waste management program, the amount of waste from construction sites is greatly reduced.

Environmental benefits also result from recycling and waste prevention programs. In the long run, preventing waste reduces dependence on natural resources such as trees, oil, and minerals plus creates less pollution by reducing manufacturing and transportation related emissions. Reduction of the energy and water required to produce building supplies from virgin materials contributes to reduced greenhouse gasses related to the manufacturing and transportation of those materials.2

The recycling programs provide great benefit to the environment and the building; however, the recycling program does have affects on other aspects of the construction. Problem Statement In an effort to combat the ever increasing amounts of construction materials heading to landfills, the Green Building Council has developed a series of guidelines for waste management and recycling. Although it is undeniable that these guidelines significantly decrease the amount of construction materials going to landfill, the waste management programs can have noticeable affects on all other aspects of the construction project depending on the recycling culture of the projects area. The Stuckeman Family Building has exceed expectations on levels - Page 55 -

Stephen Chesko Construction Management The Stuckeman Family Building for The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture April 9th, 2005

of diverting waste from the landfill, (the waste diversion has remained around 90% for the duration of the project) but experiences affects in cost and schedule because of recycling costs, availability, and proximity. Projects in “recyclingfriendly” areas such as the west coast, and Seattle specifically, avoid these affects with little effort because of the established recycling cultures in these areas. By studying the differences between regions that are “recycling-friendly” and regions that are not, we can determine the causes and, in turn, develop solutions for minimizing the affects. Means of Data Collection To compare the three cities in terms of development of their recycling and waste management cultures, statistics were compared from three case studies. Each case study focused on a project of similar nature in each of the three cities. Information regarding waste management and recycling costs was collected independently from the respective projects to obtain less biased results. Figures provided directly from the project could reflect negotiated costs. Background of State College, PA While national construction rates have wavered through recent years, construction rates in State College have remained strong with the university ever expanding and developing. The Stuckeman Family Building for The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture will be the first L.E.E.D. Certified building for State College, PA and also for Centre County. While construction has remained steady, State College remains a non-recycling friendly area. Local trades and companies are not accustomed to the recycling process and require extra monitoring to ensure the program is carried out as designed. The lack of recycling centers and low landfill tipping fees have kept the area in the current state of recycling, or the lack there of, for some time now.

- Page 56 -

Stephen Chesko Construction Management The Stuckeman Family Building for The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture April 9th, 2005

Background of Cleveland, OH Like the Stuckeman Family Building, the North Village Residence Halls project will be the first L.E.E.D. Certified project for Cleveland, OH and also for Cuyahoga County. The state of Ohio has recently caught on to the sustainable building trend and has increased laws and regulations guiding waste management on construction sites. Recently, the Cleveland Green Build Council, along with Mayor Jane Campbell has created an initiative to build Green in the city of Cleveland. Unlike State College, recycling companies and centers are abundant; however, extremely low landfill tipping fees at landfills remain a driving force for local contractors to ignore the recycling initiative. Background of Seattle, WA Seattle has long been a city focused on sustainable living, and therefore, sustainable buildings and green construction. Green and high-performance buildings have been common practice in Seattle well before the initiation of the L.E.E.D. standards. New buildings are still being designed and constructed as high-performance and green buildings, yet do not register nor apply for L.E.E.D. certification. Many times these buildings meet or exceed the L.E.E.D. criteria but do not feel it necessary to be certified. The Morken Center for Learning and Technology at the Pacific Lutheran University served as a case study for surveys and data from this area.

- Page 57 -

Stephen Chesko Construction Management The Stuckeman Family Building for The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture April 9th, 2005

L.E.E.D. Projects

120

110

103

100 80 Number of Projects

60

45

40 19

16

20

2

0 WA

OH

Registered Projects

PA Certified Projects

* Data from U.S. Green Build Council 13

Results Initial L.E.E.D. Decision The first step in the long process of initiating a L.E.E.D. rated waste management and recycling program is the preliminary decision of whether or not to pursue the Construction Waste Management MR Credit 2.1 and MR Credit 2.2 in the first place. The first detail to become prevalent was the relation between the geographical location of the project and the decision whether or not to pursue the L.E.E.D. waste management/recycling credit. John Boecker of L. Robert Kimball and Associates was able to provide an interesting perspective to this topic having completed two L.E.E.D. registered projects in Pennsylvania, and having another L.E.E.D. registered project in the preliminary phases at The Pennsylvania State University (Rec Hall). The two projects previously completed provided a perfect example of the relationship between geographical location and the waste management/recycling credit pursuit. The first project, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s Cambria Office located in Ebensburg, PA, was determined not to pursue the waste management credit prior to - Page 58 -

Stephen Chesko Construction Management The Stuckeman Family Building for The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture April 9th, 2005

commencement of construction; whereas, the second project, the Clearview Elementary School located in Hanover, PA, opted to pursue the credit and did so successfully. According to Mr. Boecker, the decision not to pursue the waste management credit on the DEP Cambria Office project was directly linked to the availability of recycling companies in that area and the contractors’ non-existent experience with the L.E.E.D. system. The Clearview Elementary project, on the other hand, was decided to pursue the credit since recycling companies were readily available with the projects proximity to Philadelphia. Public Perception The largest common difference between the regions became evident immediately in talking with representatives from the contracting companies in charge of managing the waste management/recycling programs. All of the persons from Seattle interviewed or surveyed assumed the public attitudes expressed in their area were consistent throughout the country; however, the population of Seattle and Washington as a whole, are overwhelmingly environmentally-minded compared to the rest of the country. This pre-disposition to environmental actions and thinking is the foundation in which the recycling and waste management problems were built from and is the sole reason the programs achieve the rate of success that they do. The public attitude toward the protection of the environment transcends into three specific groups that greatly affect the waste management/recycling cultures between the three specified areas: ¾ Workforce Attitudes All of the contractors from Seattle were consistent in their responses that they spend no time at all in their daily routine enforcing proper recycling. Each contractor insisted that this was not necessary since the workers were sensitive to the recycling efforts. They commonly stressed the fact that worker’s expressed the attitude to commit to recycling without educating, enforcement, - Page 59 -

Stephen Chesko Construction Management The Stuckeman Family Building for The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture April 9th, 2005

or training. This attitude; however, is not displayed in the nonrecycling friendly regions and can be held accountable as the cause for increases in schedule and cost (which will be discussed in the later part of this analysis) and decreases in the overall percentage of recycled waste materials. Rudy Rojka of the Case Western North Residence Village project expressed that the most difficult obstacle in waste management program was creating an awareness among the workers of the requirements of the program. ¾ Owner Attitudes As stated above, hundreds of projects in Seattle were designed and built Green well before the initiation of the L.E.E.D. certification process. Many projects are still being completed to the highest Green and Sustainable standards and do not even register with the L.E.E.D. protocol. This can be attributed to the Owner’s desire to produce environmentally-friendly buildings. Owners in Seattle often mandate that their projects maintain a level of recycled waste materials usually well above 75%. ¾ Government Regulation Another major difference between the cultures in the selected areas is the influence of local and state governments. The State of Washington has one of the strictest policies of all of the states regarding recycling and waste disposal; however, this does not even compare to the local governmental standards on recycling. Rick Whitworth of Howard S. Wright Construction attested to the fact that because of local municipality guidelines, the recycling programs on construction projects in the greater Seattle area

- Page 60 -

Stephen Chesko Construction Management The Stuckeman Family Building for The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture April 9th, 2005

exceed L.E.E.D. recycling standards, even when they are not applying for L.E.E.D. certification. He further added that the City of Seattle has recently made recycling for residential costumers mandatory and are required to pay extra fees if they do not properly sort their materials. The City of Cleveland, with the help of the Cleveland Green Build Coalition, has recently started an initiative to encourage recycling efforts on local construction projects. State College has displayed no such effort to increase recycling efforts on construction sites. The three abovementioned groups each separately play a significant role in the success of waste management and recycling plans on construction sites. Additionally, each group significantly affects the attitudes and success of the other two, so no one group can excluded. If owners do not stress the importance of the recycling program, workers will not put forth the effort to make it succeed. Similarly, if workers and the public do not embrace recycling and become environmentally-minded, then government regulations will remain non-existent and government officials will continue to ignore the need for attention to be given to waste management guidelines in construction.

- Page 61 -

Stephen Chesko Construction Management The Stuckeman Family Building for The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture April 9th, 2005

Co-mingling vs. Source Separated The difference between the less advanced recycling cultures of State College and Cleveland, and the well developed recycling culture of Seattle, that displays the greatest effects, is the presence of co-mingling. Co-mingling and source separated approaches are defined by the State of Washington Department of General Administration4 as: CO-MINGLED recycling service allows contractors to put select recyclables such as wood, cardboard, and metals in one container that may result in less container space. The recycling company takes the materials to a MRF where the materials are separated for recycling. Co-mingled recycling is cheaper than garbage disposal but more expensive than source-separated recycling. It may be difficult to receive accurate recycling and disposal figures from this method due to the varied condition of the materials to be recycled and the current recycle markets. SOURCE SEPARATED recycling service involves collecting recyclables in separate containers as they are generated. The recycling hauler takes the materials directly to a recycler or a transfer site. This method requires more individualized containers but makes accounting of materials easier and safeguards material quality. Items such as concrete, drywall, carpet, film plastic, and ceiling tiles may need to be source separated for recycling.

The ability to support a co-mingling approach has drastic affects on three specific aspects of a project; cost, schedule, and site usage.

- Page 62 -

Stephen Chesko Construction Management The Stuckeman Family Building for The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture April 9th, 2005

¾ Cost: The primary benefit to the co-mingled approach is the cost benefits associated with this style of recycling. Since all of the waste materials are placed directly into one container, the need for multiple containers to sort the recyclable materials is therefore drastically cut. Furthermore, the actual tipping fees at the comingled sorting centers are typically competitive with those of a traditional separated materials recycling center. Recovery 1, Inc. of Tacoma, Washington is a fullservice co-mingled sorting facility that can process a ton of co-mingled construction waste for around $50.00, which is less than most recycling companies charge for a pre-sorted container. Any additional costs of the comingled approach is more than compensated for by the cost savings associated with the amount of time it would take to sort all of the materials into the proper recycling containers. ¾ Schedule: The time it takes to sort waste materials into proper recycling containers can add up over the course of the project to a sizeable delay in work. Ken Cass of Sellen Construction estimates that the source sorting of recyclable waste can consume 2 to 5 minutes per hour of a project. This range is roughly 3.3% to 8.3% of the time; and for a project of one year’s time, can be translated to a delay in work of nine days to nearly twenty-two days.

- Page 63 -

Stephen Chesko Construction Management The Stuckeman Family Building for The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture April 9th, 2005

¾ Site Usage: The most immediate and noticeable benefit to the comingled approach is the conservation of precious construction site land. Space is always of a premium on construction sites and can be easily overrun by multiple dumpsters. The co-mingled approach reduces the number of dumpsters on-site to a bare minimum of one. An additional five recycling containers on a construction site could consume as much as 1200 square feet of valuable lay-down area (based on a 40YD 20’x8’x7’-6” dumpster). The following site plans display the amount of site space that could be conserved on the Stuckeman Family Building site by implementing a co-mingled recycling plan.

Source Separated

- Page 64 -

Stephen Chesko Construction Management The Stuckeman Family Building for The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture April 9th, 2005

Co-Mingled

Recent opposition to co-mingling has risen, claiming that it does not achieve as high rates of recycling as does source separated; however, companies such as Recovery 1, Inc. have achieved recycling percentages nearing 95% yearly. Recycling Company Availability As mentioned with the preliminary decision to pursue the L.E.E.D. Waste Management/Recycling credit, the availability and proximity of recycling companies plays a large role in the success of waste management programs. The proximity or existence of, recycling centers can have influence on the cost, schedule, and recycling percentages. When considering pursuing the waste management credit in non-developed recycling areas, the first area of investigation is the identification and location of recycling centers in the proximity of the site. In Seattle, this step is usually withheld until after the - Page 65 -

Stephen Chesko Construction Management The Stuckeman Family Building for The School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture April 9th, 2005

contract has been awarded since recycling centers are abundant and all relatively competitive in cost. In areas such as State College, this process became a large venture of its own. Preliminary review of local recyclers determined that there were no companies in the immediate area that could handle a recycling venture of this type. The only location that recycled materials in the county was, in fact, the county waste authority; which also maintains the county’s landfill. In Cleveland, the initial analysis of local recyclers yielded that there were no companies equipped to recycle drywall in a feasible driving distance. Drywall was therefore not recycled on that particular project. Recycling company availability also is a driving force on recycling prices. The more recycling companies in a given area, the more competition exists to bring prices down. In areas such as State College, the only recycling center is owned and operated by the same entity as the landfill. Thus, the prices of recycling are controlled by the landfill owner; in essence, they then control the public’s desire to recycle. Seattle

Cleveland

State College

131

16

3

N/A

67

195

Number of Landfills - County

8

0*

1

Distance to Nearest Landfill