constrconstruction wasteuction waste recyrecycling ... · constrconstruction wasteuction waste...

1

B i n H a l f F u l l

C o n s t r u c t i o n W a s t eC o n s t r u c t i o n W a s t e

R e c y c l i n g S o l u t i o n sR e c y c l i n g S o l u t i o n s

F uF u l l co

ns

truc

tion

was

te re

cy

clin

g s

olu

tion

s

Master of Urban and Regiona l P lanning Port land State Univers i tyB

inH

a l fF u l l : C o n s t r u c t i o

nW

aste

RecyclingSolutio

ns

2

T a b l e o f C o n t e n t sC o n t e n t sC o n t e n t s

tab

le o

f co

nte

nts

Bin

H


nW

aste

RecyclingSolutio

ns

B in Hal f Fu l l : Construct ion Waste Recyc l ing So lut ionsBin Hal f Fu l l : Construct ion Waste Recyc l ing Solut ions - Master of Urban and Regiona l P lanning Port land State Univers i ty

55

66

44

11

2233

.......................P ro jec t Descr ip t ion and Methodo logy...page 3

.......................Conc lus ion...page 44

.......................Ana lys i s : Po l i cy; Case Stud ies ...page 11

.......................Ex is t ing Cond i t ions...page 5

.......................About B in Ha l f Fu l l ...page 46

.......................F ind ings and Recommendat ions . . .29

A: Best Management Prac t i cesB: Non-Recyc l ing Waste Reduct ionC: Pre-Const ruc t ion Form Rev is ionD: Genera l In terv iew Informat ionE: L i s t o f Loca l Secondary SourcesF: Def in t ionsG: Hogfue l In format ion

77 .......................Append ices

3

P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n a n d M e t h o d o l o g yD e s c r p t o nD e s c r i p t i o n

pro

jec

t de

sc

riptio

n a

nd

me

tho

do

log

y

Bin

H


nW

aste

RecyclingSolution

s


Project DesProject Descriptioncription

According to the City of Portland’sOffice of Sustainable Development(OSD), construction, remodeling,and demolition (CR&D) wastecomprises 20 percent of the City’swaste stream. Additionally, percapita waste generation in thissector is increasing faster than inthe residential or commercial sectors.However, the current amountof CR&D waste that is landfilledcan be reduced: 90 percent of thewaste from a typical project canbe diverted from landfill disposal.

Although OSD currently requires that50 percent of CR&D waste from everyproject is recycled, the City estimatesthat contractors recycle slightly lessthan this. OSD’s Portland Recycles! Plan(PRP) mandates that CR&D waste thatcontractors recycle or salvage and re-use increase to 75 percent of the totalweight of a project’s waste by 2015.

This document synthesizes the find-ings of Project Team Bin Half Full (BHF)and provides recommendations to helpgeneral contractors meet OSD’s newmandate. Additional recommendationsfor haulers, facilities, policy makers andthe recycling process are also provided.

MethodologyMethodology

Existing ConditionsTo formulate these recommendations, BHFidentified existing conditions in Portland’sCR&D waste management system throughinterviews with the players in that system,including construction managers, haulers,facility representatives, and policy makers. Wedocument the existing conditions as diagramsof the four possible pathways that waste canfollow from the construction site to the landfillor secondary source. The pathways providea backdrop for understanding where in thesystem barriers to recycling occur and wherethe barriers should be addressed as recom-mendations.

Policy Analysis

BHF analyzed relevant State, regional, andlocal policies through document review, onlineresearch, and interviews. The policies createthe context in which the existing conditionsexist. The analysis examines that context,identifying ways in which policy significantlyaffects the existing conditions. This informedour recommendations for policy makers inmaking PRP’s mandate easier to meet, and forcontractors, haulers, and facilities in meetingthe mandate.

4P r o j e c t D e s c r i p t i o n a n d M e t h o d o l o g yD e s c r p t o nD e s c r i p t i o n

pro

jec

t de

sc

riptio

n a

nd

me

tho

do

lgy

Bin Hal f Fu l l : Construct ion Waste Recyc l ing So lut ionsBin Hal f Fu l l : Construct ion Waste Recyc l ing Solut ions - Master of Urban and Regiona l P lanning Port land State Univers i ty

Case Studies

BHF then performed case studiesanalyzing the waste managementpractices of six different constructionor remodeling projects through in-terviews with construction managersand occasionally the hauler and facil-ity associated with the given project.The case studies illustrate barriersto and achievements in recycling onindividual projects and pathways used,informing our recommendations.

To ensure that we studied a repre-sentative sampling of cases, we cat-egorized projects by characteristicssuch as LEED status and cost (pleasesee the table on this page). We keptcompany names associated with thecase studies confidential; BHF andOSD agreed that if the agency wouldlike additional information the teamwill first contact the companies in-volved and secure their approval be-fore revealing their names and contactinformation.

Findings and Recommendations

From these previous steps, BHFestablished findings resulting from:research and interviews documentedin the policy analysis and case stud-ies; additional interviews summa-rized in Appendix D; data analysisof Metro’s 2006 Building ContractorSurvey; evaluation of OSD’s RecyclingPlan Form; and review of other cities’best management practices (BMPs)for achieving high recycling rates forCR&D waste summarized in AppendixA.

Our findings summarize the barriersand benefits that each player in theCR&D waste management systemfaces in each of the four pathways;and identify the two pathways meet-ing the single criterion

in that they allow contractors to meet PRP’smandate to recycle 75 percent of their CR&Dwaste.

We then formulated recommendations thatutilize one or both of the chosen pathways.We categorized the identified barriers by type,such as space or cost barriers; and listed rec-ommendations for each player for overcomingeach type of barrier in a matrix and associ-ated text.

Several recommendations are detailed fur-ther in the Appendices. BHF drafted a newRecycling Plan Form (Appendix C); explainednon-recycling waste reduction strategies suchas Advanced Framing techniques (AppendixB); and summarized other cities’ BMPs (Ap-pendix A).

Building UseBuilding Use Construction TypeConstruction Type CostCost LEED StatusLEED Status LocationLocation

Rec. Facility Redevelopment $50mil Platinum Downtown

University Dept Renovation $16.8mil Gold North Portland

Restaurant Tenant Improve $3.5mil None Southwest Portland

Affordable Housing Development $4mil Gold Southeast Portland

Residential Remodel $.08mil None Northeast Portland

Mixed-Use Brownfield $150mil Gold Southwest Portland

5E x i s t i n g C o n d i t i o n sC o n d t o n sC o n d i t i o n s

exis

ting

co

nd

ition

s


IntroductionIntroduction

The existing conditions in Portland’s CR&D waste management system are depicted in the follow-ing diagrams. The conditions are organized into four pathways through which CR&D waste travelsfrom the project site to its destination at a landfill or secondary source for recycled materials. Thesepathways are a Commingled Pathway, a Commingled and Source Separated Pathway, a Trash OnlyPathway, and a Source Separated Pathway.

Later in this document, barriers and benefits will be associated with each pathway. Placing these bar-riers to recycling in time and space within the linear waste management system is vital in translatingand understanding a complicated and multi-faceted problem into practical recommendations.

6E x i s t i n g C o n d i t i o n s : C o m m i n g l e d P a t h w a yC o m m i n g l e d P a t h w a yC o n d t o n sC o n d i t i o n s ::

exis

ting

co

nd

ition

s: c

om

min

gle

d p

ath

way


The Commingled Pathway provides one bin for all recyclable materials and one bin for trash. Trash is sent to a material recovery factil-ity (MRF) or straight to a landfill, while the commingled bin is sent to a MRF or Recycling Center, or both. From these facilities, market-able materials are sent to secondary sources and all else is sent to the landfill.

7E x i s t i n g C o n d i t i o n s : C o m m i n g l e d a n d S o u r c e S e pC o m m i n g l e d a n d S o u r c e S e p .C o n d t o n sC o n d i t i o n s ::

exis

ting

co

nd

ition

s: c

om

min

gle

d a

nd

so

urc

e s

ep

.Bin Hal f Fu l l : Construct ion Waste Recyc l ing So lut ionsBin Hal f Fu l l : Construct ion Waste Recyc l ing Solut ions - Master of Urban and Regiona l P lanning Port land State Univers i ty

The Commingled and Source Separated Pathway provides bins for some source separated items - usually the marketable materials suchas metal, concrete, and wood - while the rest is commingled. Trash has its own bin, which is sent to a MRF or directly to a landfill. Thecommingled items are sent to a MRF or a Recycling Center or both, and the source separated items are sent to a Recycling Center orstraight to a secondary source.

8E x i s t i n g C o n d i t i o n s : T r a s h O n l y P a t hT r a s h O n l y P a t h w a yw a yC o n d t o n sC o n d i t i o n s ::

exis

ting

co

nd

ition

s: tra

sh

on

ly p

ath

way


The Trash Only Pathway combines all trash and recyclables into one bin (this is considered a “mixed load”). This bin is takento a MRF and its contents separated out and sent to Recycling Centers, secondary sources and landfills; or, the bin is takendirectly to a landfill.

9E x i s t i n g C o n d i t i o n s : S o u r c e S e p a r a t e d P a t h w a yS o u r c e S e p a r a t e d P a t h w a yC o n d i t i o n s

exis

ting

co

nd

ition

s: s

ourc

e s

ep

ara

ted

path

way


The Source Separated Pathway provides separate bins for each recyclable material, and an additional bin for trash. The trash istaken to a MRF or directly to a landfill, while the source separated items are taken to Recycling Centers or secondary sources.

10E x i s t i n g C o n d i t i o n sC o n d t o n sC o n d i t i o n s

exis

ting

co

nd

ition

s


ConclusionConclusion

These four pathways will be referenced thoughout this document as they interact with State, regional and local policies inour policy analysis and as they are represented in our case study projects. The findings section of this document includesa summary of the barriers and benefits to each of these pathways as unveiled in our research, documented from the per-spective of contractors, haulers, MRFs and recycling centers, and policy makers.

11A n a l y s iA n a l y s i ss : C u r r e n t P o l i c y R e v i e wC u r r e n t P oC u r r e n t P o

an

aly

sis

: curre

nt p

olic

y re

vie

w


Policy Analysis IntroductionPolicy Analysis Introduction

BHF’s analysis of relevant policiesidentified four significant ways inwhich these policies significantly af-fect Portland’s CR&D waste manage-ment system: (1) the DepartmentEnvironmental Quality (DEQ) has animportant role in data collection andmanagement of municipal recyclingplans; (2) Metro’s recycling policiesand the City of Portland’s recyclinggoals are irreconcilable; (3) haul-ers ignore the laws and policies thatregulate them; and (4) OSD doesnot use their granted authority.

DEQ’s RoleDEQ’s Role

Oregon Senate Bill 66 passed in1991 with the express purpose ofexpanding recycling programs at themunicipal level, exploring marketsfor additional recycled materials, andcreating a State solid waste manage-ment plan through DEQ, which moni-tors compliance with State, Federal,and local laws as they pertain tosolid waste.

The Oregon Revised Statute (ORS)459 and House Bill 3456 further clari-fied DEQ’s role in solid waste man-agement by allowing DEQ to enforcesolid waste statutes and regionalrecovery goals, and to give approvalof local waste reduction plans. DEQalso issues grants to local govern-ments to encourage recycling, reuse,and waste reduction through localwaste management programs, as wellas administers tax credits to privatecompanies for material and/or facil-ity upgrades that will help to offsetsolid waste in Oregon. Through theseincentives, DEQ supports local juris-dictions in their recycling efforts.

Oregon Senate Bill 66 requires thatDEQ conduct an annual materialrecovery survey and a waste compo-sition survey, which track the quanti-ties and types of waste recovered persector.

DEQ reports that one of the primary prob-lems in calculating the material recoveryrate is that the material processors rou-tinely provide different recovery rates thanthe recycler (end user) reports receiving.In the case of a discrepancy, DEQ gener-ally uses the recycler’s data rather thanthe processor’s data. This discrepancy maysuggest that recyclers are over-estimatingthe amount of recovered material, skewingthe recovery rates throughout the entireCR&D waste management system.

Nonetheless, various localities use much ofthe data obtained by DEQ to better under-stand and target specific components oftheir waste stream.

12A n a l y s iA n a l y s i ss : C u r r e n t P o l i c y R e v i e wC u r r e n t P oC u r r e n t P o

an

aly

sis

: curre

nt p

olic

y re

vie

w


TThe City of Portland & Metro

Portland’s RoleIn June 2006, prompted by data from DEQ’swaste composition study indicating that atleast 90 percent of Oregon’s wastestream isrecyclable, Portland’s City Council directedOSD to develop a solid waste managementplan. Goals of the resulting Portland Recy-cles! Plan (PRP) include reducing per capitawaste generation to levels below 2005 by2015, meeting a new recovery goal of 75percent by the year 2015, and promotingthe highest value use of recovered materials.DEQ data also lead to the conclusion that 20percent of the wastestream is comprised ofCR&D waste. As a result, a portion of PRP fo-cuses on CR&D waste. Recommendations forthe CR&D sector are to increase mandatoryCR&D recycling to 75 percent, provide ad-ditional educational and technical assistance,improve verification of compliance, promotesalvage, reuse and recycled content prod-ucts in projects, and to “develop new haulerrequirements and strengthen the regulatoryapproval process” by requiring that haulersprovide “equipment and services to allowtheir customers to reach the 75 percent re-cycling goal.”

All of PRP’s recommendations for theCR&D sector focus on how construc-tion companies and haulers can help toincrease the recycling rate. The PRP doesnot have any regulatory control overMRFs or other end users.

Metro’s RoleOregon Senate Bill 66 mandated that theState recover 50 percent of post-con-sumer waste by the year 2000. However,the State did not meet the mandate,and in 2001 the State Senate passedORS 459A, extending the goal’s deadlineto the year 2009 with an interim staterecovery goal of 45 percent by the year2005. The Statute also set target recov-ery rates for individual wastesheds andspecified that the Portland Metropolitanwasteshed recover 64 percent of itstotal waste by 2009. As such Metro isrequired to meet a 64 percent recoverygoal, while PRP requires that Portlandmeet a 75 percent recovery goal.

In order to help achieve a recovery rateof 64 percent, Metro originally createdthe Regional Solid Waste ManagementPlan (RSWMP) that targeted construction

and demolition (C&D) waste by encour-aging salvage and reuse, developingeffective C&D recovery programs, andsupporting markets for recyclables.Through a variety of programs involvingeducational outreach, waste preven-tion, online services, and facility regu-lation, Metro has successfully usheredthe region into a 53 percent recoveryrate. However, based on current recov-ery trends, RSWMP will not meet the64 percent recovery rate, primarily dueto unrecovered materials remaining inthe commercial, organics, business, andC&D waste streams.

In 2007, Metro created the EnhancedDry Waste Recycling Plan (EDWRP) tohelp meet the regional recycling goalby 2009. Specifically targeting the C&Dcommunities’ impact on waste, EDWRPrequires that every mixed dry wasteload, trash load, and commingled loadbe processed at a MRF before it reachesa landfill. Materials targeted for re-covery are those with existing reliablemarkets, including wood, yard debris,metal, plastics, cardboard and paper.

13A n a l y s i sA n a l y s i s : C u r r e n t P o l i c y R e v i e wC u r r e n t P oC u r r e n t P o

an

aly

sis

: curre

nt p

olic

y re

vie

w


Beginning in January of 2009, EDWRP willchange the way recovery is measured,which may increase the facilities’ recov-ery rates. Previously, loads entering MRFswere subject to a 25 percent minimumrecovery rate, which was measured at the“front end” of the recovery process, whichmeans that MRFs were required to retrieve25 percent of the incoming load for recy-cling. This became problematic if recycla-bles comprised less than 25 percent of theoriginal load. Loads that came in withouta lot of recyclables would not allow therecovery facility to meet Metro’s goal. Thisled to facilities rejecting these loads andforcing haulers to go elsewhere. Under ED-WRP, designated recyclables can compriseno more than 15 percent of the residualof landfill-destined load. This new methodof measuring will eliminate the facilities’concerns with loads that do not contain alot of recyclables. Under this measuringscheme, small pieces of recyclable materialdo not have be recycled as they are notcounted against the facility in estimatingits 15 percent residual.

Comparing PRP and EDWRP

Metro’s EDWRP and OSD’s PRP target theC&D wastestream at different points intime and space. OSD targets the waste-stream onsite, at the beginning of theC&D process, and when the waste is inroute to the landfill or to be recycled.Metro targets the wastestream towardsthe end of the process once the recycla-bles or trash have been received by thelandfill or MRF.

However, neither policy guarantees thatcontractors will meet the City of Port-land’s new 75 percent mandate. Evenwhen a contractor attempts to complywith Portland’s recycling mandate, oncethe waste leaves the site, it is out of thecontractor’s control. Contractors rely onhaulers to get their waste loads to thecorrect location and haulers rely on MRFsto separate out recyclables from trash inan efficient and cost-saving manner. Theprocess of CR&D waste management isone system that is regulated by two poli-cies and two agencies’ mandates. Whencontractors are unable to source sepa-rate their materials, they rely solely onMRFs to meet PRP’s mandates: but MRFsare not bound by PRP’s mandate.

Further complicating the picture isEDWRP’s technique for measuringrecovering rates and the relianceon self-reporting from all sectionsof the process. According to severalinterviews with MRFs, componentsof residual CR&D debris are quanti-fied through visual assessments ofindividual loads. Without accuratemeasures assessing the currentstate of the CR&D recycling system,future compliance with new man-dates is difficult.

Hauler RegulationsRegulations

Along with increasing recycling rategoals throughout the state, ORS459A made it illegal for waste haul-ers to charge more to haul recycledmaterials than to haul landfill-destined materials. ORS 459A alsorequires haulers to provide recycling“options” to customers in any mu-nicipality with a population of 4000or more.

14A n a l y s i sA n a l y s i s : C u r r e n t P o l i c y R e v i e wC u r r e n t P oC u r r e n t P o

an

aly

sis

: curre

nt p

olic

y re

vie

w


This mandate to haulers was further en-forced through Portland’s City Code (Chapter17) which requires that any hauler dispos-ing of recyclables may charge less, but notmore, for the removal of source separatedmaterials. Chapter 17 of the Portland CityCode also requires OSD to collect com-mercial solid waste collection permits andgives the Director of OSD the authority toimpose fines of up to $1500 per incident toany hauler that is in violation of commercialpermit regulations.

Portland Administrative Rules for Com-mercial Solid Waste, Recycling, and Com-postables also place restrictions on haulersby requiring them to keep an accurate andup-to-date record regarding the disposal,recycling, and origin of any load ten cubicyards or larger and submit quarterly reportsof their waste to OSD (Rule 4.4 D1). TheRules also reiterates ORS 459A, requiringcontractors to offer recycling to all custom-ers and provide customers with basic recy-cling information.

A contractor must submit the Portland Re-cycles Plan Form (the same form contrac-tors must submit to OSD) to a city-permit-ted hauler so that the hauler can meet therecycling needs of the customer, as haulersare mandated to do under ORS 459.A070and City Code Chapter 17.102.

According to the interviews conducted dur-ing this analysis, not all haulers are pro-viding adequate recycling options for theirclients. This is due to the unique pricingstructure of the CR&D hauling industry,which differs substantially from the pricingstructure offered to residences and busi-nesses with regular weekly service. Ad-ditionally, the clients are not providing thehauler with their Recycling Plan Forms.

Although Portland’s Administrative Rulesexplain that the failure of businesses orhaulers to implement Portland’s commer-cial recycling requirements is considered aninfraction punishable by up to $500 for thefirst incident (Rule 4.5 B9), this is rarelyenforced.

OSDOSD’’s Unused Authoritys Unused Authority

Through several policies that pertainto solid waste management, OSD hasthe authority to fine and to regulate.As mentioned above, Chapter 17 ofPortland’s City Code and Portland’sAdministrative Rules provide theDirector of OSD with the ability toenforce regulations that are placedon the CR&D wastestream. However,interviews from OSD, constructioncompanies, and haulers revealed thatthese regulations are not enforced.

City Code also gives the Director ofOSD the authority to adopt adminis-trative rules regarding the collectionof solid waste and recycling in theCity of Portland urban services area.However, if these rules are not en-forced they may not be followed. Ininterviews, construction and facilitymanagers consistently suggestedenforcement as the best way for theindustry meet PRP’s 75 percent recy-cling mandate.

15

AA n a l y s i sn a l y s i s : C u r r e n t P o l i c y R e v i e wC u r r e n t P oC u r r e n t P o

an

aly

sis

: curre

nt p

olic

yre

vie

w


Portland’s Administrative Rules give Portlandthe ability to regulate contractors and forcethem comply with mandates. One way thatPortland has done this is through the Port-land Recycles Form. However, it became evi-dent in interviews that not only is this formrarely filled out, it does not provide muchinformation and is rarely looked at by OSD.

Policy AnaPolicy Analysis Conlysis Conclusionclusion

The policy analysis shows that there areways in which policy helps recycling effortsand ways in which policies can work againsteach other. Policies are in place which sup-port DEQ’s goal to help local jurisdictionsrecycle, direct haulers as to how to assistconstruction companies in meeting recyclingmandates, and authorize OSD to enforcepolicies that encourage recycling.

However, OSD’s lack of enforcement andhaulers’ inability to provide the types ofrecycling support that construction compa-nies need have proven to be weak links inachieving higher recycling goals in the Cityof Portland. Construction companies rely onothers to achieve PRP’s mandate who are notheld to the same standards.

Further, Portland’s recycling plan and Met-ro’s recycling plan are at odds with oneanother and do not support each other inreaching a united goal. Without the abil-ity for Portland to hold MRFs to the same75 percent recovery goal, the likelihood ofthese facilities recovering this amount ofrecyclables is low.

16A n a l y s i sA n a l y s i s : C a s e S t u d i e sC a s e S t u dC a s e S t u d

an

aly

sis

: cas

e s

tud

ies


CCase Stuase Studies Introductiondies Introduction

Case Studies were employed to examine how construction companies exceed, meet, or fail to meetOSD’s goals and mandates. Projects were first selected by identifying a variety of characteristicssuch as cost, LEED status, and location in order to ensure a representative sample of Portland’sCR&D industry. In each project chosen for a case study, vital statistics are identified that make theproject unique. Each case study also identifies which pathway was used for the specific project asdescribed in Existing Conditions, and, finally, barriers to each of the case studies are identified, withthe barriers specifically called out for easy reference.

These case studies provide an understanding of the conditions that construction companies face inPortland today, with a description of each project, the company’s waste management plan, and recy-cling challenges and solutions each project faced.

17A n a l y s i s : R e c r e a t i o n a l R e d e v e l o p m e n t C a s e S t u d y: R e c r e a t o: R e c r e a t i o

an

aly

sis

: rec

reatio

nal re

de

ve

lop

me

nt c

as

e s

tud

yBin Hal f Fu l l : Construct ion Waste Recyc l ing So lut ionsBin Hal f Fu l l : Construct ion Waste Recyc l ing Solut ions - Master of Urban and Regiona l P lanning Port land State Univers i ty

Recreational FacilityRedevelopment Case StudyRedevelopment Case Study

Description: Currently under construction,this 4-story new recreational facilityincludes amenities such as basketballcourts, changing facilities, swimming pool,and workout equipment. This project iscurrently pursuing LEED Platinum withaspirations of recycling 95 percent of itsconstruction waste.

Company Waste Management Plan: Theconstruction company contracted for thisproject is known as a leader in construc-tion sustainability. The company hired anEnvironmental Manager who developedmethodologies for high recycling ratesand tours each project site periodically tocheck on compliance. Prior to contractingwith a dry waste recovery facility, thecompany will tour the facility and will con-tinue to tour the contracted facility oncea year in order to ensure high recyclingrates are achieved. Over the last sevenyears the company has saved over a mil-lion dollars world-wide due to construction

waste recycling. The company set the goalof an average 90 percent recycling rate forall of its projects, measured by weight.Currently, it is recycling at an average 75percent world-wide. The company tracksdemolition and construction waste both aspart of the LEED requirement and as partof the company’s policy.

PATHWAY:Source Separation andCommingled

BARRIERS:Lack of secondarysources

Subcontractors tendto bring 10% morematerial on site thanneeded

18A n a l y s i sA n a l y s i s : R e c r e a t i o n a l R e d e v e l o p m e n t C a s e S t u d yR e d e v e l o p m e n t C a s e S t u d yR e c r e a t oR e c r e a t i o

an

aly

sis

: rec

reatio

nal re

de

ve

lop

me

nt c

as

e s

tud


Recycling Challenges and Solutions: Withnearby vacant space, this project is sourceseparating metal, wood, concrete, plastic,cardboard, and paper. The remainder isthrown into a commingled dumpster andtaken to a MRF. The company expectsrecycling rates on this redevelopment siteto be high, as demolition waste is 95-99percent recyclable. The construction com-pany did not believe it could achieve 95percent recycling rates had it not been forthe inclusion of demolition.

This early in the project, the constructioncompany has not yet faced many chal-lenges. It anticipates difficulty recyclingdrywall and Styrofoam, which are usedin large quantities on construction sitesand are extremely hard to recycle in thePortland area. According to the company,there are only one or two places to recyclethese materials; the company has foundthat the materials may not actually be re-cycled at these locations, which increasescost for additional movement of the ma-terial. A possible remedy to this problemwould be to more closely monitor second-ary sources.

For this project, as with most projects,the company’s representative noted thateach subcontractor brings approximately10 percent more material onto the sitethan they actually need. This allows sub-contractors to waste materials, creatingadditional unused material such as smallerpieces of wood. Currently, these materi-als are put into the dumpster and left tobe recycled or thrown into a landfill. Thecompany representative believes that inorder to reduce total waste, there shouldbe some regulations for subcontractors.

VITAL STATISTICS

Type: RecreationalFacility Redevelopment

Size: 130,000 sq ft

Cost: $50 Million

CR&D Waste Target:95%

LEED Status: PursuingPlatinum

19A n a l y s i s : U n i v e r s i t y D e p t . R e n o v a t i o n C a s e S t u d y: U n v e r s t y: U n i v e r s i t y

an

aly

sis

: un

ive

rsity

de

pt.

ren

ovatio

n c

as

e s

tud


University Renovation Case StudyUniversity Renovation Case Study

Description: This University is renovat-ing its engineering building and will add40,000 square feet to make it the largestbuilding on campus. Renovations includenew laboratories, larger classrooms, andupgraded water and electrical infrastruc-ture. This project began in January andCR&D waste data is available for only thefirst month at this time.

Company Waste Management Plan: Theconstruction company assigns a specialistto every project to develop an extensiveconstruction waste management plan andto track monthly progress toward con-struction waste reduction goals. The plantracks the type and amount (in tons) ofwaste material generated, which facil-ity the material is sent to, and how thecompany reused, recycled, or disposedof the material. Information is trackedthrough an online waste tracking system.Each month, the specialist calculates thepercentage of material diverted from thewastestream and submits these data tocompile a company-wide report.

The construction company also developeda field check-list of construction wastereduction practices for the specialists toreference that is designed to help projectsearn LEED certification. The constructioncompany aims to recycle 95 percent ofthe CR&D waste produced through reuseand recycling practices.

Recycling Challenges and Solutions: Dueto site size constrictions on campus, thereis not enough room to source separateonsite. Recyclable C&D waste is collectedin commingled drop-boxes. The construc-tion company has contracted with a haulerthat brings the commingled recyclablesto the nearest MRF. If the constructioncompany finds that the diversion ratefor commingled recycling is less than 50percent for any MRF, its policy is to sourceseparate at least some of the recyclablessuch as concrete and steel.

The MRF that receives this project’s wastereceives 150-170 loads of CR&D wasteper day and sorting each load takes up to1.5 hours (the MRF relies on a pick-sort-ing method). The driver who delivers thedrop-box to the MRF visually estimatesthe percentage of recycled and land-filledmaterial per drop box, a challenging task.The MRF claims to meet a 95 percent re-cycling rate.

PATHWAY:Commingled andSource Separated

BARRIERS:Site constrictions oncampus preventedsource separation

Cost - Hauling ratesfor commingled andsource separated ma-terials were identical

20A n a l y s i s : U n i v e r s i t y D e p t . R e n o v a t i o n C a s e S t u d y: U n v e r s t y: U n i v e r s i t y

an

aly

sis

: un

ive

rsity

de

pt.

ren

ovatio

n c

as

e s

tud

y

The hauling company provides receiptsto the contractor based on the recyclingrate of each load for its internal and LEEDrecord-keeping. The hauler would preferto use a more scientific method for esti-mating the percentage of recycled contentload by load, but no immediate solutionseems apparent. The hauling companywould like the LEED program to providemore direction in addressing this chal-lenge.

The hauler charges the constructioncompany $74 per drop box load plus a$22 fuel surcharge, totaling $96 per load.This fee applies both to source separatedand commingled recycling regardless ofwhether the destination is a MRF, recyclingcenter, or landfill, but rates do vary by thelocation of the facility. Therefore, depend-ing on the location of the local landfillsand MRFs, the construction company mayexperience either a savings or incur anincreased cost by recycling constructionwaste.

In addition to recycling goals, the con-tractor reused demolition materials onthe remodeled building as a strategy forreducing their construction waste. Thedemolition company saves the bricks fromthe old university building, stores themon their property, and returns the bricksto the site for later use. The contractorestimates that the project can reuse 60percent of the salvaged brick for the newbuilding’s façade. Concrete rubble is alsoreused onsite, by crushing it and thenreusing it for concrete pours during newconstruction. The demolition company alsoremoves the aluminium from the windowsand separately recycles it for a profit.

After the first month of demolition, theproject has achieved a recycling rate of 93percent, just shy of its target of 95 per-cent. Out of a total of 365.91 tons of C&Dwaste produced in their first month, thecontractor reports diverting 198.26 tons ofconcrete, 31.07 tons of metal, 33.57 tonsof wood, and 78.01 of miscellaneous ton-nage (such as bricks) from the landfill.


VITAL STATISTICS

Type: UniversityBuilding Renovation

Size: 80,000 sq ft

Cost: $16.8 Million

CR&D Waste:Produced: 365 tonsRecycled: 93%Target: 95%

LEED Status:Pursuing Gold or better

21A n a l y s i s : T e n a n t I m p r o v e m e n t C a s e S t u d y: T e n a n t m: T e n a n t I m

an

aly

sis

: ten

an

t imp

rove

me

nt c

as

e s

tud

y


Tenant ImpTenant Imprrovemenovement Case Studyt Case Study

Description: Currently undergoing renova-tion, this tenant improvement (TI) projectis for a commercial space that encompass-es 7,500 square feet. Once completed,the building will house a restaurant. Thetotal cost of the project is estimated at 3.5million dollars. Most of the expense comesfrom the appliances required for the res-taurant.

Company Waste Management Plan: Theconstruction company contracted for thisproject has started to address recyclinginternally through its “Green Team Com-mittee.” This team is developing a docu-ment similar to that required by LEED totrack construction waste. As of April 2008,the company estimates that it recycles 50to 75 percent of the construction waste itgenerates per project.

Because this is a restaurant, there is notas much recyclable material as is normallyassociated with TI projects. The construc-tion company performing the work is uti-lizing the option of weighing the material

to keep track of recycling. As of April2008, the project generated 46,480pounds of construction waste. 52 percentof this was landfilled and approximately 48percent of it was recycled. Once finished,the project will yield an estimated recy-cling rate of 75 percent due to the project-ed increase in wood and scrap metal, easyto recycle, that will come with the nextphase of the project.

Recycling Challenges and Solutions: Aswith most TI projects, site size is veryconstrained. 7,500 square feet of spacedoes not allow for the number of binsrequired to source separate all recyclablematerial. Fortunately, the project is adja-cent to vacant land owned by the City ofPortland. The construction company andthe City have worked out an agreementthat allows the waste and recycling bins tobe located on the vacant land as long asthe construction company pays a portionof the property taxes. The vacant land isalso being utilized by other companies,which allows the cost to be shared.

PATHWAY:Source Separation &Commingling

BARRIERS:Space - Due to exist-ing building size

Construction Debris -Large appliances havestyrofoam

Crew Apathy - Lack ofcrew participation

22A n a l y s i s : T e n a n t I m p r o v e m e n t C a s e S t u d y: T e n a n t m: T e n a n t I m

an

aly

sis

: ten

an

t imp

rove

me

nt c

as

e s

tud

y

Although the type of bins have varied dur-ing the different phases of the project, ingeneral, the project has source separatedwood, metal, and Styrofoam. All otherforms of recycling such as cardboard,cans, bottles, and paper are commingled.Once a week, the contracted hauler picksup the bins and disposes of, or recycles,the waste. The hauler charges $125 pertrip and an additional tipping fee depend-ing on the material. The constructioncompany saves money recycling by payinglower tipping fees for certain material suchas wood. Also, the hauler does not chargethe construction company to pick upcommingled loads. However, at this pointthe exact amount saved from recycling isunclear since the company has nottracked this figure.

One of the struggles the constructionmanager is facing is apathy towards re-cycling from his crew. In order to combatthis and encourage recycling, the con-struction manager placed one of his crewmembers in charge of overseeing therecycling efforts.

This has allowed a sense of ownershipfrom certain crew members and hashelped to increase the recycling efforts.The construction manager has also savedsome of the highly valued marketablerecycling material, such as metal, and hasreceived enough cash to pay for his crew’slunch a few times.


VITAL STATISTICS

Type: Restaurant

Size: 7,500 SF

Cost: $3.5 Million

C&D Waste: 46,480 lbsLandfilled: 24,240 lbsRecycled: 22,240 lbsStyrofoam: 8,500 lbsWood: 3,440 lbsMetal: 7,800 lbsComingled: 2,500 lbs

LEED Status: N/A

23A n a l y s i s : A f f o r d a b l e H o u s i n g C a s e S t u d y: A f f o r d a b: A f f o r d a b l

an

aly

sis

: affo

rdab

le h

ous

ing

cas

e s

tud

y


AffordaAffordable Housing Case Studyble Housing Case Study

Description: This affordable housingproject is currently underway and in-volves new home construction. Theproject hopes to achieve LEED Gold forresidential construction.

Company Waste Management Plan: Theconstruction company contracted for thisproject specializes in market-rate andaffordable infill housing in the Portlandarea. Despite this specialization, thecompany’s fees remain competitive withits conventional counterparts. The highrecycling rates achieved by this companydo not preclude it from competing suc-cessfully in this market. One way it keepscosts down is by cultivating good relation-ships with its waste haulers and, over theyears, has been instrumental in facilitat-ing relationships between waste haulersand recyclers and between recyclers andsecondary markets.

The construction company has recycledconstruction debris for over thirty yearsand the company’s recycling plan hasevolved along with the growing marketfor recyclables. Currently, the company’sstrategy involves source separating themajority of its construction debris. It alsohas one four-yard bin for commingledrecyclables, which involves primarily con-tractor lunch debris and plastics. Becausethe company is committed to recyclingand is a contractor on LEED projects, itpays for this bin to be sorted at a MRF.It is through this strategy that the com-pany is able to achieve a 95-99 percentrecycling rate on any given project. As ofFebruary 2008, this project had an overallrecycling rate of approximately 98 per-cent.

PATHWAY:Source Separation & commingled

BARRIERS:None; they regularly overcome all barriers inorder to achieve a 98-99% recycling rate

24A n a l y s i s : A f f o r d a b l e H o u s i n g C a s e S t u d y: A f f o r d a b: A f f o r d a b l

an

aly

sis

: affo

rdab

le h

ous

ing

cas

e s

tud

y


Recycling Challenges and Solutions: Theconstruction company believes it is cheap-er to recycle than pay for waste loadsto be landfilled. In order to reduce theconsumption of materials at the onset ofproject construction, the company useswood forms for concrete and employs ad-vanced framing techniques (Appendix B).

Space is a barrier to source separation onthis small residential infill project. Howev-er, the company manages space creativelyby staggering the delivery of materialsor waiting until materials are consumedbefore ordering recycling bins.

Because all of the company’s subcon-tractors are contracted in-house exceptfor sheetrockers, the contractor is ableto cultivate best management practicesamongst their employees. (The companyonly contracts with sheetrockers who haultheir debris to a sheetrock recycling facil-ity.) The company holds a preconstructionmeeting with all of its contractors to com-prehensively analyze the building’s plansand identify where waste generated by

one contractor can be reused by another.While this meeting can be time-consum-ing, the money saved on both construc-tion materials and waste hauling makes itfinancially viable.

VITAL STATISTICS

Type: Mixed-Use Infill,Residential Affordable,For- Sale Housing

Size: 48,000 sq ft

Cost: $4 million

CR&D Waste:Recycled: 98%

LEED Status: PursuingGold

25A n a l y s i s : R e s i d e n t i a l R e m o d e l C a s e S t u d y: R e s d e n t: R e s i d e n t i

an

aly

sis

: res

ide

ntia

l rem

od

el c

as

e s

tud

y


ResidentialResidential RemodelRemodel Case StudyCase Study

Description: This recently completedproject added a free standing 800 squarefoot accessory building on a residential lotin NE Portland.

Company Waste Management Plan: Thisresidential remodeling company marketsitself as a sustainable business, and aspart of its mission is committed to recy-cling. However, because the company’sprojects vary between demolition, remod-eling, and new construction, its recyclingplan varies from site to site depending onthe materials associated with a specificproject. Generally, however, the companyowns a trailer reserved primarily for woodand/or cardboard debris, which it thenself-hauls at the end of a project. For met-als, it stages an area on the job site andeither contacts a local scrap metal collec-tor for removal or self-hauling. For otherwaste such as plastic from lunch debris,and because its crews are small, it uses itsclients’ recycling bins. The company alsoputs small wood scraps in yard debris

bins. Through these actions, the companyestimates that it achieves a recycling rateof around 90 percent per project. Howev-er, the company is not involved in projectsthat are currently available for LEEDcertification and has not started trackingrecovery rates on its own.

In addition to a commitment to recycling,price also drives many of the recyclingdecisions the company makes on a givenproject. In the past, the company usedcommingled bins contracted from recyclinghaulers, but it often finds that self-haulssource separated materials is cheaperthan either paying for a hauler or dispos-ing of commingled loads at Metro. Self-hauling is a viable option for the companyin part because the majority of its projectsare in NE Portland, which has a number ofconvenient recycling facilities. However,when needed, they have used Metro’sToolkit to locate haulers and facilities.Overall, the company does not feel thatthere is a shortage of educational materi-als available to contractors.

PATHWAY:Source

Separation

BARRIERS:Finding a sheetrock

recyclerLack of on site

space

26A n a l y s i s : R e s i d e n t i a l R e m o d e l C a s e S t u d y: R e s d e n t: R e s i d e n t i

an

aly

sis

: res

ide

ntia

l rem

od

el c

as

e s

tud

y


Recycling Challenges and Solutions: Be-cause of this company’s small size, sheet-rock remains the most difficult materialfor it to recycle. It is aware of only onesheetrock recycling facility in Clackamas,but it is cost prohibitive on this site to haulthe small amount of sheetrock waste itgenerates the hour round trip it takes todrive there. Space for source-separatedrecyclables is also an issue; however, thecompany has been able to work aroundit by utilizing creative techniques suchas storing metal or cardboard under thetrailer until it can be hauled.

As part of its commitment to sustainabil-ity, this company tries to use salvagedmaterial whenever possible. Although thetime associated with salvaging can some-times be prohibitive, the accessory build-ing in this project included double-panedwindows recycled from Builder’s Supplyand wood from The Rebuilding Center.

In order to increase recycling efforts onthis site and others, the company’s owneris taking coursework in the sustainablebuilding advisory program through

Portland Community College to furthereducate himself about sustainable buildingtechniques. He has taken several coursesin advanced framing techniques and be-lieves that it is a viable method for reduc-ing construction material consumption, asit was on this project.

Although the company is familiar with theCity of Portland’s Recycling Plan Form,it does not generally fill it out because itbelieves that the form is not mandatory.The company is also aware of the City ofPortland’s mandatory recycling rate, aswell as its plans to increase the rate to 75percent. Because it already exceed thisrate on most projects, reaching a 75 per-cent recycling goal will not be difficult.

VITAL STATISTICS

Type: Mixed-Use FreeStanding AccessoryBuilding, Residentialand Retail

Size: 800 sq ft

Cost: $80,000

CR&D Waste: N/ACompany does notgather this information

LEED Status: none

27A n a l y s i s : M i x e d - U s e D e v e l o p m e n t C a s e S t u d y: M x e d U s: M i x e d - U s

an

aly

sis

: mix

ed

us

e d

eve

lop

me

nt s

tud

y


Mixed-Use ConstrConstructionuction Case StudyCase Study

Description: Currently under construction,this mixed-use project is a 31-story resi-dential building with 17,000 square feet ofground floor retail. This project is current-ly pursuing LEED Gold, with aspirationsof recycling 75 percent of its constructionwaste.

Company Recycling Plan: The construc-tion company contracted for this projecthas worked on many similar LEED projectsand has developed an internal spreadsheetto keep track of LEED requirements. How-ever, in projects without the LEED require-ment for construction waste, the companydoes not track any waste, recyclable ornot, after it exits the site. In these cases,there is normally one drop box for allmixed waste, with metal as a possible ex-ception because of its high value.

In February 2008, the building had mostof its frame in place. During this phaseof construction, there was an enormousamount of recyclable concrete and steelpresent on the project site. For this

reason, the project was recycling 97percent of the 944 tons of waste thathad been generated on site by that time.Once the building begins to add drywalland other interior components, the com-pany expects that the recycling rate willdecrease.

Recycling Challenges and Solutions:UsingLEED guidelines, the construction com-pany is source separating wood, metal,and concrete, while commingling the othermaterials in a separate bin. This com-mingled approach is not due to site con-straints but rather to the hauler’s limitedresources. The hauler does not supplyconstruction companies with separate re-cycling bins for plastic or cardboard, whichis something that the construction com-pany for this project specifically asked forand was denied. Therefore, the construc-tion crew must throw paper, cardboard,and plastic into the commingled bin withtrash, drywall, and other material, thuspossibly reducing the recycling rate of theproject.

PATHWAY:Commingled and SourceSeparated

BARRIERS:Hauler does not providerequested bins

Bin confusion and crewapathy increased materialcontamination

28A n a l y s i s : M i x e d U s e C o n s t r u c t i o n C a s e S t u d y: M x e d U s: M i x e d U s

an

aly

sis

: mix

ed

us

e c

on

stru

ctio

n s

tud

y


Also, the construction company noted thatit received the City of Portland’s RecyclingPlan Form each time it pulled a permit fora change order on the project. By Febru-ary 2008, the construction company hadfilled out 28 of these forms and submittedthem to the City.

The MRF accepting this project’s com-mingled loads estimates the amount ofrecycled material for LEED requirementssimply by looking at the load. Accordingto the facility’s representative, additionalweighing presents a prohibitive cost tothe construction company. Because thefacilities self-test, most facilities do notaccurately report their numbers. In fact,this individual had haulers/other facili-ties describe the ways in which to “cheatthe system”. In an attempt to rectify thissituation, the representative believes thatMetro should install a third-party monitor-ing system so that everyone is held ac-countable to the same standards.

The MRF believes that it recycles morethan other facilities because they do nothave access to a landfill. According to thefacility representative, the difference in

cost to landfill versus recycle the materi-als is so miniscule that those recyclingfacilities with a landfill will tend to throwcommingled loads away, rather thantake the time to recycle. Additionally, thefacility representative believes MRFs areturning away loads they believe will notallow them to meet Metro’s current re-quirements. Instead, these loads end upin landfills. Due to the risk of rejectionfrom facilities, some haulers have been“conditioned” to drive their loads straightto landfills if they believe their loads donot contain enough recyclable materials.While this problem may be resolved withEDWRP’s new mandate requiring all loadsto be MRFd, this has yet to be confirmed,and may continue to lead to an unknownquantity of recyclable materials ending upin landfills.

Overall, the MRF representative believesthat this commingled and source sepa-rating approach jeopardizes the MRFs byreducing their recycling rates, as all of themarketable materials are source separatedand sent directly to secondary sources.Furthermore, the MRF believes that allmaterials should be commingled, as con-tractor confusion and contamination is a

problem, and as such, this MRF considerseven source separated bins “contaminat-ed” and must utilize labor to separate outmaterials, making the initial source sepa-ration process inefficient and ineffective.

VITAL STATISTICS

Type: Mixed-Use,Residential and RetailConstruction

Size:545,000 sq ftResidential17,000 sq ftground floor Retail

Cost: $150 Million

C&D Waste:Produced: 944 tonsRecycled: 97%Target: 75%

LEED Status: PursuingGold

29F i n d i n g s a n d R e c o m m e n d a t i o n sd a t i o n sa n d R e ca n d R e c o mo m

find

ing

s a

nd

rec

om

me

nd

atio

ns


IntroductionIntroduction

Discovered through the policy analysis, case studies, and additional research, the barriers and benefits of the four pathways and theCR&D waste management system in general have been summarized in the matrices on the following two pages. It was found thatonly two of the four pathways allow contractors to meet PRP’s 75 percent recycling mandate and EDWRP’s 15 percent residual ratemandate. These pathways are the Source Separated and Source Separated & Commingled Pathways

The Commingled Only and Trash Only Pathways do not currently have the ability to meet the new mandates. However, it was foundthat a high recycling rate using a strictly commingled approach was possible in theory, but was not assured for two reasons: 1. Met-ro’s 15 percent residual requirement for MRFs does not coincide with the City of Portland’s 75 percent requirement, and as such, thereare no guarantees that the MRF will hit the required mandate; and 2. Metro allows the MRFs to self-test, which poses the opportunityfor fraud, and thus, lower than perceived recycling rates. Because there are complications associated with the two policies and issuesconcerning regulation associated with the commingled approach, source separation was found to provide the highest “assured” ratesof recycling. The fourth pathway, the Trash Only, was immediately discarded as it afforded the least amount of assurances for highrecycling rates.

Recommendations were formulated for overcoming the barriers along the two chosen pathways, increasing CR&D waste recycling andimproving the efficiency of the operation of the overall waste system. To present these recommendations, the plethora of barriers thatare documented in the Barriers Matrix on the following page were organized into several categories: space, cost, waste managementtracking, C&D waste tracking, and communication/recycling ethic. These categories, and recommendations for overcoming them foreach player in the CR&D system, are presented in our Recommendations Matrix and associated text. Additional recommendationsrequiring further elaboration are in the Appendices.

30F i n d i n g s : B a r r i e r s M a t r i xB a r r e r s MB a r r i e r s M

find

ing

s: b

arrie

rs m

atrix


Commingled Pathway Commingled and SourceSeparated Trash Only Source Separated

Barriers

Material Recovery Facilities

1. More labor intensive due toEDWRP targeted materials and non-EDWRP materials are comminlgled.

2. Commingled loads are morelikely to be dirty/damaged and willnot be marketable.

1. Potential reduction in MRFrecycling rates due to dirty mate-rial and construction companiesrecycling marketable materialsthemselves.

1. Potential reduction in MRFrecycling rates.

2. Significant contaminationfrom C&D and wet waste.

3. Significant increase inmanpower with significantlylower returns.

4. Makes it more difficult tomeet EDWRPs goals.

1. Decreases profits because market-able material is recovered by contrac-tor.

Haulers

1. Loads that only contain trashmay not be accepted by MRFs.

1. Could be turned away becauseof “clean” loads with low profitablematerial.

1. Not as much profit gener-ated due to limited numberof bins on site.

1. More likely to be turned away fromMRF due to unprofitable loads.

Construction Companies

1. Tipping fees for commingledloads are normally the same astipping trash.

2. May not be able to meet LEEDstandards or PRP mandate.

1. Extra bins may result in confu-sion and could significantly con-taminate source separated bins.

1. Will not be able to meetLEED standards or PRPmandate.

1. Space Constraints.2. Apathy from crews.3. Higher overall hauling fees occur4. More manpower/effort, increasedcosts and loss of time.5. Potential need for additional haul-ers/contracts.

Recycling Centers

1. All loads received must besorted, increasing costs.

2. Commingled loads are morelikely to be dirty/damaged and willnot be marketable.

3. Less marketable material to sell.

N/A 1. Relies solely on MRFs forprofit generation.

2. Most likely will not beable sustain this process.

1. If supplier demands completelyclean loads then source separatedloads will be MRFd, Increasing thecost of the load.2. Source Separation is not 100%recyclable due to damage from trans-portation and contamination.

System as a Whole

1. If its not one of EDWRP targetedmaterials then it is more likely thatit will be landfilled.

2. Smaller material will be land-filled.

3. Material is more likely to bedirty and therefore it will not berecycled, decreasing the amountrecycled.

1. Increase in trip generation,which results in increased gasemissions.

1. Significantly lowers recy-cling rates.

1. Increases trip generation.

2. Bin may be half full.

31F i n d i n g s : B e n e f i t s M a t r i xB e n e f tB e n e f i t ss MM

find

ing

s: b

en

efits

matrix


Commingled Pathway Commingled and SourceSeparated Trash Only Source Separated

Benefits

Material Recovery Facilities

1. More business because bothcommingled and trash loads mustbe MRFd.

2. More marketable materials tosell.

1. Easier to meet EDWRPs goalscompared to commingling.

2. Potential to make money off ofmarketable material.

1. Potential to make moneyoff of marketable material.

1. Makes it easier to meet EDWRPs

goal.

Haulers

N/A 1. More business due to morebins.

1. Less confusion andmanpower needed for eachjob site.

2. Fewer pick ups will re-duce expenses.

1. Potential for more business throughincreased load pick ups.

2. Does not have to pay to MRF mate-rial, taken directly to Recylcling Center(RC) or secondary source.

3. Many destinations to send sourceseparation to. Increasing competition.

Construction Companies

1. Easier execution.

2. Takes up less space than sourceseparation.

3. Great for smaller jobs or thosewith no space.

1. Maybe cheaper than sourceseparating all debris.

2. Capture money from market-able materials

3. Can meet PRP mandate.

4. Easier than just source separat-ing.

5. Allows more flexibility byachieving a comprise between highrecycling rate and effort.

1. Maybe cheaper thansource separation and/orcommingling due to reducednumber of hauling and tip-ping fees.

2. Takes less manpower.

3. Do not have to fight em-ployees’ apathy.

1. Potential ability to make money byselling to secondary sources directly.

2. Increases likelihood of meeting re-cycling goals including PRP Mandate.

3. Dumping fees for recyclable mate-rial is smaller than mixed-materials.$0-35 (Metros Toolkit).

Recycling Centers

N/A N/A N/A 1. RC will not pay someone to sourceseparate, decreasing cost of the loadand increasing revenue.

2. Loads will come in cleaner andmake the material more marketable.

3. Easier for recycling.

System as a Whole

1. Increases the amount recycledcompared to throwing everythingin one bin.

1. Allows flexibility in the system.

2. Can create a pathway whereboth EDWRP and PRP are met.

N/A 1. Less trash enters landfill.

2. Highest possible recycling rate.

3. Bypassing MRFs saving time, en-ergy money & labor.

4. Meets the requirements of PRP.

32R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s M a t r i xn d a t on d a t i o n s Mn s M

rec

om

me

nd

atio

ns

matrix

BarriersRecommendations

FOR CONTRACTORS (.1) FOR HAULERS (.2) FOR FACILITIES (.3) FOR OSD (.4)

(1.) SPACE

1.1.1 Stagger the delivery of bins.

1.1.2 Store larger bins off-site.

1.1.3 Use creative space management.

1.1.4 Commingle some recyclables.

1.1.5 Reduce and Reuse materials.

1.2.1 Provide a wide range of bin

sizes.

1.2.2 Educate contractors about

recycling options.

N/A 1.4.1 Provide a list of space saving examples to

contractors.

(2.) COST

2.1.1 Contract with haulers who provide

incentives to source separate.

2.1.2 Shift purpose of bins.

2.1.3 Commingle some recyclables.

2.2.1 Offer cheaper recycling op-

tions to contractors for marketable

materials.

2.2.2 Stagger the hauling fee for

bins proportionate to weight.

2.3.1 Waive tipping fees for source

separated recyclables.

2.3.2 Create a sliding scale tipping

fee.

2.4.1 Compile list of haulers who structure their fees

to favor source separation.

2.4.2 Franchise.

2.4.3 License.

2.4.4 Enforce.

(3.)WASTE MANAGE-MENT TRACKING

3.1.1 Source separate.

3.1.2 Follow up and track material.

3.2.1 Haul to facilities with 3rd

Party Verification.

3.3.1 Improve auditing of loads.

3.3.2 Waive tipping fees for source

separated recyclables.

3.3.3 Demand cleaner loads.

3.4.1 Promote source-separation.

3.4.2 Audit recycling rates of MRFs.

3.4.3 Utilize Unused Authority.

(4.) C&D WASTEQUALITY

4.1.1 Source separate.

4.1.2 Protect recyclables from elements.

4.1.3 Deconstruct.

4.2.1 Provide magnetic labels. 4.3.1 Purchase equipment for re-

cycling more types of recyclables.

4.3.2 Promote source-separation.

4.4.1 Increase markets for problem recyclables.

4.4.2 Help facilities purchase equipment to recycle

additional materials.

(5.)COMMUNICATION/RECYCLING ETHIC

5.1.1 Hire subcontractors who actively

engage in recycling,

5.1.2 Allow staff to use the money re-

deemed from recyclables/salvage sales.

5.1.3 Clearly label recycling dumpsters.

5.1.4 Assign one team member to be

recycling leader.

5.1.5 Locate recycling bins throughout

site.

5.2.1 Provide magnetic labels. N/A 5.4.1 Use the recycling form to educate contractors.

5.4.2 Collaborate with Metro’s toolkit.

5.4.3 Create a technical assistance program.

5.4.4 Educate property owners.

5.4.5 Reduced enrollment fees for educational

classes.


33R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s : O v e r c o m i n g B a r r i e r snn d a t o n sd a t i o n s :: OO

rec

om

me

nd

atio

ns

: ove

rco

min

g b

arrie

rs


1. SPACE

While space may be an issue on some job sites, it is not an insurmountable barrier to source separation. The space barrier can becreated for multiple reasons. 1. The square footage of the site is small 2. Source separation increases the amount of bins needed forCR&D waste, which decreases the amount of space available for bins 3. A surplus of construction debris, often resulting from overordering construction materials, competes with space needed for recycling containers.

1.1 Recommendations for Contractors

1.1.1 Stagger the delivery of bins. Staggering the delivery of bins according the sequence of material consumption will eliminate un-necessary bins and create more room. Order bins as needed in lieu of at the project’s onset, storing piles of recyclables on the jobsiteor in the building until bins arrive.

1.1.2 Store larger bins off-site. Contractors can enter into agreements with adjacent sites to use their empty space. Places such asvacant lots or parking lots are great examples (Tenant Improvement Case Study). Subcontractors may also be a great resource foradditional space. They can provide off-site storage of C&D waste or salvaged materials (University Dept. Case Study). Curbside park-ing permits for dumpsters can also be arranged through the City.

1.1.3 Use Creative Space Management. Creative space management can make room for bins, and includes ideas such as storing flatmaterials like cardboard under existing bins. Label (large magnetic labels can be ordered online) and reuse bins for different materi-als as projects progress through different phases. In the absence of the availability of correct bin size, create makeshift bins or reusescrap lumber to create sections in large dumpsters until space becomes available. If creating or adapting bins is not possible, desig-nate and label certain areas of a job site for specific recyclable materials.

34R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s : O v e r c o m i n g B a r r i e r sv e r c o m i n g B a r r i e r snn d a t o n sd a t i o n s :: OO

rec

om

me

nd

atio

ns

: ove

rco

min

g b

arrie

rs


1.1.4 Commingle some recyclables. Source separating some recyclables and commingling the remaining recyclables will save onspace compared to exclusive source separation and will increase the likeliness of meeting the 75 percent recycling mandate com-pared to commingling all recyclables.

1.1.5 Reduce and Reuse Materials. Employing Advanced Framing Techniques eliminates the need to over order (see Appendix B formore information). Reuse materials from demolished buildings (University Dept. Case Study). Classes are offered at Portland Com-munity College (PCC) that can help inform contractors about many of these techniques.

1.2 Recommendations for Haulers

1.2.1 Provide a wider range of bin sizes. Because space constraints on-site limits the number of bins a contractor can accom-modate, providing a wider range of bin sizes and educating contractors about recycling options are among the best managementpractices recommended for haulers. Providing source separated as well as commingling options to contractors is, in fact, requiredby state law and city code.

1.2.2 Educate contractors about recycling options. Do not wait for contractors to ask about recycling options. Provide these optionsupfront.

1.3 Recommendations for Facilities

1.4 Recommendations for OSD

1.4.1 Provide a list of space saving examples to contractors. Examples of practices that allow more materials to be source sepa-rated include using smaller containers and increasing the frequency of pickup, using scrap lumber to divide dumpsters, and rentinga trailer to contain the major recyclable material generated during the current phase of construction and self haul to a recyclingcenter. This list could be included in the Metro Toolkit, a publication that 42 percent of construction related companies use. OSDcould also consider holding free workshops to coach contractors on these strategies.

35R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s : O v e r c o m i n g B a r r i e r si e r snn d a t o n sd a t i o n s :: OO

rec

om

me

nd

atio

ns

: ove

rco

min

g b

arrie

rs


2. COST

Source separating can increase the cost of recycling due to the additional bins required and the labor hours demanded to sort therecyclables. Accounting for labor and additional bin costs, source separating recyclables adds $1-2 per square foot of building area tothe cost of the project (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers).

Typically, a dumpster runs $300 for 6 cubic yards (2 tons), $385 for 10 cubic yards (4 tons), $650 for 30 cubic yards (10 tons) and$775 for 40 cubic yards (13 tons) (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers). This common pricing scheme offers economies of scale to thosethat commingle. It would cost only $775 to commingle 40 cubic yards of construction waste recycling whereas it could cost up to$3,100 to source separate wood, metal, and cardboard with 1 additional dumpster for mixed waste. Due to the fixed hauling feestructure assessed to each bin, this pricing scheme creates a cost barrier to source separating recyclables for some contractors.

Some hauling companies (University Dept. Case Study) do not differentiate between source separated, commingled, and mixed loadsof construction waste in their pricing scheme and favor pricing based on hauling distance instead. This eliminates any potential sav-ings in tipping fees earned for source separation or even commingling, compared to just trash.

Source separation does, however, increase the values of the recyclables. Some contractors may recoup the additional cost of separat-ing recyclables on site by selling valuable materials or by recycling them at reduced prices or for free at some facilities.

Another cost issue arises between commingled loads and trash loads. Although commingled loads have more recyclables than trashloads, they are often charged the same tipping fee at the MRF, therefore not creating incentives to commingle loads if source separa-tion is not an option.


2.1.1 Contract with haulers who provide incentives to source separate. Given the wide range of hauling options available to contrac-tors, it is recommended that contractors only hire haulers who provide them with incentives to source separate. This would involvehaulers who provide bins at a substantially lower cost for marketable materials such as wood and metal.


rec

om

me

nd

atio

ns

: ove

rco

min

g b

arrie

rs


2.1.2 Shift purpose of bins to accommodate the most common materials produced at the time. The types of debris produced ata construction site change as the project progresses. Because of this, a separate bin for every kind of recyclable produced atthe site is not needed concurrently; the purpose of the bins can therefore be shifted to accommodate the most prevalent typeof debris at each phase in development. Contractors need only switch the signage on the bins and communicate changes totheir employees and the hauler. This strategy saves on both space and cost.

2.1.3 Commingle some recyclables. Commingling some recyclables will save on the cost of the bins and, in the case of self-hauled CR&D waste, will cost less to drop off at the recycling facility.


2.2.1 Offer cheaper recycling options to contractors for marketable materials. Providing substantially cheaper recycling optionsto contractors for marketable materials such as wood, cardboard and metal, as many haulers already do, can also encouragesource separation. According to the Metro survey, 19 percent of contractors and construction-related employees said that freeand lower fees would make it easier to recycle and reuse construction debris.

2.2.2 Stagger the hauling fee for bins proportionate to weight. Staggering the hauling fee for bins to be proportionate to theirweight, rather than having one, fixed hauling fee, could further encourage source separation. This way bin size is not directlyrelated to the cost of pickup, rather the weight of recyclables or waste within the bin is the defining cost structure. Lighterloads can also reduce gas consumption in vehicles.


2.3.1 Waive tipping fees for source separated recyclables. Waiving tipping fees for source separated materials will significantlyincrease the likelihood of receiving source separated materials.

2.3.2 Create a sliding scale tipping fee. In the absence of waiving the tipping fee for source separated materials, a sliding scalefee structure could be implemented so that contractors and haulers are encouraged to source separate and commingle. Loadsthat are source separated should be free or tipped at a significantly reduced fee, commingled loads should also have a reducedtipping fee (slightly above the source separated fee) and trash should have the most expensive tipping fee associated with it.


rec

om

me

nd

atio

ns

: ove

rco

min

g b

arrie

rs



2.4.1 Compile list of haulers who structure their fees to favor source separation. Compile and issue a list of haulers who already en-gage in BMPs for the industry, which include providing lower hauling rates for source separated materials, labels for bins, a variety ofbin sizes, and contracts with 3rd-party-tested MRFs and recyclers.

2.4.2 Franchise. Similar to the residential waste industry, franchising the commercial haulers would allow greater regulation and con-trol of pricing and business practices.

2.4.3 License. In the absence of franchising, OSD should consider issuing separate or discounted licenses to haulers who can provethey meet a certain standard of business, which include the above-mentioned BMPs.

2.4.4 Enforce. Through regulation either by OSD, Metro, or 3rd party oversight, ensure that haulers are supplying contractors withsimilar recycling options as other businesses and that haulers are complying with state law. (Mixed-Use Case Study).

3. WASTE MANAGEMENT TRACKING

Unless contractors source separate all materials, it is difficult to know exactly how much CR&D waste from each load is recycled at thefacility. The amount of waste recycled is normally visually estimated by the hauling company’s driver at the time of drop-off or by aMRF employee. This method produces approximate and potentially inaccurate figures. Though the percentage recycled per load maybe approximate, receipts provided by the facility are necessary to a complete waste management plan whether required by OSD ornot. This issue can be specifically detrimental to LEED projects, which place great weight on receiving very high recycling rates, whichcan sometimes only be achieved through commingling.


3.1.1 Source Separate. Source separation is a preferred method for tracking recycling rates because there is less contamination ofmaterials and higher recycling rates are achievable. Recycling rates for source separated loads are more certain than commingledloads because they can bypass the MRFs and head straight to the recycling centers. Additionally, contractors can deliver loads them-selves without having to rely on haulers.


rec

om

me

nd

atio

ns

: ove

rco

min

g b

arrie

rs


3.1.2 Follow and track materials. Contractors bear the burden of creating a Waste Management Plan that ensures they meet Port-land’s mandate and comply with LEED ratings, therefore following up on material once they have left the job site is critical to ensuringaccurate data.


3.2.1 Haul to facilities with 3rd Party Verification: 3rd party verification will more accurately guarantee correct recovery rates, which isspecifically important for LEED designated projects.


3.3.1 Waive tipping fees for source separated recyclables. This will encourage contractors to source separate, and therefore, enablemore reliable estimations of the percentage of each load that is ultimately recycled.

3.3.2 Improve auditing of loads. Currently, the method of estimating the percentage of a construction waste load that is recycledis a cumbersome and inaccurate process. Generally, haulers or MRF employees visually estimate the amount of recyclables in eachload and report this estimation back to the contractor. This process would be improved with a consistent region-wide program thatproduced reliable and comparable figures. Alternatively, the overall recycling rate of a facility, estimated by Metro, could be used toestimate how much is recycled per load rather than an estimation for each individual load. This method is done in King County, Wash-ington.

3.3.3 Demand cleaner loads. Demand that only “cleaner” loads (loads that only contain the materials with active markets such aswood, cardboard, metal, paper and rigid plastic) are commingled. This provides for richer loads and decreases the facilities’ cost as-sociated with commingled loads, which would allow facilities to decrease commingled load tipping fees.


rec

om

me

nd

atio

ns

: ove

rco

min

g b

arrie

rs



3.4.1 Promote source separation. OSD can promote source separation through education, a list of space saving techniques, andclasses.

3.4.2 Work with Metro to audit recycling rates of MRFs. Due to the fact that recycling rates for commingled loads vary from facility tofacility, it would be useful to contractors and haulers to know the recycling rates generally achieved by each facility. This would helpinform their choices in where to take construction waste and whether to source separate due to unsatisfactory recycling rates. Forexample, King County, Washington relies on the facilities’ overall recycling rates for commingled loads rather than the haulers’ estima-tion of how much is recycled per load.

3.4.4 Utilize Unused Authority. Through the policy analysis, it became apparent that OSD has the authority to regulate and enforcethe mandates and standards it has put in place. Prior to permitting, and with OSD recycling form, contractors should estimate totalproject waste and cost. In order to receive permitting the contractor should provide a deposit that can range up to $50,000 dependingon the value of the project. An annual report should be provided to OSD that reports the recycling rate of the project. If the con-tractor is not meeting PRP’s mandate, a letter should be sent to the property owner stating the City’s disappointment at the projectnot achieving the City’s mandate and once again reiterating the mandate and consequences associated with noncompliance. Onceprojects are complete, the City should refund the deposits if the builders can show, through receipts, that they recycled at least 75percent of all CR&D waste at a certified Recycling Facility. However, for each percentage point the recycler does not meet the man-date, the City will withold somewhere between $500-1000 (Appendix A).

4. CR&D WASTE QUALITY

Commingling can decrease the value of recyclables due to damage caused by the heaviest types of debris. Additionally, source sepa-ration can help create higher-end markets for recyclables. Source-separated construction waste is more suitable for manufacturingrecycled-content building materials.

Certain materials are specifically prone to destruction, such as cardboard and styrofoam. On the other hand a material like sheetrockare both easily damaged and can easily damage other materials in a commingled bin. Many of these materials may leave the site inperfect condition but will get damaged during transportation and will become unmarketable in the long.


rec

om

me

nd

atio

ns

: ove

rco

min

g b

arrie

rs


4.1 Recommendations for Contractors4.1 Recommendations for Contractors

4.1.1 Source separate. Contractors can avoid some damage by, at minimum, recycling the heaviest types of debris in separate bins.Examples of materials that should be recycled separately to avoid damaging the load include rubble, shingles, and sheetrock. Sourceseparating all construction waste debris is ideal for ensuring high quality recycling.

4.1.2 Protect recyclables from elements. Placing recyclables in bins undercover will help protect them from the elements. If no spaceunder cover can be found, ask the hauler for bin lids or create makeshift bins with plywood or other materials.

4.1.3 Deconstruct. Deconstruction is a technique of dismantling buildings in the reverse order they were constructed in order to keepbuilding materials as intact as possible. This technique improves the quality of the materials to be recycled or permits them to be re-used (Appendix B).


4.2.1 Provide magnetic labels. Providing magnetic labels to construction companies that wish to source separate or commingle mate-rial will reduce confusion and ensure that the correct materials are thrown into the correct bins.


4.3.1 Purchase equipment for recycling more types of recyclables. As technology continues to increase, higher-tech machines will be-come available. Keeping breast on new products can give MRFs a recycling edge.

4.3.2 Promote source separation. Promote source separation of those materials prone to break-down and contamination, such assheetrock, Styrofoam, and rubble.


4.4.1 Increase markets for problem recyclables. In conjunction with Metro, identify those recyclables that do not currently have astrong market. Promote these markets through researching alternative uses and providing incentives for businesses recycling thesematerials. Two such materials identified in this study are Styrofoam and sheetrock.


rec

om

me

nd

atio

ns

: ove

rco

min

g b

arrie

rs


4.4.2 Help facilities purchase equipment to recycle additional materials. Work with Metro to provide incentives for facilities that up-grade their equipment. This could be through reduced permitting fees, subsidies, DEQ grants, or organizing bulk purchases with otherfacilities.

5. COMMUNICATION/RECYCLING ETHIC

Getting staff and subcontractors on board with a recycling plan can be challenging. Staff may be unclear on the expectations and pro-cedures set in the plan or may not personally value recycling. Staff and subcontractors must understand the plan and expectations forrecycling and must follow through in order for a recycling plan to be successful. Changes in bin location and bin material designationmay also lead to increased confusion among workers.


5.1.1 Hire subcontractors who actively engage in recycling. Subcontractors should be informed of the recycling protocol when theybegin work at a jobsite and required by the contractor to follow the established protocol. Working with subcontractors to understandthe recycling protocol should be an element of all recycling plans. Easy-to-understand signage will help subcontractors participate aswell.

5.1.2 Allow staff to use the money redeemed from recyclables/salvage sales. Reward construction crew by allowing them to use themoney redeemed by recyclables to be used for lunches, cash rewards, etc.

5.1.3 Clearly label recycling dumpsters. Labeling bins makes it easier for the contractor to source separate and ensures cleaner loads,which makes it easier not just for the contractor but for the facility as well.

5.1.4 Assign one team member to be recycling leader. Establishing and following a recycling plan takes time, effort, and knowledge.Assigning one team member to being a recycling leader can save time on everyone’s part especially when this person can carry com-pany recycling protocol from one job site to another.


rec

om

me

nd

atio

ns

: ove

rco

min

g b

arrie

rs


5.1.5 Conveniently locate recycling bins throughout site. In Metro’s survey of contractors and construction-related professionals, 17percent said having more recycling bins on site and 21 percent said general convenience would make it easier to recycle. To increaseconvenience and the number of recycling sites, contractors could consider several small rolling bins and setting up recycling stationsnearby where construction debris is being produced.


5.2.1 Provide magnetic labels. Labeling bins makes it easier for contractor employees to recycle by minimizing confusion.



5.4.1 Use the Recycling Form to Educate Contractors. OSD can play a critical role in encouraging source separation on the job site.One of the more common and consistent avenues for communication between the contractor and OSD is the Recycling Plan Form.Though the form is sent out to every contractor who is applying for a permit, only 50 percent are returned to OSD, and of the con-tractors we interviewed for this project who did not return the form, the reason they gave was because they didn’t feel it was neces-sary or did not know it was mandatory. In that the form originates at the Bureau of Development Services, a simple way to encourageits return is to withhold the building permit until the form is completed and returned. Modifying the language on the form to stateclearly the city’s requirements for business recycling rates, as well as the contractors anticipated recycling rate per material con-sumed, could both improve upon the data as well as continue to educate the contractor about recycling requirements. An examplenew form has provided in Appendix C.

5.4.2 Collaborate with Metro’s Toolkit. OSD should collaborate with Metro to include educational messages about source separationand space-saving techniques, incentives for deconstruction, or ongoing classes in the Toolkit. Because 42 percent of constructioncompanies report using the Toolkit, this is a good medium for written outreach material. OSD should also consider surveying the con-struction community to find out how widely the G/Rated Tenant Guide is used if they have not already done so.


rec

om

me

nd

atio

ns

: ove

rco

min

g b

arrie

rs


5.4.3 Create a technical assistance program. In such a program, staff would visit a construction job site and assist contractors withways to increase their recycling rates. This could include waste management plan development assistance and implementation andmonitoring. OSD could partner with Community Environmental Services at Portland State University to provide this service usingtrained student staff.

5.4.4 Educate property owners. OSD should reach out to property owners to educate them about green building and constructionwaste reduction and diversion. The G/Rated Tenant Improvement Guide provides several suggestions for the property owner on de-mands to make of the contractor such as cooperatively identifying materials to reuse in the remodel or simply demanding the recy-cling occur. This type of education should continue with the aim of reaching a wider audience so more property owners will requestgreen building practices.

5.4.5 Reduced enrollment fees. Provide educational incentives for contractors who want to learn more about salvage and reduce orAdvanced Framing Techniques. A partnership with PCC could be arranged to subsidize tuition or provide scholarships (Residential Re-model Case Study).

ReferencesReferences

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2001) Public Works Technical Bulletin 420-49-32: Selection of Methods for the Reduction, Reuse, andRecycling of Demolition Waste.

44C o n c l u s i o n a n d N e x t S t e p so n a n d N e x to n a n d N e x t

co

nc

lus

ion

an

d n

ext s

tep

s


The City of Portland’s decision to increase the required construction recycling rate from 50 percent to 75 percent unveiled the need fora holistic review of the construction waste recycling process and development of recommendations. Initially, BHF was asked to devel-op a list of Best Management Practices for construction companies to aid in their compliance with the new mandate. After some initialresearch, it was found that a construction company’s ability to recycle 75 percent of its waste was directly linked to the performanceof its hauler, MRF, as well as to its policy context. The scope of work was subsequently broadened to include analyses and recommen-dations for all parties involved, including policy makers.

BHF reviewed the related state and local policies associated with construction waste recycling, interviewed a wide variety of construc-tion companies, haulers and MRFs, and reviewed Best Management Practices in other jurisdictions. From this information BHFdeveloped a list of four specific pathways that are currently utilized by construction companies. The pathways include commingling allconstruction waste with a separate bin for trash, source separating all construction waste, source separating some recycling and com-mingling the rest, and placing trash and recyclables in one mixed bin. Each pathway was reviewed for its compliance with associatedstate and local policies and a list of barriers and benefits was generated to facilitate the identification of the preferred pathways andassociated recommendations to overcome key barriers for construction companies, haulers, and MRFs.

There were two pathways that stood out as preferred strategies to recycle construction waste at the highest possible rate, and thus,were recommended by the project team. The two recommended pathways include source separating all construction waste recycling,and source separating some recyclables, while commingling the remaining recyclable material. The other two pathways were discard-ed as unfeasible options for meeting recycling mandates.

The barriers associated with the two recommended pathways were developed into a matrix to provide a comprehensive list of recom-mendations to help achieve high recycling rates for haulers, construction companies, MRFs, and OSD, given the current constraints.Highlights of these recommendations include third party testing for MRFs, enforcing hauler laws to ensure they provide adequate binsfor all recyclable materials, and providing educational opportunities to the construction companies to ensure they are aware of themandate and associated fees or incentives. In addition, there is an apparent lack of available secondary markets for recyclables, sothe development or discovery of additional secondary sources is prudent. Without a secondary market, recyclable material will end upin the landfill.

45C o n c l u s i o n a n d N e x t S t e p st e p so n a n d N e x to n a n d N e x t

co

nc

lus

ion

an

d n

ext s

tep

s


The construction waste recycling issue is a complicated web of interconnected policies which are not necessarily coordinatedwith one another, and there seems to be a lack of much-needed regulation. Additional regulation in the form of fees, incentivesor deposits will ensure construction waste companies source separate and recycle as much as possible. From there, additionalverification that haulers are providing appropriate bins and that the facilities are recycling at the rates they are currently projectingare important steps to increase recycling rates.

This document outlined a vast array of recommendations for construction companies, haulers, MRFs, and policy makers. Many ofthese recommendations may be deemed infeasible, while others may have merit and warrant further exploration and possible imple-mentation. To ensure follow-through, the BHF Team recommends that OSD carry out these next steps:

1. Complete the formation of the Technical Advisory Committee and present this document as a starting point to understanding theconstruction arena as BHF understands it today.

2. Review the list of recommendations outlined in this document to determine political and economic feasibility.3. Add to this list any additional recommendations not currently covered in the document.4. Develop a list of preferred recommendations which OSD plans to pursue.5. Develop plans to integrate the preferred recommendations into existing systems and policies.6. Review all plans and changes to existing systems and policies to outline potential future issues associated with implementation.7. Implement all plans deemed feasible.8. Monitor the implementation of preferred recommendations and revise as needed.9. Periodically review the feasibility of those recommendations which had merit but were deemed infeasible in today’s economic

and/or political climate.10. Further explore ways to make property owners more responsible for their project’s recycling rates.

46A b o u t B i n H a l f F u l ln H a f F un H a l f F u l l

ab

out b

in h

alf fu

ll


A m y C h r i s t i n a M a r y M e l i s s a S h a u n W e n d y

BHF is a team of six student-consultantsfrom Portland State University’s Masterof Urban and Regional Planning (MURP)program.

The MURP program culminates with atwo-quarter Planning Workshop thatpartners students with local jurisdic-tions and public organizations to carryout critical planning projects. Studentsseek out clients, define the scopes ofthe projects, and sign contracts to actas consultants.

BHF is thrilled to work with City of Port-land’s Office of Sustainable Development(OSD) to develop Construction WasteRecycling Solutions. BHF would like tothank Babe O’Sullivan and Alisa Kanefrom OSD for offering us the opportunityto work on this project and for directingour work to ensure that our product isuseful to OSD in its efforts to increaserecycling rates in Portland. We wouldalso like to thank our faculty advisorsEthan Seltzer and Sy Adler for sharingtheir vast experience as planners andacademics in Oregon and for challengingus to be creative and meticulous.

Wendy GibsonWendy Gibson received her B.S. inSociology from Santa Clara Universityin 2002 and will complete her master’sdegree in Urban and Regional Planningfrom Portland State University in Juneof 2008.Mary GrothausMary Grothaus received her B.A. inAnthropology from Pomona Collegein 2002 and will complete the MURPprogram in June with specializationsin both Environmental and Land UsePlanning.Melissa Johnston will graduate fromthe MURP program in June with aspecialization in Environmental Plan-ning. She plans to continue studyingnext year at PSU to earn a Masters ofEnvironmental Management.

Shaun RolandShaun Roland received his B.S. inEconomics from the University of SanDiego and will graduate from the MURPprogram in June with a specializationin Land Use Planning.Christina SkellengerChristina Skellenger will graduatefrom the MURP program in June witha specialization in the Environment.Christina currently works full-time forGerding Edlen Development in theirsustainability department.Amy TwilegarAmy Twilegar is a MURP student andplans to graduate in the spring with aenvironmental specialization. She isinterested primarily in rural and smalltown planning, and intends to moveback to her home state of Idaho upongraduation.

47AA p p e n d i x A : B e s t M a n a g e m e n t P r a c t i c e sA : B e s t MA : B e s t M

ap

pe

nd

ix a

: be

st m

an

ag

em

en

t pra

ctic

es


Seattle - King County Solid Waste DivisionSeattle - King County Solid Waste Division

In 1993, King County began the construction, demolition andland clearing (CDL) program. Using a market-based approachto promote construction waste recycling, King County encour-ages developers to recycle voluntarily by identifying the eco-nomic reasons why recycling is more cost effective. The Countyis very adamant about ensuring that recycling is voluntary andthey discourage government subsidies for recycling incentives.

Instead of mandates and grants, the County has set up awebsite that allows developers and builders to tailor their ownrecycling programs at levels that they choose. With Countydumping fees at or around $85 a ton, encouraging constructionwaste recycling for $55 a ton is pretty easy. The CDL programprovides a number of services including on-site presentationsfor construction workers on reusing building materials and ed-ucational handouts. Staff of the CDL department also providesite visits to assess how projects are performing and provideresearch assistance to connect materials that are difficult torecycle with businesses that use them.

San Francisco – SF Environment Department;

In 2006, San Francisco adopted a recycling goal similar to Port-land’s current mandate. California State law requires the Cityto adopt an ordinance that would increase recovery of demoli-tion waste from 50 percent to 75 percent by 2010 and to 100percent by 2020. Ordinance No. 27-06 supports San Francisco’sgoal by outlining the state requirement. The ordinance placesthe responsibility to comply with all standards set forth in theordinance on the building permit holder or property owner.

The City does not mandate that loads be source separated orcommingled; it states that either method is acceptable if specif-ic guidelines are followed. All co-mingled loads must be trans-ported off-site using a City-registered transporter and taken toa City-registered material recovery facility; 65 percent of eachload must be diverted from the waste stream. Full demolitionprojects are also mandated to divert at least 65 percent of dem-olition waste for recycling and are required to provide a wastediversion plan prior to receiving a demo permit. The City hasthe authority to enforce these standards by suspending permitsand issuing civil penalties of between $1000 and $5000 per daythat the violation occurs, and as much as 6 months in jail forgross misconduct.


ap

pe

nd

ix a

: be

st m

an

ag

em

en

t pra

ctic

es


New York – New York City Department of SustainableDesign and ConstructionDesign and Construction

The City of New York does not currently have a C&D WasteRecycling Ordinance that requires builders to comply withrecycling mandates. The City’s Department of Design andConstruction takes an approach similar to that of Seattleby providing technical assistance and information for build-ers to encourage them to recycle project waste. The Cityhas a healthy market for C&D Construction materials whichhas helped it maintain a rate of 50 percent for a number ofyears.

In 2003, the City produced a comprehensive C&D WasteRecycling Handbook identifying a numberof goals to increase the recycling rate forconstruction projects. In addition, the Citynow mandates that all projects have anapproved Waste Management Plan that isused to estimate waste and track recyclingresults. Although not enforced with civilor criminal penalties, builders can makeup for missing Waste Management Plantargets by providing documentation show-ing a good faith effort was made to meeta waste diversion rate.

Los Angeles – County of Los Angeles Department of Public Works

In 2005, Los Angeles County adopted the Construction and Demo-lition (C&D) Debris Reuse and Recycle Ordinance. Adhering tostate requirements, the County mandated a C&D current recoveryrate of 50 percent. By 2010 recovery rate will increase to 75 per-cent and to 100 percent by 2020. In order for builders to receivea building permit, the County has to approve a Reuse and RecyclePlan. The ordinance applies to all new construction projects with acost over $100,000 and all grading and demo permits regardlessof project cost.

Throughout a project, builders are required to provide AnnualProgress reports for projects which cross the March 30th date,and a Final Compliance report 45 days prior to the completion of aproject. Failure to file either report will put projects in violation ofcode and can result in civil and/or criminal penalties. All projectsthat are found to be in violation are fined $100 initially and then$200 per violation within the first calendar year. Any violation thatoccurs after one calendar year from the first recorded violationwill cost $500. The total cost of penalties cannot exceed 15% ofthe value of the project, or $50,000, whichever is less.


ap

pe

nd

ix a

: be

st m

an

ag

em

en

t pra

ctic

es


San Diego – San Diego Environmental Services Department

Among the last of California’s major cities to adopt a plan,San Diego approved the Construction and Demolition (C&D)Debris Deposit Ordinance in 2007, and will implement theplan in July of 2008. Prior to permitting, builders will com-plete a Waste Management Form, which estimates totalproject waste, and provide a deposit that can range between$200 and $50,000 depending on the value of the project.Builders are required to take all waste to City-registeredfacilities. Once projects are complete, the City will refund thedeposits if the builders can show through receipts that theyrecycled at least 50 percent of all C&D waste at a certifiedRecycling Facility. Adhering to State law, the percentage ofrecycled C&D waste will increase to 75 percent in 2010 and100 percent in 2020. Other than the loss of the deposit, thereare no civil or criminal penalties associated with not comply-ing with the C&D Debris Deposit Ordinance.

Chicago – Chicago Department of EnvironmentChicago – Chicago Department of Environment

In 2005, the City of Chicago amended its Construction or Demoli-tion Site Waste Recycling Ordinance and mandated a C&D Recy-cling rate of 25 percent. The mandate increased to 50 percent in2007. Projects that fall under this ordinance include new construc-tion or demolition of all residential projects with four or more unitsand all other projects that are greater than 4,000 square feet.

Builders are given compliance forms when they apply for build-ing permits and are required to return them completed at the endof projects with documentation from haulers and facilities thatthey recycled at a rate of 50 percent or greater. If complianceforms are not turned in or proper documentation is not used totrack recycling rates, the City has the authority to withhold oc-cupancy permits. Failure to comply with the ordinance can lead tofines between $500 and $1000 per percentage point of differencebetween the required recycling rate and the achieved rate. In ad-dition, general contractors who submit false statements, data, orfail to respond to audit instructions can face fines between $2000and $5000 and the loss or suspension of their licenses.

50AA p p e n d i x B : N o n - R e c y c l i n g W a s t e R e d u c t i o nB : N o n R eB : N o n - R e

ap

pe

nd

ix b

: no

n-re

cy

clin

g w

as

te re

duc

tion


Non-Recycling Waste Reduction StrategiesNon-Recycling Waste Reduction Strategies

The following are waste reduction tech-niques other than recycling that are de-signed to reduce consumption of construc-tion materials and divert constructiondebris from the landfill. These strategiesare targeted toward the early stages ofconstruction, remodel, and demolitionprojects. This includes the ordering andmaterial selection stage and the demolitionstage.

Ordering and Material Selection StageOrdering and Material Selection Stage

Construction waste reduction begins withpreventative action in the ordering andmaterial selection phase. Just like at home,the greatest step one can take towardwaste reduction is reducing consumption inthe first place. Contractors that plan aheadcan consume less and save money as well.Examples of reduction strategies contrac-tors can rely on are advanced framing anduse of salvaged materials to reduce con-sumption.

Advanced FramingAdvanced Framing

Advanced framing involves designingbuildings on two-foot framing modules toallow for better use of conventional sheetproducts. Advanced framing reduces bothmaterial and labor cost by spacing studson two-foot centers (in lieu of the conven-tional 16” on center), by generating lessoverall waste through the more efficientuse of sheet products, and by reducing thetime involved with construction as a con-sequence. Advanced framing also involvesthe use of engineered hardware to elimi-nate the need for headers and additionallumber involved in window framing andnon-load-bearing walls. It aligns roof, wall,and floor framing so loads are transferredappropriately and a more structurallysound building results. Advanced fram-ing also increases energy efficiency byreducing the number of thermal gaps (asa result of using fewer studs), which al-lows for more surface area to be insulated.Estimates of total cost savings vary, anddepend on the local cost of building prod-ucts and labor, but generally a single


ap

pe

nd

ix b

: no

n-re

cy

clin

g w

as

te re

duc

tion


family home (1200-2400 square feet) em-ploying advanced framing techniques canexpect a material cost savings of $500-$1000, a labor cost savings of 3-5 percent,and an annual heating and cooling costsavings of up to 5 percent (National Re-newable Energy Laboratory, 2008).

Advanced framing could be promoted byOSD by rewarding contractors and buildingowners who employ its techniques. Thiscould be most efficiently implemented byinvolving the Bureau of Development Serv-ices (BDS), as they not only approve build-ing plans but also determine permit cost.In addition to providing educational mate-rial on advanced framing, the BDS couldalso significantly lower the Systems De-velopment Charges of a permit applicationif advanced framing is used. By educatingboth contractors and building owners of itsbenefits, and by (temporarily) encouragingits use, advanced framing could effectivelybecome an integrated and mainstreampreference in the building industry.

Additional Resources for AdvancedFraming:Framing:NAHB Research Centerwww.nahbrc.org

U.S. Department of Energy’sOak Ridge National LaboratoryBuildings Technology Centerwww.ornl.gov/ORNL/BTC

U.S. Department of Energy’sNational Renewable EnergyLaboratory303-275-3000www.nrel.gov/buildings_thermal

Southface Energy Institute,www.southface.org

Demolition StageDemolition Stage

Demolition waste accounts for a significantportion of construction waste. In 2003, theUS Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)estimated roughly 164 million tons of C&Dwaste from buildings was generated in theUS annually and of this quantity, 9 percent

was construction waste, 38 per-cent wasrenovation waste material, and 53 percentwas demolition debris. Because demolitionwaste composes over half of the nation’sconstruction waste, it makes sense forcontractors to implement strategies spe-cific to this stage aimed at diverting wastefrom the landfill and for OSD to invest indemolition target programs and recom-mendations.

Deconstruction/Recovery

Deconstruction is a method of demolitionthat involves carefully dismantling build-ings piece by piece rather than by destroy-ing the building with conventional methodssuch as wrecking balls. Recovery involvesremoving components whole from thebuilding without disturbing their integrityso they can be directly reused.

Deconstruction and recovery take addi-tional time, but allow a greater portion ofthe existing materials to be reused eitheron-site on the current project, by other


ap

pe

nd

ix b

: no

n-re

cy

clin

g w

as

te re

duc

tion


projects in the company, or to be sold toother companies for reuse, thus reducingcost in the long run. Deconstruction andrecovery techniques excel in making lum-ber and architectural fixtures available forreuse. Careful deconstruction and recov-ery can dramatically reduce the amount ofdemolition waste sent to the landfill (ArmyCorps of Engineers). Hand demolitionand removing major portions of buildingsintact can divert 90 percent of buildingwaste from the landfill. Because demoli-tion waste accounts for over 50 percent ofconstruction waste nation-wide and be-cause 90 percent of demolition waste thatis diverted from the landfill can be reusedrather than recycled, deconstruction andrecovery are practices that stand to makethe biggest difference in decreasing theecological toll and landfill burden imposedby construction projects.

BarriersDemolition may take a few days, whereasdeconstruction and recovery takes around1 man-hour per .3 square feet (ArmyCorps of Engineers). At this slow rate, a

small 2,000 square foot building with acrew of 10 people would take 2-3 weeksto demolish.

The care required to deconstruct buildingsand recover materials makes the processmore expensive compared to demolition.Demolition and recovery can cost $5-7 persquare foot compared to $3-4 for demoli-tion alone. Comparing these costs makesdeconstruction and recovery appear unat-tractive, however, tipping fees later in-crease the cost of demolition further andreuse and sale of recovered and decon-structed materials can re-coup a share ofthe cost of deconstructing and recovering.

RecommendationsThe Solid Waste Management Plan Stake-holder Working Group on C&D recom-mended several incentives during a Janu-ary meeting in 2007. One suggestion,fast-track deconstruction permits, ad-dresses the time barrier. To address thecost barrier, OSD could partner with BDSto offer a reduced price permit or otherpermit-based incentives for deconstruction

permits (OSD, 2007).

Additional recommendations includeda recognition program for deconstruc-tion projects. This would help businessesdevelop their deconstruction practicesand educate other companies about thebenefits. The workgroup also suggestedrequiring demolition and recovery onpublic projects (perhaps all State and/orCity funded projects) (OSD, 2007). Thisrecommendation would help encouragemore demolition companies to becomeskilled in deconstruction projects so theycould secure these projects. It would alsohelp establish a larger base of projectsthat could serve as examples of demolitionprojects.

53AA p p e n d i x C : P r e - c o n s t r u c t i o n F o r m R e v i s i o nC : P r e c o nC : P r e - c o n

ap

pe

nd

ix c

: pre

-co

ns

truc

tion

for re

vis

ion


The Recycling Plan Form can be a valuabletool serving multiple purposes for OSD.OSD can use the form to gather informa-tion on the types of materials generatedand recycled on construction and demoli-tion projects, ensure that an adequateWaste Management Plan is in place, andeducate the general contractor or prop-erty owner on Best Management Prac-tices. Since all construction and demoli-tion projects over $50,000 are requiredto fill out the form, the form is an avenuefor OSD to routinely interact with a largeaudience of general contractor or propertyowner.

Form ReviewForm Review

BHF examined similar preconstructionrecycling forms for eight jurisdictions withforms posted online to assess the typesof material that are commonly requiredof contractors to report. BHF also exam-ined the additional information typicallyrequired of the contractor to report, suchas a summary of the waste management-communication plan or salvage practices.

Additionally, BHF noted the educationaloutreach messages typically included onthe forms such as lists of haulers andfacilities. This investigation of other forms’content (construction waste materials,waste management practices, and educa-tional outreach) helped inform BHF’s revi-sion of OSD’s Recycling Plan Form. BHFredesigned the form with these findingsin mind and with the intent to improvethe form’s construction waste recyclingeducational content to better encourage awaste prevention and diversion strategy.

Form ComparisonForm Comparison

The existing Recycling Plan Form asksonly about 5 materials: rubble, land clear-ing debris, cardboard, metals, and wood.There is room for the contractor to specify1 additional material. Compared to otherforms examined, this is a very short list.Asking for recycling plans with morematerials might increase the amount ofwaste diverted from the landfills and im-prove the variety of materials recycled byrequiring the contractor or property owner

to consider recycling/salvage/reuse op-tions for each listed material.

Portland’s existing form asks the contrac-tor to indicate whether each material willbe commercially hauled, self-hauled, orre-used onsite. The form could be im-proved by asking how the materials willbe collected: source separated or com-mingled, and to which facility the materi-als will be hauled. This would help OSDestimate how likely the project will meetthe 75 percent recycling mandate basedon the pathway chosen.

Most forms (6 out of 8) go an additionalstep by requiring that the contractorsresubmit the form with hauling receiptsafter completing the project and reportthe total construction waste generatedand percentage diverted from the landfill.While this is recommended it is understo-

54

ood that this step may be an unnecessaryadministrative burden on OSD.

Revised Form

The revised form begins as before with astatement on city code and expectations.The next section, as before, asks for con-tact information and general job site/per-mit information.

The third section of the form directs thecontractor or property owner to acknowl-edge, by initialing, OSD’s constructionwaste management requirements andto acknowledge the basic actions he/shewill take to communicate the plan to theconstruction workers and subcontractors.Initialing is used in this section as a tech-nique to improve commitment and follow-through on these requirements and on thecommunication plan suggestions. Writtencommitments are a powerful tool foundin one study of curbside recycling in SaltLake City to improve recycling participa-tion better than fliers, face-to-face com-munication, and telephone calls (Werner et

al, 1995). Four out of eight of the formsreviewed asked for a description of thecommunication plan, a requirement thecurrent form lacks.

The fourth section asks for the projecttype: New Construction , Addition/Altera-tion/Replacement, Demolition, or Decon-struction. This question encourages con-tractors and property owners to considerdeconstruction as an option for this jobsiteor at least for a future jobsite. Askingabout deconstruction on the Recycling PlanForm could lay the initial steps towardoffering a fast-track permit for projectsthat chose deconstruction over demoli-tion (a recommendation from the C&DSolid Waste Management Plan StakeholderWorking Group).

The next section, titled “Salvage/ReusePlan” asks the contractor or propertyowner to list all the materials generated onthe jobsite that will be reused or salvaged.Five out of eight forms reviewed askedabout plans for reusing and salvaging ma-terials.

AA p p e n d i x C : P r e - c o n s t r u c t i o n F o r m R e v i s i o nC : P r e c o nC : P r e - c o n

ap

pe

nd

ix c

: pre

-co

ns

truc

tion

for re

vis

ion

B in Ha l f Fu l l : Construct ion Waste Recyc l ing So lut ionsB in Ha l f Fu l l : Construct ion Waste Recyc l ing So lut ions - Master o f U rban and Reg iona l P lanning Port land State Univers i ty

Since over half the C&D waste producedin the Nation is from demolition (EPA)and since deconstruction and reuse aretechniques demonstrated to divert highamounts (over 80%) from the landfill (U.S.Army Corps of Engineers) plans for salvageand reuse should be included on the form.Their inclusion on this form is meant tostimulate voluntary plans for salvage andreuse without setting a requirement. Thegrey box that follows this section providesa brief educational message about sal-vage/reuse and subsequent cost savingsand lists further resources.

The reverse side begins with a sectiontitled “Recycling Plan.” This section, as onthe existing form, asks the contractor orproperty owner to indicate his/her plansfor recycling the listed C&D materials. Therevised form still asks how the materialswill be transported (self-hauled or hauledby another company). The revised formasks how the materials will be collected(commingled or source separated) andwhere they will be hauled to aid OSD inestimating the diversion rate.

55AA p p e n d i x C : P r e - c o n s t r u c t i o n F o r m R e v i s i o nC : P r e c o nC : P r e - c o n

ap

pe

nd

ix c

: pre

-co

ns

truc

tion

form

revis

ion


The chosen materials in this portion of theform are the 10 most frequently listed ma-terials on the other forms reviewed.

The form concludes with the original re-quired signatures of understanding and afinal listing of additional educational re-sources.

The example revised form is provided asa visual aid to demonstrate how theserecommendations might be included in afuture edition of the PreConstruction Recy-cling Form.

ReferencesReferences

Werner, C. M., Turner, J., Shipman, K.,Twitchell, F. S., et al. (1995). Commitment,behavior, and attitude change: An analy-sis of voluntary recycling. Special Issue:Green psychology. Journal of Environmen-tal Psychology, 15, 197-208.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (2001)Public Works Technical Bulletin 420-49-32:Selection of Methods for the Reduction,Reuse, and Recycling of Demolition Waste.

56AA p p e n d i x D : G e n e r a l I n t e r v i e w I n f o r m a t i o nD : G e n e r aD : G e n e r a

ap

pe

nd

ix d

: ge

ne

ral in

terv

iew

info

rmatio

n


Large landfill with MRF Under ConstructionLarge landfill with MRF Under Construction

Currently, the location of this facility onlyhas a landfill and recycling center associat-ed with it. Loads that are dropped off hereare source separated, commingled andmixed. As such, only those loads that aresource separated are recycled. All otherloads are landfilled. The company thatruns this location is currently in the proc-ess of building a MRF, due to EDWRPs newregulations. The company’s representa-tive that was interviewed manages severalother MRF locations for the company andexpressed the increased difficulty to meetthe old 25 percent recovery rate. He be-lieves it will be much easier to meet the 15percent residual rate. At the location wherethe MRF is being built they will continueto accept source separated, commingledand mixed loads. However, once the MRFis operating they will put all loads throughthe MRF in order to retrieve as many recy-clables as possible and to ensure that onlythe cleanest loads come out of the facility.The representative estimated that each

load that enters the site is touched threeto four times. Right now the market pricesfor materials is not off-setting the cost forseparating the materials.

Material Recovery Facility

This dry waste facility is located on theoutskirts of the metropolitan area. Thecompany used to be privately owned butapproximately five years ago was boughtout by larger public waste company. Thislocation handles both residential and CR&Ddebris, however they only take loads fromtheir own company’s haulers for residen-tial loads. They also accept both sourceseparated and mixed loads. According tothe representative, no outside third partytracks how much is actually recovered. Thecompany self-reports to Metro about fourtimes per year and as of the last time theyreported their recovery rate was around40 percent. He mentioned the 25 percentrecovery rate is getting harder to meet andthe 15 percent residual rate will be much

easier to meet as he believes the companyalready meets this rate. The company hasnoticed a trend that they have been get-ting “lower-end recyclables” which gener-ate a lower selling price. He would prefer ifeveryone commingled so that richer loadswould come in and their costs would becovered. The representative believes thatMetro or some other agency should pro-vide incentives and do more to encouragecompanies with small recycling markets tostay in business. The company provides anadded incentive for LEED loads by charginga lower tipping fee for these commingledloads. According to the representative, onaverage, LEED loads are richer in marketa-ble recyclables and can cover most of theirrecovery costs. The representative alsobelieves there should be stronger enforce-ment from the government so that every-one is on an even playing field.

57

ap

pe

nd

ix d

: ge

ne

ral in

terv

iew

info

rmatio

n

AA p p e n d i x D : G e n e r a l I n t e r v i e w I n f o r m a t i o nD : G e n e r aD : G e n e r a


Material Recovery FacilityMaterial Recovery Facility

This material recovery facility acceptssource separated wood, metal, glass, andcorrugated cardboard as well as commin-gled loads of CR&D waste. From the com-mingled loads, workers recover wood, cor-rugated cardboard, metal, and some typesof plastic. This MRF targets 65 percent ofall incoming waste for recycling, but thatfigure is unreachable if a load is not full ofthese prime recyclables; often workers findthat a load is contaminated only after thecontents from the bottom of the drop-boxreach the sorting floor and it is too late toreject the load.

Success at reaching this target is also af-fected by market cycles. The representa-tive noted that end markets are increasingfor recyclables, driven by Asian consump-tion, making it easier for this MRF to in-crease recycling rates. Metal and cardboardprovide the highest returns: local com-panies such as Schnitzer Steel and MetroMetals purchase the metal and Weyerhaus-er purchases the cardboard to make intonew cardboard. Glass is purchased to be

made into reflective paint. This MRF turnswood into hog fuel, burned to power paperplants; it does not make or lose moneyhere. This MRF also gives away concrete,asphalt, rock, and debris; any return itreceives here is on the front end.

This MRF encourages recycling by providingits own hauling services, catering to theneeds of its customer on the constructionsite; it also charges a lesser tipping feefor garbage than for recyclables. It ques-tions the environmental ethics of shippingrecyclables to Asia; most of its productsstay within a 30-mile radius of the facil-ity. However, like most haulers, it chargescontractors per box of waste that it hauls,rather than by weight, effectively discour-aging source separation and “clean” loadsof prime recyclables.

Mid-size Construction CompanyMid-size Construction Company

This construction company has completeda number of LEED projects, though most oftheir projects are not pursuing LEED cer-tification. This company was not aware ofthe 50 percent construction waste recycling

requirements, but was aware of the Recy-cling Plan Form, which they receive “often”throughout projects. In their view, theform should only be required once, and in-cluded on the form should be a descriptionof the 50 percent recycling requirement.The representative of this company notedthat unless a project is pursuing LEED,they do not source separate any materials.In fact, they do not pay attention to wasteand recycling at all, as they thought therewas no requirement to do so. However, thiscompany has thought up creative ways tosource separate in tight quarters. On onespace-constrained project, the construc-tion company, attempting to reach 95percent recycling rates, used small sepa-rate bins for metal, wood, and concrete.These smaller bins were then taken tolarger bins at their company’s headquar-ters, which were then hauled off by theircontracted hauler as needed. The companyhauled these smaller loads from the siteto its headquarters using its own vehicles.Despite its great efforts, the company, stillcommingled drywall, plastic, and paperalong with trash and other material.

58A pA p p e n d i x D : G e n e r a l I n t e r v i e w I n f o r m a t i o nD : G e n e r aD : G e n e r a

ap

pe

nd

ix d

: ge

ne

ral in

terv

iew

info

rmatio

n


Hauler/MRF

This company is a third generation com-mercial hauler and material recovery fa-cility in Washington County. In that it isfranchised, it does little work in the Cityof Portland. It is familiar with EDWRPand doesn’t mind the change to a 15percent residual; according to METRO’sinspection data, it regularly achievesaround a 4 percent residual, which isone of the highest in the region. Whenasked about Portland’s plans to increasethe mandatory business recycling rateto 75 percent, it said that though itthinks that “it is the right thing to do,” itfeels that Washington County has beenable to achieve as much behavioralchange through education as Portlandhas through regulation. When askedabout the economics of material recov-ery, this hauler mentioned that the costto separate commingled loads roughlyequals the profits achieved by sell-ing recyclables to secondary sources.For this reason, it offer bins for source

separated recyclables with active mar-kets (cardboard, wood, and metal) atsignificantly lower costs to haul and tip,so that they can increase their efficien-cies and reap a higher profit for materi-als when sold.

Mid-size Construction Company

This construction company is a mid-size company, whose projects averagebetween 4 & 5 million dollars per year.They have been in business for lessthan ten years. When it started, it didn’trecycle any of their construction debrisand regularly ordered 5 percent morelumber than was called for in construc-tion plans, in order to accommodatefor mistakes. Now, it source separatescardboard, wood and metal when theycan. It also only orders the amount oflumber called for in the plans and prac-tice advanced framing techniques. Whenasked why it has adopted these prac-tices, it responded that economics is thedriving factor. For the company, it is

cheaper to source separate recyclablesand additional money is saved by order-ing less overall lumber. Combined, thesesavings can be significant. Additionally,

This company was aware of Portland’smandatory increase of the businessrecycling rate and felt this would not bedifficult to achieve. When asked what itfelt were some of the barriers to achiev-ing a 75 percent recovery rate, it statedthat space was sometimes an issue;they also stated that sometimes haulersdo not provide the appropriate bins tosource separate. It has overcome thisbarrier by making its own recycling binsto better fit its jobsite.

59A pA p p e n d i x E : S e c o n d a r y S o u r c e sE :E : S e c o n dS e c o n d


KBAccepts: Sheetrock9602 SE Clackamas Rd,Clackamas, OR503.659.7004

Knez Building MaterialAccepts: Flimsy plastic12301 SE Highway 212Clackamas, OR503.655.1991

Pacific Land Clearing and RecyclingAccepts: Styrofoam16020 S. Park Place Ct.Oregon City, OR 97045503.656.7793

Metro MetalsAccepts: Metals5611 NE Columbia BlvdPortland, Oregon 97218503.287.8861

Schnitzer SteelAccepts: Ferrous Metals12005 N Burgard RoadPortland, OR 97203503.286.5771

WeyerhauserAccepts: Cardboard

ap

pe

nd

ix e

: se

co

nd

ary

so

urc

es

60

ap

pe

nd

ix f: d

efin

ition

s

AA p p e n d i x F : D e f i n i t i o n sF : D e f n tF : D e f i n i t i


“Activity” means a primary op-eration or function that is per-formed in a Solid Waste Facilityor at a Disposal Site, includingbut not limited to ResourceRecovery, Composting, EnergyRecovery, and other types ofProcessing; Recycling; Trans-fer; incineration; and disposalof Solid Waste; but excludingoperations or functions such asSegregation that serveto support the primary Activity.

“Code” means the Metro Code.

“Compost” means the stabi-lized product of composting.

“Composting” means the con-trolled biological decompositionof organic material.

“Composting Facility” meansa site or facility which utilizesorganic material to producea useful product through theprocess of composting.

“Council” means the MetroCouncil.

“DEQ” means the Departmentof Environmental Quality of theState of Oregon.

“Deconstruction” means thedismantlement of a a structurefor the purpose of rebuilding orrecycling

“Direct haul” means the deliv-ery of Putrescible Waste froma Solid Waste Facility directlyto Metro’s contract operator fordisposal of Putrescible Waste.Direct Haul is an Activity underthis chapter.

“Disposal site” means the landand facilities used for the dis-posal of Solid Wastes whetheror not open to the public, butdoes not include transfer sta-tions or processing facilities.

“Dry waste” is mixed wastethat does not contain food orother organics.

“Franchise” means the grant ofauthority or privilege given bythe Council to operate a Dis-posal Site, Transfer Station, oran Energy Recovery facility.

“License” means the permis-sion given by the Council orChief Operating Officer to op-erate a Solid Waste Facility notexempted or requiring a Fran-chise under this chapter thatTransfers, and Processes SolidWaste, and may perform otherauthorized Activities.

“Licensee” means the personto whom a License is grantedby the Council or Chief Operat-ing Officer under this chapter.

“Local Transfer Station” meansa Transfer Station that servesthe demand for disposal of

Putrescible Waste that is gen-erated within a single ServiceArea, and may provide fewerdisposal services than are pro-vided by a Regional TransferStation.

“Material recovery facility”means a type of ResourceRecovery that is limited tofacilities that used mechani-cal methods of obtaining fromsolid waste materials whichstill have useful physical orchemical properties and can bereused, recycled, or compostedfor some purpose.

“Metro Designated Facility”means a facility in the systemof transfer stations, MetroFranchised facilities andlandfills authorized underMetro Code Chapter 5.05 toaccept waste generated in thearea within the jurisdiction ofMetro.

ap

pe

nd

ix d

: ge

ne

ral in

terv

iew

info

rmatio

n

61

ap

pe

nd

ix f: d

efin

ition

s



“Non-putrescible waste” meansany Waste that contains nomore than trivial amounts ofPutrescible materials or minoramounts of Putrescible mate-rials contained in such a waythat they can be easily sepa-rated from the remainder ofthe load without causing con-tamination of the load. Thiscategory includes constructionwaste and demolition wastebut excludes Cleanup Materi-als Contaminated by HazardousSubstances, Source-SeparatedRecyclable Material, specialwaste, land clearing debris andyard debris.

“Process,” “Processing” or“Processed” means a methodor system of altering the form,condition or content of Wastes,including but not limited tocomposting, vermiprocessingand other controlled methodsof biological decomposition;classifying; separating; shred-ding, milling, pulverizing, or

hydropulping; but excludingincineration or mechanical vol-ume reduction techniques suchas baling and compaction.

“Processing facility” means aplace or piece of equipmentwhere or by which Solid Wastesare processed. This definitiondoes not include commercialand home garbage disposalunits, which are used to proc-ess food wastes and are partof the sewage system, hospitalincinerators, crematoriums,paper shredders in commercialestablishments, or equipmentused by a recycling drop center.

“Processing residual” meansthe Solid Waste destined fordisposal which remains afterResource Recovery has takenplace.

“Recyclable material” meansmaterial that still has or re-tains useful physical, chemical,or biological properties afterserving its original purpose(s)

or function(s), and that can bereused, recycled, or compostedfor the same or other purpose

“Recycle” or “Recycling” meansany process by which Wastematerials are transformed intonew products in such a mannerthat the original products maylose their identity.

“Recycling center” means afacility that receives and tem-porarily stores multiple sourceseparated recyclable materi-als, including but not limited toglass, scrap paper, corrugatedpaper, newspaper, tin cans, alu-minum, plastic and oil, whichmaterials will be transported orsold to third parties for reuse orresale.

“Regional Transfer Station”means a Transfer Station thatmay serve the disposal needsof more than one Service Areaand is required to accept solidwaste from any person whodelivers

authorized solid waste to theRegional Transfer Station.

“Resource recovery” means aprocess by which useful mate-rial or energy resources areobtained from Solid Waste.

“Reuse” means the return of acommodity into the economicstream for use in the same kindof application as before withoutchange in its identity.

“Segregation” means the re-moval of prohibited wastes,unauthorized wastes, bulkymaterial incidental to the Trans-fer of Solid Waste. Segrega-tion does not include ResourceRecovery or other Processing ofSolid Waste. The sole intent ofsegregation is not to separateUseful Material from the SolidWaste but to remove prohib-ited, unauthorized waste orbulky materials that could behard to handle by either thefacility personnel or operationequipment.

62

ap

pe

nd

ix f: d

efin

ition

s



“Solid waste” means all Pu-trescible and Non-PutrescibleWastes

“Solid waste facility” meansthe land and buildings atwhich Solid Waste is re-ceived for Transfer, ResourceRecovery,and/or Processing butexcludes disposal.

“Source Separate” or “SourceSeparated” or “Source Separa-tion” means that the personwho last uses recyclablematerial separates the recycla-ble material from Solid Waste.

“Source separated recyclablematerial” or “Source separatedrecyclables” means solid wastethat has been Source Separat-ed by the waste generator forthe purpose of Reuse,Recycling, or Composting.

“Transfer” means the Activityof receiving Solid Waste for

purposes of transferring theSolid Waste from one vehicleor container to another vehicleor container for transport.Transfer may include segrega-tion, temporary storage,consolidation of Solid Wastefrom more than one vehicle,and compaction, but does notinclude Resource Recoveryor other Processing of SolidWaste.

“Transfer station” means aSolid Waste Facility whoseprimary Activities include, butare not limited to, the Transferof Solid Waste.

“Trash Onlly” means mixedwaste

“Useful material” means ma-terial that still has or retainsuseful physical, chemical, orbiological properties after serv-ing its original purpose(s) orfunction(s), and which, when

separated from Solid Waste, issuitable for use in the sameor other purpose(s).

“Waste” means any materialconsidered to be useless,unwanted or discarded bythe person who last used thematerialfor its intended andoriginal purpose.

“Waste hauler” means any per-son who is franchised,licensedor permitted by a local govern-ment unit pursuant tostate law to collect and haulSolid Waste.

Relevant Definitions taken fromthose listed in Metro’s Code, TitleV: Solid WasteV: Solid Waste

63

ap

pe

nd

ix g

: ho

gfu

el in

form

atio

n

AA p p e n d i x G : H o g f u e l I n f o r m a t i o nG : H o g f u eG : H o g f u e


DEQ estimates that recyclable woodwaste accounts for approximately 12percent of the waste disposed of in thePortland Metro Area, or roughly 152,00tons annually, generated across theindustrial, residential and commercialsectors, (RSWMP, 2005). Despite thehigh volume disposed, wood also re-mains one of the most viable recycla-ble material with active markets. Themajority of this wood waste is shred-ded and delivered as fuel to boilers inthe wood and paper mill industries.

Washington State has done considera-ble research on the viability of expand-ing hog fuel markets in the region.One of problems researchers havefound with the hogfuel market is that,despite competition for the resource,prices per ton remain low. Through-out the research, MRFs and recyclersstated that the cost to process hogfuel(which, after it is separated from otherdebris requires a grinder) plus the

cost to deliver the fuel to a second-ary source, roughly equals the marketcost. In some cases it is processedand delivered free of charge to asecondary source. Because the over-whelming majority of hogfuel feedsboilers in the wood and paper indus-tries, who already produce a substan-tial amount of their own wood wasteand hence, are able to supply theirown fuel needs. In Washington State,over 95 percent of hogfuel is burnedby these industries alone. (WashingtonState Department of Ecology, 2005).

Moving the market for hogfuel beyondthe pulp or paper industries, perhapsas a heating or electricity source forgovernment-owned buildings within ei-ther the region or the State, is a viableavenue to increasing the wood recy-cling market. Many schools and olderindustrial buildings use large boilers asa primary heating source.

Currently, most industrial boilers in use aredesigned to accommodate a wide range of fuel,including coal, natural gas, oil, mixed fuel, andwood.

While efficiency is often cited as a reason not toconvert a boiler from, for example, coal to wood,aggregate efficiencies are often not taken intoaccount in these comparisons.

64

ap

pe

nd

ix g

: ho

gfu

el in

form

atio

n

AA p p e n d i x G : H o g f u e l I n f o r m a t i o nG : H o g f u eG : H o g f u e


For example, while a coal-fired boiler usedfor electricity might operate between ata 25-40 percent efficiency level, while awood-fired boiler in the same scenariomight only operate between a 15-25 per-cent efficiency level (Council of IndustrialBoiler Owners, 2003), the modeling doesnot account for the energy required toextract, process and transport coal to thedesired market.

While particulate and toxic emissionsremain a concern when burning hogfuelin industrial boilers, emissions vary con-siderably depending on both the mois-ture content and treatment of the wood.Clean, dry wood (i.e. pallet wood) burnsthe cleanest, with relatively low emissions.For a comprehensive analysis of hogfuelemissions, please refer to the WashingtonState Dept. of Ecology document entitled,“Hogfuel Boiler RACT Determination” citedbelow.

Regionally, wood is an abundant, renew-able resource that accounts for a substan-tial percentage of landfilled debris. Of

the wood that is recycled, it is essentially“given” away as a free fuel source. It isrecommended to work toward expandingthe markets for hogfuel beyond the pulp orpaper industries.

References:References:

Clark County Department of Solid Waste,Clark County Solid Waste ManagementPlan, 2000 (www.clark.wa.gov/recycle/documents/

9%20Energy%20Recovery%20Incineration.pdf)

Council of Industrial Boilers, Energy Ef-ficiency and Industrial Boiler Efficiency,2003 (www.cibo.org)

Washington State Department of Ecology,Hog Fuel Boiler RACT Determination, 2005(www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0302009.html)

In Tech, Algorithm Efficiencies in a CrudeContext, 2004 (http://www.isa.org)

constrconstruction wasteuction waste recyrecycling ... · constrconstruction wasteuction waste...

Documents