1. C&D Waste Mgmt. at UM Amherst - October John Pepi, Office of Waste Management (OWM) - Peter Gray-Mullen – P.E., LEED, Project Executive, UMA Design & Construction Mgmt. -

2. (1) What does C&D Waste consist of?
Topics Covered:
(1) What does C&D Waste consist of?
(2) How is it being managed today - UMass (Amherst) and Regionally?
(3) What are the challenges for institutions of Higher Education?
Complying with Mass Waste Bans
LEED and Sustainability goals
Lowering costs of waste management operations

3. Average of C&D Waste Characterization Study Results (percent by weight) DSM - 2007

4. Average of C&D Waste Characterization Study Results (percent by weight) DSM - 2007

5. END DISPOSITION OF MASS C&D -2007

8. UWM Holdings -MSW/C&D Transfer Facility Opened 2013

9. Western Recycling, Wilbraham Processed Co-mingled C&D 2000 -2014

10. Facility
2014 DATA
Note: All data reported in tons unless otherwise indicated
Total C&D waste accepted
Transferred (to C&D Processor)
Total % of C&D waste transferred to another C&D processor
Handled by the facility. (less Transferred)
Recycled
Handled Recycling Rate (%) = tons of C&D materials recycled divided by tons handled (not including transferred material).
Wood reused (fuel, particleboard, mulch)
Total % of wood reused (fuel, particleboard, mulch)
Landfill dependant application
Total % of C&D fines & residuals used in landfill dependant applications
Disposed landfill/combustion
C&D % of disposed
Overall recycling rate (%) = tons recycled divided by total C&D waste accepted
C&D Residual accepted (for disposal)
Disposed landfill/combustion (less C&D Residual Accepted)
Tri County Recycling
Ware
5,739 0%
1,158
20%
4,702
82%
UWM Holdings, Inc.
Holyoke
47,260
16,887
36%
30,373
365 1%
29,415
97%
Western Recycling C&D Processor
Wilbraham
33,430
8,442
25%
4,039
12%
14,598
44%
12,067
Total C&D Processors
86,429
69,542
9,965
14% 6%
21%
46,184
66% -
C&D Processors Average
28,810
5,629
23,181
3,322
1,346
4,866
15,395
C&D Processors Max
C&D Processors Min
Total C&D Transfer Stations
#DIV/0!
C&D Transfer Stations Average
C&D Transfer Stations Max
C&D Transfer Stations Min
Combined Totals

11. 2009 Annual C&D Report Data Summary
Facility
2009 DATA
C&D Facility's Material Sorting Method
Total tons of C&D waste accepted
Total tons of C&D waste transferred to another C&D handling facility
Total % of C&D waste transferred to another C&D handling facility
Totoal tons handled by the facility. Does not include tons transferred to another facility.
Tons of C&D recycled. Includes wood, paper, plastic, etc Excludes material used in landfill applications (C&D fines/residuals) and C&D waste transferred to another facility.
Total % of materials recycled (Recycling Rate) Recycling Rate = tons of C&D materials recycled divided by tons handled. Recycling Rate does not include C&D material used in landfill applications (C&D fines) or C&D waste transferred to another facility
Total tons of wood reused (fuel, particleboard, mulch)
Total % of wood reused (fuel, particleboard, mulch)
Tons of C&D used in landfill applications (C&D Fines/Residuals)
Total % of C&D fines & residuals used as ADC or G&S
Tons of C&D disposed in landfills or municipal waste combustors
C&D % of disposed Note: this does not include mixed C&D waste transferred to another processor
C&D Handling Facility's explanation of discrepancy in tonnage
ABC&D Recycling, Inc.
9,032 0%
1,475
16%
8,974
99%
ABC&D reported it maintained a pile of asphalt, brick, concrete and clean wood that would eventurally be crused/ground and sent out as diverted material.
Western Recycling C&D Transfer Station
65,730
16,869
26%
9,135
14%
25,418
39%
27,564
42%
Western Recycling reported water weight added due to dust control and outside storage of processed materials.
Totals
74,762
18,344
25%
12%
34%
36,538
49%

12. Massachusetts 2009 & 2014 C&D Disposition
Landfill/WTE
L’fill Dependent
Recycled
Total
as Waste
Applications
Percent
51.2%
19.6%
29.2%
100.0%
Tons
486,331
186,056
277,663
973,829
l'fill/wte
fines/resids
excl fines/resid)
1,109,229
2014
47.1%
21.4%
27.7%
96.2%
548,288
249,473
323,020
1,459,101

13. Pre-Waste Ban UMass C&D Options Pilot
With early 2000’s emphasis on new waste streams to divert from landfill and waste-to-energy disposal, DEP provided UMass with a grant for a case study (2002) regarding options for front end handling/sorting of C&D.
UMass in the early phases of a building boom that ultimately saw millions of square feet added and a number of older, small buildings demolished.
3. Three tracks for study:
Introducing C&D waste management plan requirements into construction contracts
Testing on-site work phasing, materials handling and container logistics to maximize waste diversion – including measurements of waste stream composition.
Testing cost-effectiveness of small building deconstruction (vs wrecking ball)

14. On-site material handling options:
*Meetings with contractor construction managers/job foreman and UMass to discuss work sequence and container needs by material type.
Options were 3:
1 - rolloffs dedicated for each major material type;
2- rolloffs with dividers for 2-3 material types,
3 -normal rolloffs for mixed C&D

15. For contractors - labor time/project schedule and space limits - were higher considerations than avoided disposal costs.
Divided rolloffs helped address the laydown space issue but were inflexible relative to waste flows and volumes, and more prone to contamination.
Dedicated rolloffs were workable for sorting schemes but demanded hard to come by lay down space at job sites.
If anything, the high value streams are more attractive for contractor sorting: e.g. cardboard & metal vs wood & concrete.

16. Mass./DEP Waste Bans Since 2006
Asphalt pavement, brick & concrete
Wood (only banned from landfills)
Metal
Clean Gypsum wall board (can’t go mixed to C&D disposal
or transfer facilities)
Asphalt shingles?
Exemption for small transfer facilities which receive C&D
materials from exclusively trucks rated at <5cy

17. UMass Division of Responsibility:
OWM handles only waste from small alterations, road repair and sidewalk construction wastes – delivered to our facility
MATERIAL
ANNUAL TONNAGE
ALL/C&D Sources
NOTES
Wood
220/75
Mostly furniture, shelving, non construction waste
Concrete/
Rubble
200/200
Mostly footings around lite poles and meters (infrastructure)
Metal - Steel, Brass, Copper
450/50
Minor fraction from construction/demo

18. UMass Design & Construction Management
Typically new or large renovations with House Doctor/On-Call designers or DCAMM or UMBA
LEED and UMass Sustainability Guidelines

20. Sustainability & LEED Certification

24. UM Design & Construction/UMBA/DCAM
responsible for large project C&D Waste

25. UMass LEED Projects - Completed
Building Name
Type
LEED Certification
LEED GSF
George N. Parks Minuteman Marching Band Building
New
Gold
21,424
UMass Police Station
27,250
CNS Greenhouses
15,555
Hampshire Dining Commons
Renovation
46,001
McGuirk Stadium & Football Champions Center
52,960
Life Sciences Laboratories
231,006
Commonwealth Honors College Residential Complex
Silver
512,485
Lincoln CC Dining Renovation
35,095
429,291 square feet LEED certified Gold and 512,485 square feet certified Silver -
or 7.4% of all campus gross square feet, supporting 3,896 occupants

26. UMass LEED Projects – C&D Waste
Building Name
Type
% Diverted
Diverted/Total
(tons)
Furcolo School of Education
Renovation 91
1,141/1,258
Life Sciences Laboratories 2 72
202/279
Integrative Learning Center
New 80
696/865
Design Building 88
276/315
McGuirk Stadium & Football Champions Center 98
2,307/2,363
Physical Sciences Building 89
108/122
South College Academic Facility
Renovation/New 82
417/509
746,462 additional square feet LEED certified Silver or Gold over next 2 – 3 years

27. LEED Building Case Studies CO2 Diversion
Building Name
Annual CO2 Diversion (Metric Tons)
Construction Waste CO2 Diversion
(Metric Tons)
Water CO2 Diversion (Metric Tons)
Electricity
Steam
Total
Marching Band
238
114
351
131 -
Police Station 96 4
100
281
0.05
CNS Green Houses
-576 88
Commonwealth Honors College
340
115
455
4,139 7
Hampshire Dining
-55
-1,176
786
-12
Life Science Laboratories
Need Phase II Data
1,799
-14
Football Performance Center
673 -2

29. Cost Savings from C&D Waste Diversion

30. Next Steps – Challenges
Review applicability to smaller projects
Audit of Waste Reporting and Field Observation
Evaluate Cost impacts

31. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION!
FOR LINKS TO SOME OR ALL OF THESE SLIDE AND BACKGROUND MATERIALS:
John Pepi – Peter Gray-Mullen –

32. CONCLUDING THOUGHTS:
Whatever success Umass has had diverting C&D waste during its extensive building program of the last 15 years, depended largely on the existence of C&D processing/sorting facilities such as Western Recycling.
Western shut down 2 yrs ago. Why? As I recall Western’ normal tip fee for mixed C&D waste was right around or just above the region’s MSW disposal prices ($60-75/ton). Lack of demand (DEP & disposal facility enforcement?) or low out of state landfilling prices.

33. Contractor C&D Waste Management Plans:
Emphasis:
A – Educate contractors on use of available markets for C&D waste streams; wood, metal, concrete, cardboard, gypsum wall board (especially Western Recycling of Wilbraham – a C&D processing & transfer facility that closed recently.)
B- Tracking of shipments to C&D recycling vs disposal facilities
C- Monitored by Project management staff (very few UMass projects managed in house)