Overall Rating Gold
Overall Score 70.76
Liaison Richard Johnson
Submission Date Oct. 13, 2017
Executive Letter Download

STARS v2.1

Rice University
OP-20: Construction and Demolition Waste Diversion

Status Score Responsible Party
Complete 0.67 / 1.00 Richard Johnson
Director of Sustainability
Facilities Engineering and Planning
"---" indicates that no data was submitted for this field

Construction and demolition materials recycled, donated, or otherwise recovered during the most recent year for which data is available within the previous three years:
455.13 Tons

Construction and demolition materials landfilled or incinerated during the most recent year for which data is available within the previous three years:
223.40 Tons

Percentage of construction and demolition materials diverted from the landfill or incinerator through recycling, donation and/or other forms of recovery:
67.08

A brief description of programs, policies, infrastructure investments, outreach efforts, and/or other factors that contributed to the diversion rate for construction and demolition waste:

As a part of requiring all new construction to achieve LEED-Silver certification at minimum, all new building and major renovation projects are require to achieve at minimum a 75% recycling rate for construction and demolition waste. See section 7 of the attached environmental standards for details.


The website URL where information about the programs or initiatives is available:
---

Additional documentation to support the submission:

The data provided is for the Anderson-Clarke Center for Continuing Studies building. 83.1 tons of concrete - all recycled, 2.63 tons recycled ceiling tiles, 65 tons recycled metal, 15.5 tons recycled cardboard/paper, 127.40 tons additional concrete recycling, 101.25 tons of recycled wood, and 60.25 tons recycled gypsum board. Total = 455.13 tons of recycled material.

Total non-recycled waste: 1,117 cubic yards. Assume 400 lbs per cubic yard of loose construction debris (uncompacted), thus 223.4 tons on material sent to landfill.

Diversion rate from project thus 67% by weight.

The actual recycling rate was higher, but documentation was misplaced.

Data from smaller projects not available during this time period, but now required for future projects.

The information presented here is self-reported. While AASHE staff review portions of all STARS reports and institutions are welcome to seek additional forms of review, the data in STARS reports are not verified by AASHE. If you believe any of this information is erroneous or inconsistent with credit criteria, please review the process for inquiring about the information reported by an institution and complete the Data Inquiry Form.