alternatives analysis for resource recovery …...saic recommendations to reach zero waste at ucsc...

4TH DRAFT - ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS AUG 18, 2014 – 4TH DRAFT

Alternatives Analysis for Resource Recovery Operations Grounds Services, Physical Plant

University of California at Santa Cruz

DRAFT 1: May 9, 2014 DRAFT 2: May 19, 2014 DRAFT 3: May 23, 2014

DRAFT 4: August 18, 2014

This draft was optimized for electronic review. If a version of this document that is amendable to easy printing is required, please request a copy from Bradley Angell at [email protected] This document was written by Bradley Angell of Grounds Services under the direction of Roger Edberg, Senior Supervisor Grounds Services, and Henry Salameh, Physical Plant Director. William Alderson, Recycle Crew Supervisor, and Ronald Dillehay, Heavy Equipment Shop Supervisor, provided extensive document review and expertise on the labor requirements of each alternative. David Lane and Erin Fitzgibbons, both of Capital Planning and Space Management, provided critical insights as to the structure and substance of this document. Operational insights and design necessities were provided by the consultant team concurrently undertaking a Recycle Yard Feasibility Report, specifically the design professionals at Joni L. Janecki and Associates, Inc., and Clements Environmental. Patti Davis, Assistant Business Manager of the Physical Plant, provided labor cost details as well as current loan/amortization details for major equipment purchases. Patti McGill, Business Manager of the Physical Plant provided details of the current recharge system and business operations for resource recovery on campus.

i


Executive Summary In the most recent Fiscal Year 2012-2013, the campus produced nearly 3,600 tons of discarded resources that were recovered in daily operations. In that same period, 64% of those materials recovered were diverted from the local landfill. According to University of California Office of the President Sustainability goals, all the UC campuses are to be Zero Waste by the year 2020, that is, the campus is to deposit less than 5% of all resources recovered into a landfill. As Grounds Services already executes a robust materials recycling program, the only course for UCSC to reach Zero Waste by 2020 is to dramatically improve the capture and processing of compostable materials currently embedded in the refuse stream. So far, Grounds Services has not been able to successfully divert compostable materials because it does not have the infrastructure to manage this difficult resource stream. In the past year, a new recycle yard has been proposed in connection to the rehabilitation of the historic Hay Barn on the UCSC campus. In addition to the relocation of the existing resource recovery functions presently housed at the Hay Barn, it has been proposed that the new recycle yard be programmed to manage and process a full compost stream to enable UCSC’s Zero Waste by 2020. Prior to programming the new recycle yard site, a thorough economic and qualitative analysis has been undertaken to review all reasonable operational alternatives that could be executed at a new recycle yard. This report documents this analysis so as to present the options available to the Grounds Services department, to outline the preferred alternative proposed for resource recovery operations, and to inform the final design of the recycle yard in furtherance of current as well as future resource recovery management. In the following chapters, the circumstances of resource recovery on the UCSC campus are outlined as well as the challenges faced by Grounds Services’ recycling and heavy equipment supervisors. In response to these challenges, seven alternatives are analyzed, whereby four (Alternatives 4-7) could hypothetically bring the campus to Zero Waste by 2020. Based on today’s conditions and the immediate vendor outlook, only two of these alternatives (Alternative 4 and 6) allow a dependable operations infrastructure to reach Zero Waste in the next six years. Following the seven alternatives there is a narrative as to the benefits and drawbacks of employing the City of Santa Cruz’s Resource Recovery services to manage the campus in furtherance of waste-based sustainability goals. In the closing chapter of this report, Grounds Services staff recommend that campus pursue Alternative 4: Zero Waste, Sorted Recycling, Composting On-Campus in its operational planning and recycle yard programming. Due to the extreme difficulty in managing the soiled paper and compostable tableware component with local processing facilities, the only option for processing this significant portion of our compostable waste stream critical to reach Zero Waste is with an on-campus composting facility. In addition, the existing sorted recycling portion of the resource recovery system is suggested for bolstered continuation so as to assure the safety of campus workers, to safeguard the integrity of landfill diversion as delivered by campus agents, to improve the economic outlook for the department, and to maintain the qualitative commitment this department has provided the recycling industry into the foreseeable future.

ii


Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................... i Table of Contents ........................................................................................................ ii Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 Zero Waste 2020 ........................................................................................................ 6 Alternatives Analyzed for Optimized Resource Management ................................... 13

Alternative 1..................................................................................................... 14 Alternative 2 .................................................................................................... 14 Alternative 3 .................................................................................................... 15 Alternative 4 (Zero Waste possible) ............................................................ 16 Alternative 5 .................................................................................................... 19 Alternative 6 (Zero Waste possible) ............................................................ 23 Alternative 7 .................................................................................................... 25 Off-Site Alternative ......................................................................................... 27

Staff Suggestion .......................................................................................................... 30 Appendices Appendix A: (DRAFT) UCSC Zero Waste Collection Pilot Model 38 Appendix B: Zero Waste Income, Expense & Capital Expenditure Analysis 53 Appendix C: UC Davis biodigester turns campus waste into campus energy 77 Appendix D: Email from Z-Best of Gilroy 80 Appendix E: SAIC Solid Waste Assessment and Early Action Items Report 82 Appendix F: Tentative Results of April 2014 Campus-Wide Waste Assessment 122 Appendix G: Feedback Received at 8.4.14 Waste Reduction Working Group 140 Figures 1 Proposed Waste Station at McHenry Library 9 2 BearSaver Collection Containers already in use on Campus 11 3 20-Yard BioBin Roll-Off Box 17 4 EnivroDrum In-Vessel Composter 18 5 RotoChopper Grinder 18 6 Interior of Trommel 20 Tables 1 SAIC Recommendations to Reach Zero Waste at UCSC 2-3 2 Physical Plant Recommendations Critical to Reaching Zero Waste 4 3 Potential Diversion Rates with Optimized Resource Management 5 4 Alternative Comparison in Meeting Zero Waste Recommendations 29


Introduction Since the “Bowl” site was conditionally selected for further study, review and costing in terms of locating a new recycle yard for campus resource recovery operations on campus has intensified. This capital project is not only necessary to replace the existing recycle yard storage space being dislocated from the historic Hay Barn, but is a key component to implement resource stream processing activities necessary to reach the campus’s Zero Waste 2020 goal set by the University of California Office of the President [hereafter “UCOP”]. In addition to the space lost at the Hay Barn, current satellite recycling activities that currently occur at the Steinhart turnout as well as at the Music building’s dock area are in need of an approved, permanent location for continued service. To start this investigation, Campus Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor Allison Galloway authorized support of the pre-design study and preliminary planning for a proposed recycling yard in March 2013. Based on the size of current operations and a desire to provide composting services, early analysis concluded that an appropriate recycling yard site would need at least a 2-acre footprint, and for optimal management, a 3-acre site is preferred. According to a preliminary review by campus staff, two locations were fitting for project objectives: the “Bowl” and a “North Remote” site. Each site was then judged based on concept site layouts, regulatory compliance review, and considerable engineering challenges. After measured consideration, the Bowl site was selected as most fitting for continued study and design evaluation. The Bowl is located on the south half of the UCSC campus, just north of the Center for Agroecology & Sustainable Food Systems [hereafter “Farm”] and west of The Village, a housing cluster located in the Lower Quarry on the east side of campus. As the site straddles two area designations, the 2005 Long Range Development Plan has identified the project site as appropriate for both “Site Specific Research” and “Protected Landscape” land uses. Due to extra-campus issues of project construction costs and the accelerated project schedule for the historic Hay Barn, design for the new recycle yard should begin as soon as possible. Prior to further design efforts, an internal study of resource recovery operational alternatives is required so as to enumerate a common plan in meeting Zero Waste goals with fiscal prudence and in furtherance of the campus’s proven commitment to environmental stewardship. The following document is meant as a tool in such a plan, presented as an Alternatives Analysis for Resource Recovery Operations prepared by the current resource recovery team of the Grounds Services department at the UCSC Physical Plant. This report has been broken up into a series of chapters:

- Zero Waste 2020, an overview of activities; - Alternatives Analysis outlining the infrastructure necessary for Zero Waste; - Staff Suggestion discussion the reasoning behind the preferred alternative; and - Appendices, including the detailed economics analysis central to this report.

1

SAIC Recommendations to Reach Zero Waste at UCSC27 Recommendations necessary to reach 95% diversion, the status of each, and the impact of satisfying recommondation on recycle yard programming

Recommendation

Responsibility (SAIC Report)

Already Obtained

Beneficial to Zero Waste

Critical to Zero

Waste

Impacts Recycle

Yard Comments

Policy

Require all solid waste and recyclables transfer to Santa Cruz Landfill be done by Physical Plant

To Be

Determined

Grounds Services coordinates heavily with most agents on campus that

internally self-haul. In order to systemically process all campus waste, a

permanent on-campus drop-off location would be necessary. In the past,

the Hay Barn location has functioned as this drop-off point.

Program

Focus new waste diversion efforts this year and next on diverting food scraps and compostable, non-

recyclable paper, especially paper towels. This is by far the single largest category of divertable

material currently disposed as trash.

Physical Plant Grounds Services has intensly focused on processing the organics stream.

For Zero Waste by 2020, only an on-campus composting option is viable

to process the non-food organic stream.

Develop on-site organics management feasibility study. To Be

Determined

A feasibility plan is under development as part of the planning for a

proposed Recycle Yard.

Conduct pilot programs, including dorm chute closures, fee for single-use hot beverage containers at

one or two coffee kiosks or other food service area (to promote waste reduction), and explore the

potential to expand on-site composting in a decentralized manner.

Sustainability

Office

Grounds Services regularly works with Housing, Dining and the

Sustainability Office to conduct pilot programs and improved

decentralized approachs to organics processing.Evaluate the potential of adding paper towels (as discussed earlier, observed to be the largest fraction

of compostable paper, which is a large component of the trash) to compactors for off-site composting.

If feasible, begin implementation. If not, consider other off-site and on-site processing options.Physical Plant

Grounds Services has aggressively pursued this recommednation. UCSC

has reached the outer threshold of vendor acceptance of these non-food

compostable materials.

Expand compostables collection to additional food service establishments.

Phyiscal Plant

with Dining

The majority of food service establishments enjoy a regular organic

recovery service, provided as a joint effort between Grounds Services and

Dining. Expanding the service beyond its current development may

require an on-campus composting facility as off-campus vendors are

hesitant to take any greater quantities of non-food compostable materials.

Re-evaluate the utility of supplying paper towels in dorms.Housing

Paper towels have been removed from most of the residence halls, and

are planned for full removal in the near future.

Restrain, discourage, do not recommend, or take no position on the purchasing of single-use bio-

plastics for food service.Sustainability

Office

Bolster existing recycling education and outreach efforts at the ten largest generators, to increase

diversion.

Sustainability

Office

Grounds Services has requested coordinated support for a regular, online

training program with the Sustainability Office.

Metrics

Review the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery’s ( CalRecycle’s ) accepted

methodology for disposal-based accounting for local governmentsPhysical Plant

Grounds Services is required to follow the direction of UCOP.

Decide whether to use CalRecycle’s current methodology. If yes, (a) calculate results in terms of total

disposed waste and disposed waste per capita; (b) recommend that UCOP’s reporting requirements

reflect CalRecycle’s accepted methodology.

Zero Waste Task

Force Grounds Services is required to follow the direction of UCOP.

Collect and analyze data regarding trash and recycling collection efficiency, in terms of cost per cubic

yard of service capacity provided and cost per ton collected. Physical Plant Grounds Services has aggresively tracked the department's performance

rate over the past year. Findings and requisite suggestions are outlined in

the following alternatives analysis.

Collect and analyze cost/benefit data regarding pre-processing steps taken to produce commodities

with higher market value.

Physical Plant

Grounds Services has for years struggled with creating a "transfer trailer" or

reloading dock for material pre- or re-processing. Since this report was

published, Grounds Services managers have intensely studied the best

value for material resale and management. Further improvements are

outlined in this alternatives analysis.

TABLE 1. SAIC Recommendations to Reach Zero Waste at UCSC (Page 1 of 2)

2

SAIC Recommendations to Reach Zero Waste at UCSC27 Recommendations necessary to reach 95% diversion, the status of each, and the impact of satisfying recommondation on recycle yard programming

Recommendation

Responsibility (SAIC Report)

Already Obtained

Beneficial to Zero Waste

Critical to Zero

Waste

Impacts Recycle

Yard Comments

Infrastructure

Upgrade rudimentary paper sorting system, to increase worker safety and operating efficiency.

Physical Plant Presently, all paper sorting is largely conducted at the point of deposit or

in the corporate yard. A covered, stable space would greatly improve the

efficiency, safety and quality of paper sorting.

Develop or update a capital equipment replacement schedule.Physical Plant

Grounds Services has updated its fleet considerably since 2012 for Zero

Waste 2020.

Develop a schedule for replacing non-standardized exterior and interior collection containers,

university-wide.Physical Plant

A plan has been jointly authored between Custodial Services and

Grounds Services to implement a campus-wide collection system. A

standard BearSaver or other like exterior collection system is under study

and near completion by Grounds Services.

Articulate the need for a permanent location for materials aggregation and processing, including for

recyclables and possibly organics (e.g., food scraps and compostable paper).Physical Plant

Research has shown that only an on-campus composting facility will allow

UCSC to reach Zero Waste by 2020.

Staffing

Develop task description for a campus waste reduction and recycling coordinator. TBD Evaluate and propose ways to hire more student employees and involve more student volunteers in

waste reduction and recycling outreach, operations, and research (including the feasibility of

centralized on-site processing of food scraps; and an evaluation of a rental program for reusables.

Sustainability

Office

Communication

Develop consistent signage (stickers, posters, signs, etc.) for use campus-wide. Physical Plant

Since this report, Grounds Services has created uniform signage for the

campus.

Re-sticker all bins.Physical Plant

Since this report, all bins and BearSaver receptacles have been re-

stickered with the uniform signage.

Affix posters where useful. Physical Plant

with

Sustainability

Office

Grounds Services has not had the resources to pursue this

recommendation.

Maintain and review annually the recycling website to reflect the most current list of reusable or

recyclable materials accepted and their proper preparation.Physical Plant

Due to technical difficulties in updating the Grounds Services website, we

have not pursued this recommendation to this date. In the past month,

website infrastructure has been reformed to make updates much easier.

Grounds Services will pursue this recommendation in the next six months.

Link the site to appropriate pages on the Office of Sustainability’s website.Physical Plant

Grounds Services and Sustainability Office have begun the process of

linking to resource recovery websites.

Develop clear responsibilities and protocols for responding to waste reduction and recycling inquiries

campus-wide, and communicate the content through the Office of Sustainability’s website and via the

establishment of a recycling hotline.

Physical Plant

with

Sustainability

Office

Grounds Services has not had the resources to pursue this

recommendation. With an updated website, a protocol will be established

with the Sustainability Office in the next six months.

Fee Structure

Set up committee to write white paper report on issues raised, guiding principles (including

incentivizing waste reduction first and foremost and recycling second, with trash the last and most

expensive choice), and recommendations for putting the solid waste and recycling program on an

economically sustainable cost and revenue model.

Waste Task

Force

Grounds Services has taken an aggressive approach to researching

innovative fee structures to incentivize reduction and landfill diversion.

This Alternatives Analysis assumes a new fee structure is implemented.

Make strides toward the fuller inclusion of major cost components in the rates, especially capital costs.

It is assumed that a substantial portion of the true cost of service is not currently reflected in the rate.

UCSC’s charges for trash collection are roughly one-quarter of what the City of Santa Cruz charges its

commercial customers.

Physical Plant

Grounds Services is aware of the fee structure inconsistencies. This

Alternatives Analysis proposes a complete operational picture with

accurate costs and revenue streams.

TABLE 1. SAIC Recommendations to Reach Zero Waste at UCSC (Page 2 of 2)3

Physical Plant Recommendations Critical to Reaching Zero Waste

Item # RecommendationResponsibility

(SAIC Report)

Already

Obtained

Beneficial to

Zero Waste

Critical to

Zero Waste

Impacts

Recycle YardProgram

1Focus new waste diversion efforts this year and next on diverting food scraps and compostable, non-recyclable paper,

especially paper towels. This is by far the single largest category of divertable material currently disposed as trash.Physical Plant

2 Develop on-site organics management feasibility study. To Be Determined

3Evaluate the potential of adding paper towels (as discussed earlier, observed to be the largest fraction of compostable

paper, which is a large component of the trash) to compactors for off-site composting. If feasible, begin

implementation. If not, consider other off-site and on-site processing options.

Physical Plant

4 Expand compostables collection to additional food service establishments.Phyiscal Plant with

Dining

Metrics

5Collect and analyze data regarding trash and recycling collection efficiency, in terms of cost per cubic yard of service

capacity provided and cost per ton collected. Physical Plant

6Collect and analyze cost/benefit data regarding pre-processing steps taken to produce commodities with higher market

value.Physical Plant

Infrastructure

7 Upgrade rudimentary paper sorting system, to increase worker safety and operating efficiency. Physical Plant

8 Develop a schedule for replacing non-standardized exterior and interior collection containers, university-wide. Physical Plant

9Articulate the need for a permanent location for materials aggregation and processing, including for recyclables and

possibly organics (e.g., food scraps and compostable paper).Physical Plant

Fee Structure

10Make strides toward the fuller inclusion of major cost components in the rates, especially capital costs. It is assumed

that a substantial portion of the true cost of service is not currently reflected in the rate. UCSC’s charges for trash

collection are roughly one-quarter of what the City of Santa Cruz charges its commercial customers.

Physical Plant

TABLE 2. Physical Plant Recommendations Critical to Reaching Zero Waste

10 recommendations aimed at the Physical Plant, their importance to zero waste and impacts on recycle yard programming.

4

Potential Diversion Rates with Optimized Resource ManagementWaste assessments employed to project the appropriate material intended for the landfill

SAIC Report applied to FY2011-2012

FY2011-2012

Weight per

Stream (tons)

% of

Resource

Stream

% of Audited Refuse

Stream as

Recharacterized

Recharacterized

Refuse Weight

Total Stream

as Recharact-

erized

Potential

Diversion

Breakdown

Refuse 1544.4 46.1% 32.0% 494 494 14.8%

Organics 440.47 13.1% 49.0% 757 1,197 35.7%

Mixed Recycling 179.82 5.4% 3.0% 46 226 6.7%

Clean Paper 100.21 3.0% 14.0% 216 316 9.4%

Cardboard 273.03 8.1% 1.0% 15 288 8.6%

Green/Woodwaste 628.3763 18.8% 0.0% 0 628 18.8%Other 184.1 5.5% 1.0% 15 200 6.0%

TOTAL 3,350.4 100.0% 1544.4 3,350.4 100.0%

Total Potential Diversion 85.2%

SAIC Report applied to FY2012-2013

FY2012-2013

Weight per

Stream (tons)

% of

Resource

Stream

% of Audited Refuse

Stream as

Recharacterized

Recharacterized

Refuse Weight

Total Stream

as Recharact-

erized

Potential

Diversion

Breakdown

Refuse 1369 38.4% 32.0% 438 438 12.3%

Organics 561.6 15.7% 49.0% 671 1,232 34.5%

Mixed Recycling 274.6 7.7% 3.0% 41 316 8.8%

Clean Paper 134.7 3.8% 14.0% 192 326 9.1%

Cardboard 342.1 9.6% 1.0% 14 356 10.0%

Green/Woodwaste 728.5 20.4% 0.0% 0 729 20.4%Other 157.2 4.4% 1.0% 14 171 4.8%

TOTAL 3,567.7 100.0% 1369 3,567.7 100.0%

Total Potential Diversion 87.7%

McHenry Audit Results applied to FY2012-2013

FY2012-2013

Weight per

Stream (tons)

% of

Resource

Stream

% of Audited Refuse

Stream as

Recharacterized

Recharacterized

Refuse Weight

Total Stream

as Recharact-

erized

Potential

Diversion

Breakdown

Refuse 1369 38.4% 10.5% 143.7 143.7 4.0%

Organics 561.6 15.7% 78.8% 1078.8 1,640.4 46.0%

Mixed Recycling 274.6 7.7% 10.0% 136.9 411.5 11.5%

Clean Paper 134.7 3.8% 0.7% 9.6 144.3 4.0%

Cardboard 342.1 9.6% 0.0% 0.0 342.1 9.6%

Green/Woodwaste 728.5 20.4% 0.0% 0.0 728.5 20.4%Other 157.2 4.4% 0.0% 0.0 157.2 4.4%

TOTAL 3,567.7 100.0% 1369 3,567.7 100.0%

Total Potential Diversion (Satisfies Zero Waste) 96.0%

TABLE 3. Potential Diversion Rates with Optimized Resource Management

5


Zero-Waste 2020 policies, goals and the metrics of resource recovery at UC Santa Cruz Just as UCSC collectively marches into the final months of Chancellor George Blumenthal’s 2013-2014 Sustainability Challenge to “reduce waste” campus-wide, the Grounds Services department has its first comprehensive roadmap to realistically reach Zero Waste by the target deadline of Fiscal Year 2020-2021. Supporting this roadmap is a thorough economics study of this complex operational project, a study that outlines the options for both on- and off-campus processing of the array of resource streams produced by campus agents over a given year. Although this document gives a specific outline of the operational mechanism to reach Zero Waste, the grander long-term and aggressively timed sustainability goal to reach Zero Waste had its genesis with the University of California Office of the President’s March 2007 expansion of standing operational sustainability practices to address waste reduction. Under Item “F. Recycling and Waste Management” of the Sustainable Practices Policies, a sequence of milestones are established for all the UC campuses: requiring 50% diversion by June 2008, 75% diversion by June 2012, and Zero Waste (95% diversion) by 2020. Increased attention has been paid to planning for Zero Waste 2020 on the UCSC campus since August 2011 when a campus-wide waste audit was performed by the consulting agency Science Applications International Corporation [hereafter “SAIC”]. In the report delivered in February 2012, SAIC found that the campus was only at a 66% diversion rate without Construction and Demolition [hereafter “C&D”] diversion counted. By the end of Fiscal Year [hereafter “FY”] 2011-2012, the diversion rate has continued at a similar rate, evidenced by the recent UCOP report detailing that for FY 2012-2013, UCSC had a diversion rate of 64% not including C&D. This is not a problem that is isolated for Santa Cruz; nearly all the UC campuses are struggling to surpass the 70% diversion rate that has become a diversion “plateau” for this sustainability goal. SAIC Solid Waste Assessment & Early Action Items Report Operators within Grounds Services, as well as those that across the UC system struggling with their own resource recovery infrastructure, are well aware of the critical issues that must be addressed to surpass the 70% barrier on course to Zero Waste. In review of the SAIC report, Tables 1-3 through 1-7 all illuminate the common “waste” problem: the campus trash is full of food waste and compostable paper (see APPENDIX E: SAIC Solid Waste Assessment and Early Action Items Report). Throughout these tables, it is estimated that between 40% and 49% of the existing refuse stream is filled with compostable materials that currently have no method of system diversion. Since the SAIC report, the Physical Plant has conducted limited waste audits in target buildings that reveal that the current refuse stream has as a majority of its composition food waste and compostable materials. In April 2014, the Sustainability Office teamed with Grounds Services to undertake an extensive campus-wide waste audit whose tentative results have only bolstered a finding of the same trends as those shown in the SAIC study (see APPENDIX F). Separating out and

6


processing this embedded organic stream is the biggest challenge facing the UCSC Physical Plant in reaching its Zero Waste target in six years. In their closing of the 2012 SAIC report, the authors outline twenty-seven (27) recommendations for reaching Zero Waste at UCSC, divided into seven (7) categories of emphasis (see TABLE 1. SAIC Recommendations to Reach Zero Waste at UCSC). These categories include Policy, Program, Metrics, Infrastructure, Staffing, Communications, and Fee Structure. Out of the twenty-seven given recommendations, seventeen (17) are directly oriented for Physical Plant implementation, and ten (10) of them are important for review in the following Alternatives Analysis (see TABLE 2. Physical Plant Recommendations Critical to Reaching Zero Waste). Those ten goals are the following, quoted directly from the SAIC final report on pages 2-6 through 2-9:

1. Focus new waste diversion efforts this year and next on diverting food scraps and compostable, non-recyclable paper, especially paper towels. This is by far the single largest category of divertable material currently disposed as trash.

2. Develop on-site organics management feasibility study. 3. Evaluate the potential of adding paper towels (as discussed earlier, observed to be

the largest fraction of compostable paper, which is a large component of the trash) to compactors for off-site composting. If feasible, begin implementation. If not, consider other off-site and on-site processing options.

4. Expand compostables collection to additional food service establishments. 5. Collect and analyze data regarding trash and recycling collection efficiency, in

terms of cost per cubic yard of service capacity provided and cost per ton collected.

6. Collect and analyze cost/benefit data regarding pre-processing steps taken to produce commodities with higher market value.

7. Upgrade rudimentary paper sorting system, to increase worker safety and operating efficiency.

8. Develop a schedule for replacing non-standardized exterior and interior collection containers, university-wide.

9. Articulate the need for a permanent location for materials aggregation and processing, including for recyclables and possibly organics (e.g., food scraps and compostable paper).

10. Make strides toward the fuller inclusion of major cost components in the rates, especially capital costs. It is assumed that a substantial portion of the true cost of service is not currently reflected in the rate. UCSC’s charges for trash collection are roughly one-quarter of what the City of Santa Cruz charges its commercial customers.

Composting is the Critical Step in Meeting Zero Waste Objectives Although the SAIC report is a few years old, the recommendations continue to highlight the major hurdles facing resource recovery operators in reaching Zero Waste at UCSC. In the most recent FY 2012-2013, campus diversion was reported at a rate of 64% by UCOP, more than 10 points away from the UCOP goal for 2012 at 75%, and a whopping

7


31 percentage points away from reaching the campus’s 2020 goal. Since the SAIC waste audit and report was undertaken, smaller waste audits have been undertaken at 2300 Delaware, the Physical Sciences Building and McHenry Library. The McHenry Library was the most thorough in its review of the existing trash stream, whereby all materials in a three-day review period were analyzed by a team of roughly ten Grounds Services employees, student interns, and Sustainability Office employees. McHenry Library is also unique on campus as it has a limited supply of compost deposit bins available to patrons near the Global Village Café on the main floor. Although the tentative results have been found in the campus-wide assessment of April 2014, they have not been included for analysis in this report as they have not been fully vetted for accuracy. So as to be completely transparent, the tentative results have been included as APPENDIX F: Tentative Results of April 2014 Campus-Wide Waste Assessment. In the SAIC study, it was found the waste stream as delivered to the resource recovery crew for management had the following stream composition:

- Refuse (landfilled): 767.8 pounds, 51.9% - Diversion: 712.2 pounds, 48.1%

o Organics: 306.2 pounds, 20.7% o Mixed Recycling: 153.5 pounds, 10.4% o Clean Paper: 188.5 pounds, 12.7% o Cardboard: 64 pounds, 4.3%

For the study, the refuse stream was broken up and reviewed for inappropriate deposit of divertable materials that were misplaced in the trash. If the waste had been appropriately sorted before deposit, the materials could have nearly reached a Zero Waste threshold of diversion. To illustrate, after reviewing the misappropriated materials, the following stream composition was found possible:

- Refuse: 85.3 pounds, 5.8% - Diversion: 1395 pounds, 94.2%

o Organics: 897.3 pounds, 60.7% o Mixed Recycling: 235 pounds, 15.9% o Clean Paper: 198.7 pounds, 13.4% o Cardboard: 64 pounds, 4.3%

For FY2012-2013, the breakdown of resource recovery streams generally reflects the audit’s results and potential for improvement. Based on diversion totals compiled by a coordinated Grounds Services/Sustainability Office team, for FY2012-2013 the campus had a total of 3567.7 tons of resources recovered in its normal operation. In other words, this figure excludes the resources recovered in construction and demolition activities. Of that total, the following list enumerates the resource streams that were both sent to the landfill and diverted:

- Refuse (landfilled): 1369 tons, 38.4% - Diversion: 2228.7 tons, 61.6%

o Organics: 561.6 tons, 15.7%

8


o Mixed Recycling: 274.6 tons, 7.7% o Clean Paper: 134.7 tons, 3.8% o Cardboard: 342.1 tons, 9.6% o Green/Woodwaste: 728.5 tons, 20.4% o Other Recycled Materials: 157.2 tons, 4.4%

In extrapolating the potential for improved diversion, an observer finds that with the current minimal level of true “refuse” in the resource stream, it is possible to reach Zero Waste with an optimization of resource management by the agents of the Physical Plant. As re-characterized based on the McHenry Audit, the following potential for the resource stream could result:

- Refuse: 147.7 tons, 4.0% - Diversion: 3,424 tons, 96%

o Organics: 1,640.4 tons, 46% o Mixed Recycling: 411.5 tons, 11.5% o Clean Paper: 144.3 tons, 4.0% o Cardboard: 342.1 tons, 9.6% o Green/Woodwaste: 728.5 tons, 20.4% o Other Recycled Materials: 157.2 tons, 4.4%

A comparison of the current resource stream make-up in contrast to the potential diversion according to FY2012-2013 totals can be reviewed on TABLE 3. Potential Diversion Rates with Optimized Resource Management. Imperative in reaching this maximum optimization, Grounds Services must find a method to process the largest divertable material in the current refuse stream: compostables. According to the McHenry Audit, there is the potential for over 1,000 tons of food waste and soiled paper to avoid the landfill and be processed either at a fitting vendor institution or on-campus at the proposed recycle yard. According to the SAIC report, the ratio of food waste to soiled paper by weight is 76% food waste/24% soiled paper. From the same sample and according to volume, this ratio is 13% food waste/87% soiled paper. According to the McHenry Audit, according to an accurate weight measurement the ratio is 72% food waste/28% soiled paper.

FIGURE 1: Proposed Waste Station at McHenry Library.

9


McHenry Library Zero Waste Pilot Program Appreciating the chronologically difficult deadline for reaching Zero Waste on campus, both the Sustainability Office and the Grounds Services department have addressed the major issues of meeting 95% landfill diversion from different avenues. Beginning in July 2013, a coordinated resource recovery plan was developed by an inter-departmental team that was primarily led by the Physical Plant Director. Principally, the Custodial Superintendent and the Grounds Services Superintendent came together to define a combined system for collecting and managing resources recovered at the user scale of campus operations. At present, this proposed system has been written and submitted to Human Resources for comments and amendment. Central to the proposed plan is the installation of a waste-station collection system that includes clean paper recycling, container recycling, compostables, and waste-to-landfill bins. This system has been tested in pilot studies at the Humanities 1 building, the second floor of 2300 Delaware, and at the Physical Planning & Construction conference room. Officially, the new plan is slated to have its building-wide unveiling at McHenry Library as soon as full administrative approval is found (see FIGURE 1. Proposed Waste Station at McHenry Library). In addition, Grounds Services is planning on a multi-year improvement of the existing outdoor bin system, largely in furtherance of the SAIC Report’s recommendation to replace non-standardized exterior collection containers university-wide. Due to their price, effectiveness, and conformity to regional exterior container system norm, Grounds Services is currently reviewing a proposal to replace all mismatched outdoor bins with a four-door BearSaver system that already has limited deployment in both housing and academic areas (see FIGURE 2. BearSaver Collection Containers already in use on Campus). Unlike the exterior receptacle shown below, proposed containers would have four streams: trash, container recycling, clean paper recycling, and compostable products. At issue with the BearSaver receptacles is the difficulty in servicing these units by campus staff, so further study is currently underway in evaluating the outdoor system in practice. Greater detail as to the combined Custodial/Grounds Services plan for the operational management necessary to reach Zero Waste is detailed in the attached APPENDIX A: (DRAFT) UCSC Zero Waste Collection Pilot Model. Innovation and Fiscal Planning for Zero Waste Deployment Driven considerably by recommendation item #10 of TABLE 2, under subtitle Fee Structure that reads:

Make strides toward the fuller inclusion of major cost components in the rates, especially capital costs. It is assumed that a substantial portion of the true cost of service is not currently reflected in the rate.

Grounds Services has advanced an aggressive agenda of innovation in our on-campus resource recovery services. On September 4, 2012, the Loadman for Load Management (http://www.loadman.com/) metrics and database system became operational. This system

10


allows Grounds Services to track, monitor and analyze the resources recovered from individual dumpsters upon pickup by each frontloading truck. After analysis of the data received from the Loadman system, we found that considerable operational savings could be found if we had an on-demand system for servicing each dumpster. This proposed on-demand system of dumpster service breaks with traditional methods of resource recovery practiced historically, and could prove to provide significant savings in operational resources. In July 2013, a “proof of concept” smart dumpster was deployed until November 2013. At that point, a hardware firm Compology (http://www.compology.us/) approached Grounds Services to fully test their own prototype of the smart dumpster system on campus. By the start of 2014, Compology’s system was installed and running on 1/3rd of the campus refuse dumpsters. Specifically, the sensors were installed on all the refuse dumpsters afforded the OMP buildings to evaluate the system without interrupting the current recharge billing methods employed by Grounds Services for campus housing and kitchen customers.

FIGURE 2: BearSaver Collection Containers already in use on Campus.

With these two innovations paired together, Grounds Services has an opportunity to test a weight-based system of resource recovery management. A weight-based system is optimal because it aligns resource recovery billing and operational management according to unit costs as well as the methods of diversion judgment. In other words, most costs associated with managing resources as they have been delivered to Grounds Services are measured on a weighted basis. This includes vendor resale of recyclables, tipping fees for compost services and landfilling, as well the measure of efficiency as per resource recovery operations in terms of equipment and human labor. More importantly, the UCSC campus is judged by both the UCOP and the State of California based on its diversion ratio, a ratio that depends on weight-based values

11


collected by campus agents and submitted for review. If a campus is considered Zero Waste by UCOP, such a designation is based on the campus’s ability to divert 95% of its weighted waste resource away from the landfill into recycling and compost streams of processing. In advancing the above discussed technology, UCSC managers can directly align the weighted source of landfilled material to the campus agents producing such material. More importantly, if diversion rates do not improve, a weight-based billing method can be employed to both reflect the increased cost of missing Zero Waste goals, as well as to financially encourage waste reduction, recycling and composting behavior. UCSC currently follows the traditional operational management and billing mechanisms for its resource recovery apparatus, that is, it continues to rely on a volumetric system. Based on the volume serviced on-campus for FY 2012-2013 at $8/cubic yard, campus users paid $0.25/pound of refuse, $0.40/pound of mixed recycling, $0.18/pound of cardboard, and $0.15/pound of compost (serviced by café bins). Even at these rates with current increases in labor costs for the resource recovery operation, current practices without amendment will cause the department to become fiscally insolvent as early as 2017. Qualitatively, current practices do not provide a method for the campus to reach Zero Waste by 2020. In order to make proactive changes to Grounds Services’ resource recovery operations so as to both maintain fiscal solvency and reach the campus’s sustainability goal of Zero Waste by 2020, a series of alternatives have been analyzed both in narrative form (as follows) and in an tabular economic analysis attached as APPENDIX B: Zero Waste Income, Expense & Capital Expenditure Analysis. Perhaps more importantly, these alternatives have been analyzed so as to inform decision-makers as to the appropriate design program in the development of the planned UCSC Recycle Yard referenced previously in this document’s Introduction. As the following chapter is a description of the alternatives analyzed, the chapter following the next is a description of the staff suggested alternative.

12


Alternatives Analyzed for Optimized Resource Management planning an infrastructure for reaching Zero Waste by 2020 In all, seven alternatives were analyzed at the request of Physical Plant managers, consultant suggestions, and based on an internal review of resource recovery operations. In addition to the formal alternatives, an examination of the possibility of off-site operators to manage the on-campus trash stream was undertaken, labeled as an “Off-Site” alternative. All alternatives examined in this process are enumerated in contrast with the ten (10) “Physical Plant” dependent SAIC recommendations in TABLE 4. Alternative Comparison in Meeting Zero Waste Recommendations. In addition, summarizing rows at the bottom of the table outline which alternatives Depend on Installation of Recycle Yard and that provide the Ability of the Alternative to Meet Zero Waste by FY 2019-2020. At this point, only two alternatives provide a dependable method of managing a zero waste infrastructure to meet a campus-wide deadline for FY 2020-2021. Both of those alternatives require an on-campus composting apparatus, and are noted as Alternative 4: Zero Waste, Sorted Recycling and Composting On-Campus and Alternative 6: Zero Waste, Single Stream Recycling and Composting On-Campus. Major Assumptions of Alternatives Analysis On the third page of APPENDIX B: Zero Waste Income, Expense & Capital Expenditure Analysis, a ledger of project assumptions is enumerated so as to inform reviewers of the standards of comparison for all given alternatives. There are many details that color the type of zero waste apparatus envisioned for the UCSC campus, but two major assumptions are critical in reviewing the following narrative. First, this analysis assumes that technological improvements currently under evaluation shall be implemented in the next available fiscal year (FY 2015-2016) so as to transition today’s operations to the weight-based system of metrics, analysis and customer recharge as described in the previous chapter. Second, for analyzing the multiple alternatives, a total resource recovery value of 3,600 tons was assumed for all the years until meeting Zero Waste in 2020. This total amount assumed (3,600 tons) is a rounded value based on the resources recovered in FY 2012-2013. FY 2012-2013 is the most recent year for which final resource totals have been tabulated and verified under UCOP standards. For FY 2012-2013, there were 3,567.68 tons of materials recovered in furtherance of normal campus operations. Of that total, 1,369 tons were landfilled as refuse and 2,199.12 tons were collected and diverted from the landfill with recycling and other processing means. In describing the alternatives analyzed, the following first alternative is a description of current operations and the unique issues that have been problematic in achieving efficient operations to provide an infrastructure that can meet Zero Waste expectations. Even though this alternative is based on current operational practice, it has been formatted as a stand-alone option assuming adoption of a weight-based metrics, analysis and customer recharge model. In the following discussion, “CRV” stands for California Redemption Value, a designation that is attributed to recovered materials

13


that carry a deposit-refund for vendor return for recycling. For each alternative, analysis has been broken up into six streams of income and operating expenses, including:

1. Refuse; 2. Cardboard/OCC Resale; 3. Mixed Recycling/CRV & Paper Resale; 4. Organics/Compost; 5. Roll-Off Box/Metal Resale; and 6. Green Waste/Woodchips.

Each alternative shall review these six streams as they are vital to managing on-campus resources recovered in the waste stream. Alternative 1: Refuse, Sorted Recycle, Kitchen Composting (Status Quo) The first alternative reviewed is an evaluation of current operations as a baseline for comparison to the changes expected at Grounds Services. In order to transition from the current volumetric system to a weight-based system, a per pound charge of $0.228 or $456.00 per ton for all streams would be necessary to cover the cost of current operations through 2020 (see APPENDIX B: Zero Waste Income, Expense & Capital Expenditure Analysis). For this alternative, the current (FY 2012-2013) resource proportion between the six streams is expected to continue since no new facilities or operational improvements are evaluated. These proportions are based on FY 2012-2013 diversion:

1. Refuse: 42% (1,512 tons); 2. Cardboard/OCC Resale: 10% (360 tons); 3. Mixed Recycling/CRV & Paper Resale: 16% (576 tons); 4. Organics/Compost: 16% (576 tons); 5. Roll-Off Box/Metal Resale: N/A (outside operational value); and 6. Green Waste/Woodchips: 16% (576 tons).

Recycle Yard Implications. This alternative depends on the installation of the planned recycle yard for a few reasons. First, as Grounds Services has been moved from the Hay Barn location, storage and sorting activities that were formerly located at the Hay Barn must now have a new location for execution. Temporary storage areas on other parts of the campus, most importantly off Steinhart Road, are also under threat and require a permanent location to continue the current level of resource recovery services. Alternative 2: All Streams to Refuse The second alternative outlines the necessary funding for sending all resources recovered to the landfill at current rates. This alternative also give decision-makers an accurate cost standard for measuring the extra expense necessary to reach the campus’s Zero Waste goals by 2020. A per pound charge of $0.183 or $366.00 per ton would be necessary to cover the costs of a single refuse-only Alternative 2 operation through 2020

14


(see APPENDIX B: Zero Waste Income, Expense & Capital Expenditure Analysis). As this alternative only requires one stream, 100% of the 3,600 ton stream would be landfilled as refuse. Recycle Yard Implications. Alternative 2 does not require the construction of a recycle yard as planned. Most of the existing infrastructure used currently for resource management could be sold as surplus. Even so, a reduced spatial allocation at the recycle yard would be for construction waste sorting, dumpster inventory management and roll-off box storage. Alternative 3: Refuse, Single Stream Recycle, Kitchen Composting Similar to Alternative 2, Alternative 3 is an exercise conducted to analyze the economic impact of downsizing the current resource recovery infrastructure. In this alternative, the sort line operation would be removed, and instead, a single-stream recycling route would be employed using a dedicated frontloading truck for material management of the combined paper and container recycling materials. As compared to the existing resource recovery apparatus and operational practice, single-stream recycling does provide an overall cost savings to the campus. As compared to Alternative 1, a single-stream recycle stream would provide a $0.014 per pound savings, or a $28 per ton savings. Overall, switching to single-stream recycling in the department’s current operations would cost $0.214 per pound of resources recovered, or $428 per ton (see APPENDIX B: Zero Waste Income, Expense & Capital Expenditure Analysis). For this alternative, the current (FY 2012-2013) resource proportion between the six streams is expected since no new facilities or operational improvements are evaluated. These proportions are based on FY 2012-2013 diversion:

1. Refuse: 42% (1,512 tons); 2. Cardboard/OCC Resale: 10% (360 tons); 3. Single Stream Recycling: 16% (576 tons); 4. Organics/Compost: 16% (576 tons); 5. Roll-Off Box/Metal Resale: N/A (outside operational value); and 6. Green Waste/Woodchips: 16% (576 tons).

Comparing strictly to Alternative 1, it appears evident that sorted recycling costs more than the single-stream recycling under exhibition in Alternative 3. In undertaking this analysis, operational managers found that there were inefficiencies in our current method of managing our sorted recycling. Although found, these inefficiencies were not analytically “remedied” in Alternative 3 as we hoped to adequately compare Alternative 1 to Alternative 3 assuming generally the same methods of resource management and equipment. In contrast, these inefficiencies were addressed and incorporated in the following Alternatives 4 – 6. For example, a major change that is necessary to improve the economics of sorting the collected recyclable resources is that 100% of the existing mixed recycle stream be

15


sorted for maximum CRV and material income. Currently, only 33% of the mixed recycle stream is sorted due to the inability of resource managers to transfer mixed recycle materials from a frontloading truck to the sort line. With the installation of the recycle yard, this major operational draw-back is expected to be remedied so as to allow a 100% sort of the mixed recycle stream. Recycle Yard Implications. Alternative 3 does not require the construction of a recycle yard as planned. Most of the existing infrastructure used currently for undertaking material sorting could be sold as surplus. Even so, a reduced spatial allocation at the recycle yard would be for construction waste sorting, dumpster inventory management and roll-off box storage. Alternative 4: Zero Waste, Sorted Recycle, Composting On-Campus Alternative 4 is the first alternative evaluated to meet the campus’s Zero Waste goal by 2020. In this alternative, the sort line would not only continue, but operations would be modified so as to regularly sort all (100%) of the mixed recycling materials Grounds Services collects throughout the year. In order to sort 100% of the captured mixed recycle stream, a reverse off-loading dock would be necessary to transfer materials picked up in a frontloading truck to a roll-off box located below the grade of the frontloading truck. Alternatively, all Mixed Recycle “blue” dumpsters could be replaced with 64-gallon bins that can be easily deposited on the current sort-line for CRV separation. Based on FY 2012-2013 numbers, this would be a tripling (3X) of the current operation and would significantly improve the economic output of the sort line operation. Further, the recycle crew manager has committed to reviewing the labor costs of running the sort-line so as to reduce the total hourly cost of operations. As compared to the existing resource recovery apparatus and operational practice, Alternative 4 presents a robust operation that balances the revenues and cost of operations in an economically sustainable fashion. In other words, revenues from each resource stream have a logical relationship to the expenses borne by the Grounds Services department. As compared to Alternative 1, Alternative 4’s operations would require a $0.010 per pound cost increase, or a $20 per ton increase. Overall, switching to Alternative 4 would cost $0.238 per pound of resources recovered, or $476 per ton (see APPENDIX B: Zero Waste Income, Expense & Capital Expenditure Analysis). For this alternative, it is assumed that the current (FY 2012-2013) resource proportion between the six streams is expected since no new facilities or operational improvements would be installed at Year 0:

1. Refuse: 42% (1,512 tons); 2. Cardboard/OCC Resale: 10% (360 tons); 3. Mixed Recycling/CRV & Paper Resale: 16% (576 tons); 4. Organics/Compost: 16% (576 tons); 5. Roll-Off Box/Metal Resale: N/A (not included in 3,600 operational tonnage); and 6. Green Waste/Woodchips: 16% (576 tons).

16


Over the six years until FY 2019-2020, the resource proportion between the six streams would gradually shift to a Zero Waste diversion proportion, as follows:

1. Refuse 2020: 5% (180 tons); 2. Cardboard/OCC Resale 2020: 14% (504 tons); 3. Mixed Recycling/CRV & Paper Resale 2020: 18% (648 tons); 4. Organics/Compost 2020: 47% (1,692 tons); 5. Roll-Off Box/Metal Resale 2020: N/A (not included in 3,600 operational

tonnage); and 6. Green Waste/Woodchips 2020: 16% (576 tons).

FIGURE 3: 20-Yard BioBin Roll-Off Box (Image Courtesy of WasteQuip, Inc.)

This alternative is the first to fully address the diversion “shift” necessary to reach Zero Waste by 2020: composting. Ranging between 36% (2014 Waste Audit) and 79% (2014 McHenry Waste Audit) of the current refuse stream, organic materials that can be composted are a significant portion of the UCSC’s trash that currently have no infrastructure for full diversion. Unlike the campus recycle streams, even if campus users wished to divert their organic materials from landfill deposit, at this point, Grounds Services has no infrastructure to manage the material. To provide this infrastructure, investments are required in the recycle yard that would be paid off both with term of years financing as well as with an annual budget allocation of service upgrades. As for the larger items that would require multi-year financing, a trommel ($50,000, see FIGURE 6), material grinder ($300,000, see FIGURE 5) and an in-vessel aerobic composter ($400,000, see FIGURE 4) would be necessary for Alternative 4. All three of these major purchases would be stored and utilized at the recycle yard. As for the improved service upgrades, a campus-wide uniform system of interior waste-stations (see FIGURE 1) and exterior 4-stream bins (see FIGURE 2) would be implemented over a four-year timeline. It is estimated that the cost of

17


materials to implement the uniform indoor and outdoor bin system across campus would cost $97,500 per year, totaling $390,000 by completion. In addition, as the compost collection infrastructure grows, BioBin roll-off boxes (see FIGURE 3) would have to be added to the current inventory of large roll-off boxes housed on-campus. One new 20 cubic yard roll-off BioBin box would need to be added per year over four years of implementation, each costing an estimated $25,000.

FIGURE 4: EnivroDrum In-Vessel Composter (Image Courtesy of DariTech, Inc.)

Recycle Yard Implications. Alternative 4 requires the proposed recycle yard to include a permanent sort line location, an impressive composting operation, construction waste sorting, greenwaste management areas and a dumpster/roll-off box inventory yard. For years at the Hay Barn location, Grounds Services has managed the campus dumpster and roll-off box inventory to meet the changing demands of users.

FIGURE 5: RotoChopper Grinder (Image Courtesy of RotoChopper, Inc.)

These demands have changed over time, both due to the ebb of campus construction activity as well as the normal changes in academic need that include move-in, move-out, graduation and special events. Historically the Hay Barn location was used as a construction waste and demolition yard, effective in the deposit, sorting and iterative

18


off-haul of materials collected over the course of each year. These activities, under Alternative 4, would be moved from the Hay Barn to the new recycle yard. In addition, as necessary to reach zero waste, the new recycle yard would be the staging and management location for all newly-diverted organic materials. Currently, Grounds Services manages over 560 tons of food waste that originate at the five kitchens and three cafes on campus. With the full execution of a Zero Waste program, the amount of organic material that must be managed by Grounds Services is projected to double. Further, as this material will be a mixture of food waste, soiled paper waste, residentially-sourced kitchen scraps, and biodegradable “to-go” containers, most commercial composting processors will not accept the majority of these materials due to a host of reasons (see APPENDIX D: Email from Z-Best of Gilroy). First, with this type of organics collection, there is a substantially higher risk of contamination as many non-organic materials would be expected in the mix as delivered. Second, much of the new material is more difficult to compost, taking longer and requiring more effort by operators than a clean stream of food waste alone. Finally, due to the increased use of soiled paper and compostable containers, the quality of resultant compost is below a threshold of acceptability for an end retail product that vendors can sell to customers as a soil amendment. If the campus wishes to reach Zero Waste by 2020, these materials will necessarily have to be managed, composted and most likely, distributed as a local soil amendment wholly on campus. To summarize the implications of carrying out Alternative 4 in the recycle yard, the following programmatic considerations will be necessary on-site: Permanent location for existing Sort Line; Permanent Construction & Demolition sorting stage; Storage for Dumpster and Roll-Off Box Inventory (including BioBins); Material storage and management areas for composting process; In-Vessel Aerobic Composting Unit (at a minimum) with Trommel; Vermiculture area, be it in beds or in rows; Material Grinder (like RotoChipper); Reverse Dock for Transfer of Frontloaded Materials to Roll-Off Box; Battery Sort Area (roughly 100 sq.ft.); and Paper Sort Tables (SAIC Recommendation Item #7 of TABLE 4).

This list is not meant to be comprehensive, but rather cover the major uses of the recycle yard to accommodate the functions to be executed with Alternative 4. Alternative 5: Zero Waste*, Sorted Recycle, Vendor Composting Like Alternative 4, this alternative is outlined as a manner to reach Zero Waste by 2020. In this alternative, the sort line would not only continue, but operations would be modified so as to regularly sort all (100%) of the mixed recycling materials Grounds Services collects throughout the year. In order to sort 100% of the captured mixed recycle stream, a reverse off-loading dock would be necessary to transfer materials picked up in a frontloading truck to a roll-off box. Based on FY 2012-2013 numbers, this

19


would be a tripling (3X) of the current operation and would significantly improve the economic output of the sort line operation. Further, the recycle crew manager has committed to reviewing the labor costs of running the sort line so as to reduce the total hourly cost of operations.

FIGURE 6: Interior of Trommel (Image Courtesy of Graepe Perforators & Weaversl, Ltd.)

Like Alternative 4, Alternative 5 presents a robust recycling operation that balances the revenues and cost of operations in a more economically sustainable fashion. In other words, revenues from each resource stream have a more logical relationship to the expenses borne by the Grounds Services department. As compared to Alternative 1, Alternative 5’s operations would require a $0.090 per pound increase, or a $180 per ton increase. Overall, switching to Alternative 5’s scenario would cost $0.318 per pound of resources recovered, or $636 per ton (see APPENDIX B: Zero Waste Income, Expense & Capital Expenditure Analysis). For this alternative, it is assumed that the current (FY 2012-2013) resource proportion between the six streams is expected since no new facilities or operational improvements would be installed at Year 0:


Over the six years until FY 2019-2020, the resource proportion between the six streams would gradually shift to a zero waste diversion proportion, as follows:

20




Like Alternative 4, Alternative 5 fully addresses the diversion “shift” necessary to reach zero waste by 2020: composting. Ranging between 36% (2014 Waste Audit) and 79% (2014 McHenry Waste Audit) of the current refuse stream, organic materials that can be composted is a significant portion of the UCSC’s trash that have no infrastructure for full diversion. Unlike the campus recycle streams, even if campus users wished to divert their organic materials from landfill deposit, at this point, Grounds Services has no infrastructure to manage the material. To provide this infrastructure, investments are required in the recycle yard that would be paid off both with term of years financing as well as with an annual budget allocation of service upgrades. As for the larger items that would require multi-year financing, Alternative 5 assumes that only a material grinder ($300,000, see FIGURE 5) would be necessary to manage and prepare materials for hauling to a vendor composter. As for the improved service upgrades, like Alternative 4, a campus-wide uniform system of interior waste-stations (see FIGURE 1) and exterior 4-stream bins (see FIGURE 2) would be implemented over a four-year timeline. It is estimated that the cost of materials to implement the uniform indoor and outdoor bin system across campus would cost $97,500 per year, totaling $390,000 by completion. In addition, as the compost collection infrastructure grows, BioBin roll-off boxes (see FIGURE 3) would have to be added to the current inventory of large roll-off boxes housed on-campus. One new 20 cubic yard roll-off box would need to be added per year over four years of implementation, each costing an estimated $25,000. Recycle Yard Implications. Alternative 5 requires extensive utilization of the proposed recycle yard for a permanent sort line location, a compost management yard, construction waste sorting, greenwaste management and for dumpster/roll-off box inventory management. For years at the Hay Barn, Grounds Services has managed the campus dumpster and roll-off box inventory to meet the changing demands of users. These demands have changed over time, both due to the ebb of campus construction activity as well as changes in need with the academic calendar including move-in, move-out, graduation and special summer events. Historically the Hay Barn location was used as a construction waste and demolition yard, effective in the deposit, sorting and iterative off-haul of materials collected over the course of each year. These activities, under Alternative 5, would be moved from the Hay Barn to the recycle yard. In addition, as necessary to reach Zero Waste, the recycle yard would be the management location for all newly-diverted organic materials. Currently, Grounds Services manages over 560 tons of food waste that originates at the five kitchens and three cafes on campus. With the full execution of a zero waste program, the amount of

21


organic material that must be managed by Grounds Services is assumed to double. Further, as this material will be a mixture of food waste, soiled paper waste, residentially-sourced kitchen scraps, and biodegradable “to-go” containers, most commercial composting processors will not accept these materials due to a host of reasons (see APPENDIX D: Email from Z-Best of Gilroy). In spite of the vendor’s reluctance to accept this material, this alternative assumes that an arrangement can be made to deposit this material at a composting facility. Such an arrangement may actually cost as much as triple (3X) the current rate of compost tipping fees. It has been estimated that such a tipping fee could be as high as $125. Since these rates are not know as no vendor has been willing to quote our department to perform such a service, this rate is not implemented in the economic analysis. A worst-case scenario for this alternative would be a process that entails depositing the materials at a vendor like East Bay MUD. East Bay MUD, located in Oakland, California, is a wastewater facility that is 70 miles north of the UCSC campus. East Bay MUD actively solicits organic materials like those that would be produced by 2020 to feed their oversized biodigester. This biodigestor captures methane which is subsequently burned to produce renewable electricity in service of the San Francisco Bay Area grid. Currently, the East Bay MUD charges between $30 – $60/ton of organic material, a rate that is dependent on the quality of the organics being deposited at the facility. By 2020, at the rate of organic material that will require off-hauling, Grounds Services will be taking a roll-off box of material to the vendor every four hours. In other words, we will be delivering 10 roll-off boxes per week during the months of high campus activity (1,692 tons over 8 months, 5 tons per roll-off deliver, 10 deliveries per week, 2 deliveries per day for 5 days of the typical work week). The closest possible vendor by 2020 is Grounds Services current vendor in Marina at Monterey Regional Waste Management District, which is 36 miles from Santa Cruz. The furthest possibility would be East Bay MUD in Oakland at 70 miles from Santa Cruz. For either facility, once Grounds Services begins to add other organics beyond the food waste currently delivered, increased management will be necessary on campus. Most likely, a process of mixing greenwaste, foodwaste, and other organics with the grinder prior to deposit will be a prerequisite for vendors to accept the mix of materials expected by 2020. To summarize the implications of carrying out Alternative 5 in the recycle yard, the following programmatic considerations will be necessary on-site: Permanent location for existing Sort Line; Permanent Construction & Demolition sorting stage; Storage for Dumpster and Roll-Off Box Inventory (including BioBins); Material storage and management areas for composting preparation process; Material Grinder (like RotoChipper); Reverse Dock for Transfer of Frontloaded Materials to Roll-Off Box; Battery Sort Area (roughly 100 sq.ft.); and Paper Sort Tables (SAIC Recommendation Item #7 of TABLE 4).

This list is not meant to be comprehensive, but rather cover the major uses of the recycle yard to accommodate the functions to be executed with Alternative 5.

22


Alternative 6: Zero Waste, Single Stream Recycle, Composting On-Campus Like the two prior alternatives, this alternative is outlined as a manner to reach Zero Waste proportions for resource diversion by 2020. The sort line would no longer be operated as a single-stream recycling program would be executed. Like the prior two alternatives, a robust enterprise is proposed that balances the revenues and cost of operations in a more economically sustainable fashion. In other words, revenues from each resource stream would have a logical relationship to the expenses borne by the Grounds Services department. As compared to Alternative 1, Alternative 6’s operations would require a $0.017 per pound increase, or a $34 per ton increase. Overall, switching to Alternative 6’s scenario would cost $0.318 per pound of resources recovered, or $636 per ton (see APPENDIX B: Zero Waste Income, Expense & Capital Expenditure Analysis). For this alternative, it is assumed that the current (FY 2012-2013) resource proportion between the six streams is expected since no new facilities or operational improvements would be installed at Year 0:





Like Alternatives 4-5, this alternative fully addresses the diversion “shift” necessary to reach Zero Waste by 2020: composting. Ranging between 36% (2014 Waste Audit) and 79% (2014 McHenry Waste Audit) of the current refuse stream, organic materials that can be composted is a significant portion of the UCSC’s trash that have no infrastructure for full diversion. Unlike the campus recycle streams, even if campus users wished to divert their organic materials from landfill deposit, at this point Grounds Services has no infrastructure to manage the material. To provide this infrastructure, investments are required in the recycle yard that would be paid off both with term of years financing as well as with an annual budget allocation of service upgrades. As for the larger items that would require multi-year financing, a

23


trommel ($50,000, see FIGURE 6), material grinder ($300,000, see FIGURE 5) and an in-vessel aerobic composter ($400,000, see FIGURE 4) would be necessary for Alternative 6. All three of these major purchases would be stored and utilized at the recycle yard. As for the improved service upgrades, like the two prior alternatives, a campus-wide uniform system of interior waste-stations (see FIGURE 1) and exterior 4-stream bins (see FIGURE 2) would be implemented over a four-year timeline. It is estimated that the cost of materials to implement the uniform indoor and outdoor bin system across campus would cost $97,500 per year, totaling $390,000 by completion. In addition, as the compost collection infrastructure grows, BioBin roll-off boxes (see FIGURE 3) would have to be added to the current inventory of large roll-off boxes housed on-campus. One new 20 cubic yard roll-off BioBin box would need to be added per year over four years of implementation, each costing an estimated $25,000. Recycle Yard Implications. Alternative 6 requires extensive use of the proposed recycle yard for an impressive composting operation, construction waste sorting, greenwaste management and for dumpster/roll-off box inventory management. For years at the Hay Barn, Grounds Services has managed the campus dumpster and roll-off box inventory to meet changing demands. These demands change both due to the ebb of campus construction activity as well as the normal changes in from the academic calendar including move-in, move-out, graduation and special summer events. Historically the Hay Barn location was used as a construction waste and demolition yard, effective in the deposit, sorting and iterative off-haul of materials collected over the course of each year. These activities under Alternative 6 would be moved from the Hay Barn to the recycle yard. In addition, as necessary to reach Zero Waste, the recycle yard would be the management location for all newly-diverted organic materials. Currently, Grounds Services manages over 560 tons of food waste that originates at the five kitchens and three cafes on campus. With the full execution of a Zero Waste program, the amount of organic material that must be managed by Grounds Services is assumed to double. Further, as this material will be a mixture of food waste, soiled paper waste, residentially-sourced kitchen scraps, and biodegradable “to-go” containers, most commercial composting processors will not accept these materials due to a host of reasons (see APPENDIX D: Email from Z-Best of Gilroy). First, with this type of organics collection, there is a substantially higher risk of contamination as many non-organic materials would be expected to be found in the mix as delivered. Second, much of the new material is more difficult to compost, taking longer and requiring more effort by operators than a clean stream of food waste alone. Finally, due to the increased use of soiled paper and compostable containers, the quality of resultant compost is below a threshold of acceptability for a product that vendors can sell to customers as a soil amendment. If the campus wishes to reach Zero Waste by 2020, these materials will necessarily have to be managed, composted and distributed as a local soil amendment wholly on campus. To summarize the implications of carrying out Alternative 6 in the recycle yard, the following programmatic considerations will be necessary on-site:

24


Permanent Construction & Demolition sorting stage; Storage for Dumpster and Roll-Off Box Inventory (including BioBins); Material storage and management areas for composting process; In-Vessel Aerobic Composting Unit (at a minimum) with Trommel; Vermiculture area, be it in beds or in rows; Material Grinder (like RotoChipper); Reverse Dock for Transfer of Frontloaded Materials to Roll-Off Box; Battery Sort Area (roughly 100 sq.ft.); and Paper Sort Tables (SAIC Recommendation Item #7 of TABLEe 4).

This list is not meant to be comprehensive, but rather cover the major uses of the recycle yard to accommodate the functions to be executed with Alternative 6. Alternative 7: Zero Waste*, Single Stream Recycle, Vendor Composting Like Alternatives 4-6, this alternative is outlined as a manner to reach Zero Waste by 2020. The sort line would no longer be operated as a single-stream recycling program would be executed. Alternative 7 presents a robust resource recovery operation that balances the revenues and cost of operations in a more economically sustainable fashion. In other words, revenues from each resource stream shall have a more logical relationship to the expenses borne by the Grounds Services department. As compared to Alternative 1, Alternative 7’s operations would require a $0.080 per pound increase, or a $160 per ton increase. Overall, switching to Alternative 7’s scenario would cost $0.208 per pound of resources recovered, or $416 per ton (see APPENDIX B: Zero Waste Income, Expense & Capital Expenditure Analysis). For this alternative, it is assumed that the current (FY 2012-2013) resource proportion between the six streams is expected since no new facilities or operational improvements would be installed at Year 0:





25


Like Alternatives 4-6, this alternative fully addresses the diversion “shift” necessary to reach Zero Waste by 2020: composting. Ranging between 36% (2014 Waste Audit) and 79% (2014 McHenry Waste Audit) of the current refuse stream, organic materials that can be composted is a significant portion of the UCSC’s trash that have no infrastructure for full diversion. Unlike the campus recycle streams, even if campus users wished to divert their organic materials from landfill deposit, at this point Grounds Services has no infrastructure to manage the material. To provide this infrastructure, investments are required in the recycle yard that would be paid off both with term of years financing as well as with an annual budget allocation of service upgrades. As for the larger items that would require multi-year financing, Alternative 7 assumes that only a material grinder ($300,000, see FIGURE 5) would be necessary to manage and prepare materials for hauling to a vendor composter. As for the improved service upgrades, like Alternative 4, a campus-wide uniform system of interior waste-stations (see FIGURE 1) and exterior 4-stream bins (see FIGURE 2) would be implemented over a four-year timeline. It is estimated that the cost of materials to implement the uniform indoor and outdoor bin system across campus would cost $97,500 per year, totaling $390,000 by completion. In addition, as the compost collection infrastructure grows, BioBin roll-off boxes (see FIGURE 3) would have to be added to the current inventory of large roll-off boxes housed on-campus. One new 20 cubic yard roll-off BioBin box would need to be added per year over four years of implementation, each costing an estimated $25,000. Recycle Yard Implications. Alternative 7 requires extensive utilization of the recycle yard for a compost management yard, construction waste sorting, greenwaste management and for dumpster/roll-off box inventory management. For years, at the Hay Barn, Grounds Services has managed the campus dumpster and roll-off box inventory to meet the changing demands of users. These demands have changed over time both due to the ebb of campus construction as well as the normal changes in the academic calendar including move-in, move-out, graduation and special summer events. Historically the Hay Barn location was used as a construction waste and demolition yard, effective in the deposit, sorting and iterative off-haul of materials collected over the course of each year. These activities, under Alternative 7, would be moved from the Hay Barn to the recycle yard. In addition, as necessary to reach zero waste, the new recycle yard would be the management location for all newly-diverted organic materials. Currently, Grounds Services manages over 560 tons of food waste that originates at the five kitchens and three cafes on campus. With the full execution of a Zero Waste program, the amount of organic material that must be managed by Grounds Services is assumed to double. Further, as this material will be a mixture of food waste, soiled paper waste, residentially-sourced kitchen scraps, and biodegradable “to-go” containers, most commercial composting processors will not accept these materials due to a host of reasons (see APPENDIX D: Email from Z-Best of Gilroy). In spite of the vendor’s reluctance to accept this material, this alternative assumes that an arrangement can be made to deposit this material at a composting facility. Such an arrangement may actually cost as much as triple (3X) the current rate of compost tipping fees. It has been

26


estimated that such a tipping fee could be as high as ($125). Since these rates are not know as no vendor has been willing to quote our department to perform such a service, this rate is not implemented in the economic analysis. A worst-case scenario for this alternative would be a process that entails depositing the materials at a vendor like East Bay MUD. East Bay MUD, located in Oakland, California, is a wastewater facility that is 70 miles north of the UCSC campus. East Bay MUD actively solicits organic materials like those that would be produced by 2020 to feed their oversized biodigester. This biodigestor captures methane which is subsequently burned to produce renewable electricity in service of the San Francisco Bay Area grid. Currently, the East Bay MUD charges between $30 – $60/ton of organic material, a rate that is dependent on the quality of the compostables being deposited at the facility. By 2020, at the rate of organic material that will require off-hauling, Grounds Services will be taking a roll-off box of material to the vendor every four hours. In other words, we will be delivering 10 roll-off boxes per week during the months of high campus activity (1,692 tons over 8 months, 5 tons per roll-off deliver, 10 deliveries per week, 2 deliveries per day for 5 days of the typical work week). The closest possible vendor by 2020 is Grounds Services current vendor in Marina at Monterey Regional Waste Management District, which is 36 miles from Santa Cruz. The furthest possibility would be East Bay MUD in Oakland at 70 miles from Santa Cruz. For either facility, once Grounds Services begins to add other compostables beyond the food waste currently delivered, increased management will be necessary on campus. Most likely, a process of mixing greenwaste, foodwaste, and other compostables with the grinder prior to deposit will be necessary for vendors to accept the mix of materials expected by 2020. To summarize the implications of carrying out Alternative 7 in the recycle yard, the following programmatic considerations will be necessary on-site: Permanent Construction & Demolition sorting stage; Storage for Dumpster and Roll-Off Box Inventory (including BioBins); Material storage and management areas for composting preparation process; Material Grinder (like RotoChipper); Reverse Dock for Transfer of Frontloaded Materials to Roll-Off Box; Battery Sort Area (roughly 100 sq.ft.); and Paper Sort Tables (SAIC Recommendation Item #7 of TABLE 4).

This list is not meant to be comprehensive, but rather cover the major uses of the recycle yard to accommodate the functions to be executed with Alternative 7. Off-Site Alternative: City of Santa Cruz Resource Recovery Those unfamiliar to the resource recovery operations on-campus many times inquire as to why the university does not employ the City of Santa Cruz’s services for waste management. There are a range of issues that prevent such a relationship, first of which is that the City of Santa Cruz is significantly behind both Santa Cruz County and UCSC in terms of compostables collection. The second major issue is that the City of Santa Cruz’s waste management services cost +200% more than the Grounds Services. Based

27


on FY 2012-2013 values for resources recovered, Grounds Services had a total budget allocation of $1.016 million to service the refuse, mixed recycling and cardboard streams. To pay the City of Santa Cruz to perform the same services, it would have cost the University $2.07 million. Even if the current on-campus department has inefficiencies that should be addressed in the near future, the university community continues to receive a dramatic price savings in maintaining its on-campus fleet. Further, since the City has no operating food waste compostables program, they are years (if not decades) away from offering a composting collection and management system that could service the projected demands of a Zero Waste system at UCSC. Santa Cruz Regional Composting & Anaerobic Digester Facility (“Hail Mary” Option) Over the past year, UCSC representatives have met with a consortium of local government representatives and consultants to review options for a regional composting and anaerobic digester facility. These local agencies include but are not limited to the City of Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz County, the City of Salinas and the City of Watsonville. Recently, an unofficial solution has been suggested to repurpose the City of Santa Cruz’s dormant wastewater capacity to process food waste materials using anaerobic digestion for the county’s combined feedstock, much like the process described at East Bay MUD. This system has been proposed to utilize a rail line that runs the length of the county to transport materials. Further, all non-food waste based materials including the sludge bio-solids produced at the City of Santa Cruz’s wastewater facility would be hauled to a composting facility where a series of retail soil amendment products would be refined for sale, local deposit, and if similar to other like facilities, to provide landfill cover. This option, if realized in the region, could be a good off-site opportunity for treating UCSC’s compostable materials. Better yet, if the existing sewer connection to the City of Santa Cruz’s wastewater facility could be utilized to transport this material to the proposed plant, transportation costs could be eliminated. There are a series of drawbacks to relying on this system for reaching the diversion goals. First, at a minimum it is expected that the tipping fee will be set very near or above the current landfill tipping fee at the City of Santa Cruz landfill. This is much higher than the tipping rate paid by Grounds Services today ($42), and a composting facility on-campus could be operated at a less cost-per-ton rate. The worst drawback is the uncertainty of the City’s proposed date of completion. Simply defining a fixed project proposal could take as long as eight months according to the agents assisting this consortium of local agencies. It is very difficult to imagine that the plant could be completed before 2020, much less be physically capable of receiving the 1,000+ tons of organic materials our campus would deliver for processing. Therefore, a “wait-and-see” approach seems to be most fitting for our department in analyzing whether such a local project is viable and capable for receiving campus materials for diversion.

28

Alternative Comparison in Meeting Zero Waste RecommendationsDemonstrating each alternative's ability to meet all 10 SAIC Recommendations for reaching Zero Waste at UCSC.

Item # Recommendation by SAIC Report

Critical to Zero

Waste

Impacts Recycle

Yard Current Operations All Streams to RefuseRefuse, Single Stream Recycling,

Kitchen CompostingZero Waste, Sorted Recycling,

Composting On-Campus

Zero Waste*, Sorted Recycling, Vendor

Composting

Zero Waste, Single Stream Recycling, Composting On-

CampusZero Waste*, Single Stream

Recycling, Vendor CompostingCity of Santa Cruz (All Off-Site

Vendor)

Program 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 OFF-SITECurrent operations have a 50 ton/year

allowance provided by the Monterey Regional Waste Management District on new divertable organic materials, which is enough to grow until

2016.

Taking all streams to refuse does not allow any additional sorting.

Current operations have a 50 ton/year allowance provided by the Monterey

Regional Waste Management District on new divertable organic materials, which is

enough to grow until 2016.

Alternative is designed to aggressively manage entire organics stream.

Alternative is designed to manage organics stream, but there is no

market availability for off-site post-consumer organics processing over

50 tons/year.

Alternative is designed to aggressively manage entire organics

stream.

Alternative is designed to manage organics stream, but there is no market

availability for off-site post-consumer organics processing over 50 tons/year.

City of Santa Cruz has no composting/organics program.

2 0 2 10 2 10 2 0

Alternatives Analysis is a broad-scoped organics management feasiblity study, but a

formal study has not been carried out.

Alternative does not necessitate any organics management feasiblity study.

Alternatives Analysis is a broad-scoped organics management feasiblity study, but a formal study has not been carried out.

Alternatives Analysis is a broad-scoped organics management feasiblity study, but a formal study has not been carried

out.

Alternatives Analysis is a broad-scoped organics management

feasiblity study, but a formal study has not been carried out.

Alternatives Analysis is a broad-scoped organics management

feasiblity study, but a formal study has not been carried out.

Alternatives Analysis is a broad-scoped organics management feasiblity study, but a formal study has not been carried

out.

Alternative does not necessitate any organics management feasiblity study.

5 0 5 5 5 5 5 0

Any addition is limited to a 50 ton annual allowance provided by the Monterey Regional Waste Management District, reserved for the

McHenry Library organic stream.

Alternative does not allow any composting of paper towels.

Any addition is limited to a 50 ton annual allowance provided by the Monterey

Regional Waste Management District, reserved for the McHenry Library organic

stream.

Alternative is designed to aggressively manage entire organics stream,

including paper towels.

Any addition is limited to a 50 ton annual allowance provided by the

Monterey Regional Waste Management District, reserved for the

McHenry Library organic stream.

Alternative is designed to aggressively manage entire organics

stream, including paper towels.


Regional Waste Management District, reserved for the McHenry Library

organic stream.


Regional Waste Management District, reserved for the McHenry Library organic

stream.

2 0 2 10 2 10 2 0

All dining halls and three out of nine cafes currently have a compost stream collection point

and operation.

Alternative would reverse diversion found by adding a compost collection stream to

existing food service establishements.

All dining halls and three out of nine cafes currently have a compost stream collection

operation.

Under alternative, all food service establishments would have a compost

stream collection operation.



Under alternative, all food service establishments would have a

compost stream collection operation.



Alternative would reverse diversion found by adding a compost collection stream to

existing food service establishements.

8 0 8 10 10 10 10 0Metrics

Over the past two years, this recommendation has been carried out.

Alternative would unwind all planning already conducted for the purpose of

diversion.



Over the past two years, this recommendation has been carried

out.

Over the past two years, this recommendation has been carried

out.



diversion.

10 0 10 10 10 10 10 0

Alternatives Analysis is a product of staff's cost/benefit analysis of higher market values for

resource recovery activities.

Alternative does not necessitate cost/benefit analysis.

Alternatives Analysis is a product of staff's cost/benefit analysis of higher market

values for resource recovery activities.

Alternatives Analysis is a product of staff's cost/benefit analysis of higher market values for resource recovery

activities.


activities.


activities.


activities.

Alternative does not necessitate cost/benefit analysis.

10 0 10 10 10 10 10 0Infrastructure

With replacement of the Hay Barn facilities at a new recycle yard, a new paper sorting area

could be programmed.

Alternative unwinds sorting as understood by this recommendation.


Alternative would include new paper sorting area.

Alternative would include new paper sorting area.




5 0 0 10 10 0 0 0

Alternatives Analysis is a broad-scoped planning program for replacing non-

standardized exterior and interior collection containers with Waste Station facilities.


diversion.


standardized exterior and interior collection containers with Waste Station facilities.


standardized exterior and interior collection containers with Waste Station

facilities.

Alternatives Analysis is a broad-scoped planning program for replacing non-standardized exterior and interior

collection containers with Waste Station facilities.

Alternatives Analysis is a broad-scoped planning program for

replacing non-standardized exterior and interior collection containers with

Waste Station facilities.


standardized exterior and interior collection containers with Waste Station

facilities.


diversion.

10 0 10 10 10 10 10 0

A new recycle yard has been outlined as a permanent location to replace like area at the

Hay Barn.

Alternative would unwind all prior articulation for the purpose of diversion.

A new recycle yard has been outlined as a permanent location to replace like area at

the Hay Barn.

A recycling yard that included permenant facilities for both recycling

and compost activities would be necessary.







Alternative would unwind all prior articulation for the purpose of diversion.

8 0 8 10 10 10 10 0Fee Structure

Alternatives Analysis is a product of staff's best-case scenario for directly reflecting the cost of

resource recovery in the budgeting of the program.

Alternative would require a more traditional reevaluation of the budgeting

for hauling operations.

Alternatives Analysis is a product of staff's best-case scenario for directly reflecting

the cost of resource recovery in the budgeting of the program.

Alternatives Analysis is a product of staff's best-case scenario for directly

reflecting the cost of resource recovery in the budgeting of the program.


reflecting the cost of resource recovery in the budgeting of the

program.


reflecting the cost of resource recovery in the budgeting of the

program.


reflecting the cost of resource recovery in the budgeting of the program.

All resource recovery would be billed directly to campus by City staff.

10 5 10 10 10 10 10 07 0.5 6.5 9.5 7.9 8.5 6.9 0

Articulate the need for a permanent location for materials aggregation and processing, including for recyclables and

possibly organics (e.g., food scraps and compostable paper).

10

Make strides toward the fuller inclusion of major cost components in the rates, especially capital costs. It is assumed

that a substantial portion of the true cost of service is not currently reflected in the rate. UCSC’s charges for trash

collection are roughly one-quarter of what the City of Santa Cruz charges its commercial customers.

6Collect and analyze cost/benefit data regarding pre-processing steps taken to produce commodities with higher market value.

7Upgrade rudimentary paper sorting system, to increase worker

safety and operating efficiency.

8Develop a schedule for replacing non-standardized exterior and

interior collection containers, university-wide.

3

Evaluate the potential of adding paper towels (as discussed earlier, observed to be the largest fraction of compostable paper,

which is a large component of the trash) to compactors for off-site composting. If feasible, begin implementation. If not,

consider other off-site and on-site processing options.

4Expand compostables collection to additional food service

establishments.

5

Collect and analyze data regarding trash and recycling collection efficiency, in terms of cost per cubic yard of service capacity

provided and cost per ton collected.

Depends on Installation of Recycle Yard

Ability of Alternative to Meet Zero Waste by FY 2019-2020

TABLE 4. Alternative Comparison in Meeting Zero Waste Recommendations

Alternative Description

Final Recommendation Score (0 = poor, 10 = excellent)

1

Focus new waste diversion efforts this year and next on diverting food scraps and compostable, non-recyclable paper, especially

paper towels. This is by far the single largest category of divertable material currently disposed as trash.

2 Develop on-site organics management feasibility study.

9

29


Staff Suggestion building a secure capacity for recycling and organics processing After researching a critical path to reach Zero Waste by 2020 at UCSC, our analysis has led staff to endorse Alternative 4: Zero Waste, Sorted Recycling, Composting On-Campus. After reviewing all seven alternatives, there are only two, Alternative 4 and 6, which with current facilities and technology assure campus administrators a secure process to Zero Waste by the year 2020 (see TABLE 4). Of these two alternatives, not only is Alternative 4 the most cost effective, it provides the necessary labor and equipment capacity to effectively manage campus resources in spite of program uncertainties. These uncertainties emanate both from the campus (such as concerts, graduations, or changes in housing policies), as well as from the resource recovery industry (such as vendor bankruptcy, changes in material processing protocols, or material composition) that can present themselves with little warning. Zero Waste: Universally, past waste audits have shown that UCSC users are relatively good at diverting those materials for which they have an existing infrastructure for processing. As the campus is known nationally as a progressive magnet, compliance with proposed recycling and composting initiatives is typically met with open welcome and praise on-campus. As there is a robust material recycling program in existence that manages cardboard, clean paper, and mixed recycling products, the majority of our course to Zero Waste will be traveled in the installation of a compostables collection system on campus. In review of the necessary diminution of refuse/waste/landfilled resources over the next six years, the path to Zero Waste is governed by how fast and effective the Grounds Services department installs user collection stations and the compost management infrastructure. Also, implementation of the shared Grounds Services/Custodial plan for servicing individual workspaces and the residence halls will be important for reaching the 2020 deadline. At the most aggressive pace of compostable collection program execution, the UCSC campus could be Zero Waste as early as 2018. More likely, every year until 2020 will be important in making this dramatic shift. In the following breakdown, this report suggests the following iteration of change for diverting 95% of resources recovered:

FY 2014-2015 (current rate) FY 2015-2016 Refuse: 42% Refuse: 34% Compost: 16% Compost: 24% Recycling: 42% Recycling: 42%

FY 2016-2017 FY 2017-2018 Refuse: 26% Refuse: 18% Compost: 32% Compost: 40% Recycling: 42% Recycling: 42%

30


FY 2018-2019 FY 2019-2020 (Zero Waste) Refuse: 10% Refuse: 5% Compost: 44% Compost: 47% Recycling: 46% Recycling: 48%

Assuming this is the correct pace of diversion for the campus, staff suggests both a continuation of the sorted recycling system and a fully-capable compost infrastructure on-campus to be located at the recycle yard. In the following paragraphs, both an economic and qualitative summary is provided to outline this suggested course for campus operations as they influence resource recovery at Grounds Services. Sorted Recycling: Sorted Recycling has been a mainstream part of the campus resource recovery operation since 2010 when an expanded program was executed with the help of an Ecology Action waste audit and $150,000+ grant. The grant program provided by Ecology Action was specifically tailored to UCSC’s multi-family housing and assumed that the Grounds Services department would continue to sort on-site to recover CRV for the foreseeable future. Grounds Services maintains a permit with CalRecycle that authorizes the collection, sorting and selling of sorted materials to regional vendors. At present, the sort-line only operates ½ day per week to recover CRV, and effectively sorts 1/3 of the total mixed recycle stream. If single-stream recycling were chosen over the current sorted recycle system, the majority of the labor currently used by the Recycle Crew would continue to be in demand to collect and manage the recyclable materials for a single-stream pickup. Further, the roughly $80,000 investment made by the campus community to install the sort-line apparatus would be lost. Due to this management demand, the phasing out of the sort line is a net-negative economic impact on proposed operations, especially in consideration of the potential material revenues that would be found with “100% sort” of the mixed recyclable stream. This is to say nothing of the qualitative value of the material produced by our current sorted recycling system. Currently, our operations manage three paper grades for resale to the vendor International Paper, including “Mixed Paper” at $27/ton, “Sorted Office Pack” at $107/ton and “White Ledger” at $173/ton. During FY 2012-2013, even though 2/3rds of the paper collected was Mixed Paper, nearly ½ of the entire paper income came from White Ledger collection. Paper vendors appreciate the high quality clean paper we collect and reward that effort with higher payment rates. Further, as clean, white ledger paper is impractical to harvest from single-stream recycling operations like the one managed by the City of Santa Cruz, paper vendors depend on the select operations like the one at UCSC to provide the raw materials for a high quality, post-consumer white recycled paper product. This is an example of how current operations assure the highest quality use for the raw recyclable material as delivered to our vendors. The same sort of “qualitative” attention to detail provides assurances that campus resources are truly diverted from the landfill, rather than suffer what typically occurs in single-stream recycling operations. Many times, the recycle stream is overloaded with

31


materials that are soiled (i.e. spilled coffee on white paper) or otherwise contaminated with refuse, making the material recovery facility sort-line just an alternative course to the landfill. In maintaining a direct relationship with the very vendors that use our recycled materials in production, our operations can minimize contamination and provide a greater degree of integrity in the service provided the campus community. Internal Issues Solved with a Sorted Recycle Operation. Beyond the economics and qualitative integrity of a sorted recycle operation, maintaining a sort-line improves the working conditions for Grounds Services. Put plainly, a formal sort line operation improves safety conditions for the department’s employees. Prior to the sort line, employees regularly were found in a bent position self-sorting recycle materials from deposit locations. Without an internal reason to leave fungible CRV materials in the recycle stream, both resource recovery employees and scavengers are attracted to collecting the materials before they are shipped to a sort line off-site. Custodial management is currently reviewing this problem as it concerns their employees. In addition, scavenging activities have increased recently, pulling away increased campus resources to manage. Today, as there is no formal sorted recycling program currently in place with janitorial services, workers self-sort regularly from desk-side trash receptacles. With the proposed implementation of the Grounds Services/Custodial plan, this incentive to sort from the refuse stream can largely be eliminated. Regardless of any loss of CRV monies, it is important from a departmental level to keep our employees healthy. The sort line provides an ergonomically correct, efficient and safe manner in which to sort premium materials from the recycle stream. Maintaining a sorted recycle stream provides other benefits in terms of operational capacity. First, it allows Grounds Services some measure of control as to the timing of recycle material delivery. Without a sort line apparatus, all recycle materials would necessarily be delivered directly and immediately to a regional material recovery facility. With the sort line, there are multiple opportunities to temporarily store the recycle materials either before or after sorting so they may be delivered at the most appropriate time according to operations on campus. This ability to temporarily store and stage material transfer will be enhanced with the installation of the reverse off-loading dock at the recycle yard. Also, the extra labor necessary to operate the sort-line allows for a larger knowledgeable staff working for Grounds Services. This extra staff capacity is incredibly important to manage heavy demand peaks that occur during the academic calendar, including move-in, move-out, during the summer when Fiscal Year documents are recycled, and for special events like graduation. This labor capacity has also allowed the department to install and test pilot projects during slow months to assess the necessary procedures in reaching Zero Waste. Finally, the sort line provides the most visible, most highly visited, and perhaps most sought-after mechanism within the current resource recovery operation. Each year, both student volunteers and employees work on the sort line, learning about the resource recovery industry as they pick alongside the recycling crew’s helpful staff. Representatives from both UC Davis and UC Merced have visited the sort-line as both campuses are considering installation of such a line on their campus. The sort line is of the scale and magnitude that it is both economically viable and can provide a visceral demonstration of the importance of our campus’s Zero Waste endeavors.

32


Composting On-Campus: The University of California, as a system of campuses, is fortuitously creating multiple models of Zero Waste that may lead the North American continent in waste innovation. As UCSF is seated in the City of San Francisco, the regional resource recovery provider Recology can locally provide the composting services necessary for that campus to reach Zero Waste. Recology has a large composting yard in Vacaville to treat these materials for San Francisco. At UC Davis a contrasting model has emerged whereby the university campus will host the composting facilities necessary for the City of Davis and other local food waste generators to process their growing compostables stream. In order for UC Davis to lead the local region in this area, the campus is installing a massive 50-ton per day anaerobic digester. By design, UC Davis will only provide at a maximum half the necessary organic feedstock needed to run this facility (see APPENDIX C: UC Davis biodigester turns campus waste into campus energy, article source http://engineering.ucdavis.edu/blog/uc-davis-biodigester-turns-campus-waste-campus-energy/). Unlike San Francisco, our local region does not have the political will to achieve a Zero Waste status by 2020. Also, unlike UC Davis, UC Santa Cruz will never have even close to 25 tons per day of feedstock to run such a large anaerobic digester on campus. Further, the UC Santa Cruz campus does not have the agricultural characterization nor the excess on-site landfill-designated space to host a digester like UC Davis. At UC Santa Cruz, with a smaller reliable feedstock and minimal local agency capacity, staff suggest a characteristically normal approach to manage the campus’s growing compost feedstock: aerobic composting. Composting On-Campus Assures Treatment and True Diversion. There are multiple reasons this option has become favored by staff. First, this will allow the campus to near guarantee that a key part of the compostable stream, that is soiled paper and compostable tableware, can be recycled into soil amendment. After extensive inquiries of the major resource recovery service providers within driving distance, our department still has not found a facility that will accept soiled paper and compostable tableware for anything other than landfill deposit. Direct correspondence has been undertaken with the Z-Best composting facility of Gilroy, the Jepson Prarie Organics subsidiary of Recology in Vacaville, and the Monterey Regional Waste Management District in Marina. At this time, no facility has been willing to even quote a tipping fee to accept the campus’s non-food waste compostable feedstock. Of the three, the Monterey Regional Waste Management District has been the most cooperative, pledging to accept up to 50 tons of this sort of compostable material per year until other arrangements may be found. There are two major reasons that facilities do not want to accept these materials. First, they have no chemical value for use in an anaerobic digester as their “carbonic” makeup is not beneficial in the creation of methane gas for energy production. Second, this material has no economic value as it is not of the grade or quality that it can be sold on the market after processing as commercially valuable soil amendment. In other words, without extensive management and mixing with other compost products, this material is not something that customers will purchase for their own agricultural enterprise. For

33


facility managers, unless there is a contractual mandate to accept this material, as is the case between the City of San Francisco and Recology, then there is no incentive for such resource recovery facilities to accept the compostable feedstock. Worse yet, in terms of the integrity of waste diversion metrics, many times when these materials are accepted and composted, they are simply deposited as landfill cover at nearby dumps. This material does not have a particularly high market value although it is relatively beneficial as soil amendment. Our department prefers to compost this material at the recycle yard so we are assured the material will be composted, so that we are assured that these compost materials are not landfilled, and so we may use this soil amendment on our own turf fields to improve their quality and resistance to environmental stress. Composting On-Campus Provides Some Measure of Control in a Volatile Environment. Currently a bonanza of activity surrounds discussions, plans and projections regarding the future of anaerobic digestion on the West Coast. With its ample space, a plentiful agricultural waste feedstock, and on-campus experts in the field, UC Davis has installed two anaerobic digesters in the past five years with grant monies and local agency assurances of supplemental feedstock to run their new waste-to-energy facilities. Within a forty-mile radius, two new anaerobic digesters have been installed; one at the Monterey Regional Waste Management District in Marina and another operated by GreenWaste/Zanker Road Resource Management “over-the-hill” in San Jose. Local agencies within Santa Cruz County have been in discussions for months, if not years, on moving forward on the same sort of anaerobic digester to convert local food waste into methane. As has been discussed previously, currently the best option for this endeavor is to retrofit an existing dormant anaerobic digester housed at the City of Santa Cruz’s wastewater plant to process food waste exclusively for methane production. Regardless of such plans, it is unlikely such a plant will be operational in the six-year time frame given the department to reach Zero Waste. Further, as discussed previously, as the key soiled paper and compostable tableware feedstock does not benefit the anaerobic digestive process, an alternative processing location will be necessary for diversion. Most likely, such an alternative location will employ a composting apparatus like the one suggested in this report for the recycle yard. Without an in-depth review of how these facilities work, many do not realize that after the methane is pulled out of given feedstock, the waste feedstock from the anaerobic digester must undergo an after-digested compost process. Put another way, once this material exits the anaerobic digester it will be composted using an aerobic process like the one suggested by staff with Alternative 4. Another option that has been reviewed by on-campus staff is the installation of a UCSC-operated anaerobic digester on-campus. If the administration wishes to install such a facility on campus, the waste from that digester would have to be composted using an aerobic system like the one proposed. Through our extensive research and review of all the possible scenarios, we have always found that eventually the material that has been collected for organic processing will have to be exercised through an aerobic composting process before it can be applied as a soil amendment anywhere. As this will always have to be undertaken to assure diversion, staff suggests that so as to maintain control over our own processing options

34


and to provide a fail-safe manner in which to process this significant resource stream, an adequately-sized in-vessel aerobic composter be installed at the recycle yard. To conclude the staff recommendation for Alternative 4, a summary of how this alternative addresses the SAIC recommendations on a per item basis is provided below: Item 1: Focus new waste diversion efforts this year and next on diverting food scraps and compostable, non-recyclable paper, especially paper towels. This is by far the single largest category of divertable material currently disposed as trash. As the primary limitation faced by the department in providing a Zero Waste infrastructure, this recommendation has been discussed since the very inception of a permanent recycle yard on-campus. As our research has provided time and again, the only assured method to recycle the soiled paper and compostable tableware is with an on-campus aerobic compost facility. Although we have found multiple vendors happy to accept our food scraps, the real limitation is securing appropriate landfill diversion for the non-food waste compostables. Alternative 4 addresses this issue directly, suggesting a complete compost facility be provided at the recycle yard. Item 2: Develop on-site organics management feasibility study. Over the past six-months a feasibility study has been undertaken to address compostables management in preparation for the design of a recycle yard. Although it is not yet complete, it is expected that the report shall suggest an on-site composting facility as best for managing the growing proportion of diverted organic feedstock on campus. Item 3: Evaluate the potential of adding paper towels (as discussed earlier, observed to be the largest fraction of compostable paper, which is a large component of the trash) to compactors for off-site composting. If feasible, begin implementation. If not, consider other off-site and on-site processing options. Already, Grounds Services has been granted a 50 ton allowance per year to deliver soiled paper and compostable tableware to the Monterey Regional Waste Management District in Marina. It is unlikely that this allowance shall grow significantly as these materials do not encourage a greater harvest of methane in the anaerobic digester nor do they provide an improvement for the final soil amendment product the facility sells to its customers. Beyond this 50 ton per year allocation, it is expected that an on-site composting facility is the only secure manner in which to divert these materials from landfill deposit. Item 4: Expand compostables collection to additional food service establishments. This recommendation has largely been satisfied as suggested. The UCSC kitchens and three cafes execute an exemplary kitchen composting program with the support of Grounds Services. In FY 2012-2013, over 560 tons of food waste were diverted from the landfill with the program, a number that baffles most compost operators given the size of the UCSC student body in comparison to our national counterparts.

35


Item 5: Collect and analyze data regarding trash and recycling collection efficiency, in terms of cost per cubic yard of service capacity provided and cost per ton collected. Over the past two years, Grounds Services has revolutionized the capacity and analytical reporting potential regarding the resources recovered on-campus. We have employed two systems of digital analysis to not only report on our collection efficiency but to give real-time analytics on our ability to meet internal goals. With implementation of Alternative 4, it is possible to manage all the recovered streams so as to reach Zero Waste at relatively the same budget allocation for today’s campus service that only provides a 64% diversion rate. Item 6: Collect and analyze cost/benefit data regarding pre-processing steps taken to produce commodities with higher market value. This very document has required our department to collect and analyze information at a deeper level than ever before. Already, the Alternatives Analysis process has pointed to deficiencies in our resource management, issues that are already under reformation. Examples include an improved recycle sort rate, the use of a reverse off-loading dock once installed, and the hypothetical mixing of compostable materials so as to improve the diversion of soiled-paper and compostable tableware by systemically mixing it with vendor-desired food waste. Item 7: Upgrade rudimentary paper sorting system, to increase worker safety and operating efficiency. This programmatic space shall be included in any alternative that is carried out in future resource recovery operations. Item 8: Develop a schedule for replacing non-standardized exterior and interior collection containers, university-wide. With Alternative 4, we are proposing a four-stream indoor and outdoor Zero Waste station approach to collection containers across campus. Already, pilot studies have proven these systems are rewarding. Campus building managers are now requesting they be installed at OPERS, 2300 Delaware, Humanities 1 and McHenry Library. Item 9: Articulate the need for a permanent location for materials aggregation and processing, including for recyclables and possibly organics (e.g., food scraps and compostable paper). This recommendation originally led campus administrators to propose the recycle yard. With Alternative 4, our department proposes a centralized yard for sorting, composting and material aggregation. Item 10: Make strides toward the fuller inclusion of major cost components in the rates, especially capital costs. It is assumed that a substantial portion of the true cost of service is not currently reflected in the rate. UCSC’s charges for trash collection are roughly one-quarter of what the City of Santa Cruz charges its commercial customers. Our department is confident a weight-based billing and recharge system is key to rationally tying Zero Waste resource streams to their management costs. Although SAIC was skeptical that our operations could run at such a financial discount as compared to the City of Santa Cruz’s resource recovery service, we now find that our resource managers have been largely performing within a budget that encompasses the costs and infrastructure necessary well below the

36


rate charged by the City for the same service. This finding, along with the volatile nature of anaerobic digester development, tends to lend favor within our department that if outside agencies are incorporated further in our current operations, their higher cost of operations will cause the budget of resource recovery on campus to dramatically increase. An exception to this belief is our work with the Monterey Regional Waste Management District in Marina. The Monterey Regional Waste Management District has continued to provide very competitive rates for their composting services ($42/ton) and historically dealt with Grounds Services with honesty, diversion integrity and positive customer relations. To contrast the Monterey Regional Waste Management District’s prices to those already suggested by the City of Santa Cruz, consultants working on behalf of the City of Santa Cruz have outlined that the tipping fee for their proposed composing facility would be “pegged” to the landfill tipping fee at the city landfill ($75/ton). When asked to explain, consultants working for the city have illuminated that the materials collected are unlikely to be processed for less than the landfill tipping fee, but would not be so high as to be unconscionable for clients who wish to deposit at the facility. When asked of the high mark, the consultant explained that the tipping fee would not be above $100/ton. For like services, the Monterey Regional Waste Management District in Marina charges $51.75/ton for refuse and $42/ton for food waste. To put it bluntly, it is worrisome to rely any further on the City of Santa Cruz’s resource recovery services as their rates appear unacceptable in comparison to our own costs and the rates quoted by a resource recovery facility located a mere thirty-three miles away.

37

APPENDIX A: (DRAFT) UCSC ZERO WASTE COLLECTION PILOT MODEL:

MCHENRY LIBRARY



38

UCSC Zero Waste Collection Pilot Model: McHenry Library April 2014

ZERO WASTE 39

April 13, 2014 DRAFT Elida ZERO WASTE WA page 2

Table of Contents

Executive Summary pp. 3 - 4 UCSC Zero Waste Pilot Model Overview: McHenry Library pp. 5 - 9 Cost Payback Analysis p. 10 Literature Review: Best Practices and Lessons Learned pp. 10-12 References p. 13 Acknowledgments p. 13 Appendices p. 14

Appendix A – Zero Waste Station Bin Location Maps

40


Executive Summary

Background and Purpose

The UC Office of the President set a goal for all campuses to reach “Zero Waste” by the year 2020, defined as diverting 95% of waste from the landfill by reducing, re-using, recycling or composting materials instead. The coordination, planning and operational resources required to accomplish this are no small feat. This document outlines the changes to the waste collection model that are necessary in order for UCSC to achieve the Zero Waste goal. It outlines the elements of a pilot model at one key high-use facility, the McHenry Library, including cost analysis, communication and program assessment plan, and a literature review of best practices nationwide. The McHenry Library is a key facility to pilot because it receives high use by all member of the campus community, and its materials output includes every element of the waste stream: trash, recyclable materials and compostable materials. A formal assessment of the McHenry Library waste stream in Fall 2013 showed that 52% of the material (by weight) leaving the library is currently in the trash (landfill), and only 48% is diverted from the landfill. Only 6% of the total material stream from the library is actually “trash”. A diversion rate of 94% could be achieved if all materials went to the proper destination. This pilot project at McHenry Library is the first step in developing material collection improvements that will ultimately help UCSC reach its diversion goals when rolled out campus wide.

McHenry Library Zero Waste Pilot Model Summary

o Current material collection streams are expanded to include food and other compostable waste.

o New, color-coded bins and signage are distributed across the building to create consistency for users and ease for collection by staff.

o Custodial staff and Grounds Services staff practices are adjusted to improve coordination, communication and collection efficiency.

o Communication and rollout plan allows for feedback and ongoing improvements. o Best practices from municipalities and institutions nation wide have informed the

development of this pilot model.

Pilot Timeline

41


Quarter Tasks

Winter-Spring 2014 Develop pilot model and identify funding. Present to stakeholders including: Labor Relations, Custodial and Grounds Services staff, VC BAS, McHenry Library and Global Village Café staff.

Summer 2014 Order bins, develop educational materials for staff and users, finalize rollout plan.

Fall 2014 Implement pilot by start of the 2014-15 Academic Year. Conduct initial program assessment through close monitoring by staff, and surveying users and stakeholders. Conduct waste assessment at the end of the quarter.

Winter 2015 Report on feedback from initial stakeholder surveys and waste assessment. Adjust practices as needed. Begin working with Planning & Budget on proposed funding model to support expansion of zero waste collection processes campus wide.

Spring 2015 Propose expansion to other buildings or campus wide if possible.

Pilot Model Benefits and Potential Drawbacks

Benefits Potential Drawbacks

Capture the key material stream needed to achieve zero waste: food scraps and other compostable materials.

The campus currently depends on outside facilities to accept compostable materials. UCSC’s waste stream has a large amount of materials that are considered “undesirable”, such as bio-ware and paper towels. There is no guarantee that facilities will continue to accept these materials in the long-term.

Increase collaboration and communication between Custodial and Grounds Services staff.

Custodial staff and union support is needed for the adjustment in collection duties, which can be an extensive process.

Users participate in source separation of materials, noted as a best practice. Paper is also separated from other recycling, meaning that a much greater volume of paper will be recycled (this is because wet, damaged paper cannot actually be recycled).

Separating materials creates an extra step for the users to think about when disposing of their materials. Separating paper from other recycling is an additional stream for staff to manage.

42


UCSC Zero Waste Pilot Model Overview: McHenry Library

Figure 1: McHenry Library Global Village Café produces a substantial amount of compostable food waste and paper, which often makes its way into the library building where there are currently no compost bins available to users.

Why McHenry Library?

The McHenry Library is a key facility to pilot because it receives high use by all member of the campus community, and its materials output includes every element of the waste stream: trash, recyclable materials and compostable materials. A formal assessment of the waste stream in Fall 2013 showed that 52% of the material (by weight) leaving the library is currently in the trash (landfill) stream and only 48% is diverted from the landfill. Only 6% of the total material output of the library is actually “trash” and a diversion rate of 94% could be achieved if all materials went to the proper destination. This pilot project at McHenry Library is the first step in developing material collection improvements that will ultimately help UCSC reach its diversion goals when rolled out campus wide. Facility Description McHenry Library is a five-floor facility including library collections, administrative offices, study spaces, and a café. Hours of library and café operation are extensive, including weekend and evening hours. Users of the facility include students, faculty, staff, and the general public. Users are permitted to bring

43


and consume café and other food throughout the library. Current Material Collection Processes

o McHenry Library has paper and mixed recycling service at various locations provided by the Grounds Services Recycling Crew.

o Custodial Services provides trash collection and other cleaning services throughout the library. o The Global Village Café (GVC) located within the library facility has recycling, compost, and

trash bins serviced by their own employees and collected from outdoor bins by Grounds Services Recycling Crew.

o Food is allowed throughout the library in addition to the café area. There are no compostable material collection bins in the main body of the library. Since they have no other option, users deposit GVC food scraps and other compostable materials in the trash or recycling bins.

o There is inconsistent pairing and visual identification of existing trash and recycling containers, making it unclear for users and ultimately resulting in contamination of bin contents (ie: recyclable materials end up in the trash, and trash ends up in the recycling).

Pilot Material Streams and Collection Processes

This pilot model involves providing a consistent and easily identifiable four-stream system throughout the library to collect trash, mixed recyclable paper, mixed recycle containers, and organic/compostable

materials (including food scraps, compostable containers, and compostable soiled paper such as paper towels). The pilot model also involves developing a cooperative approach between Custodial and Grounds staff for the collection and transport of the materials. Desk side collection by Custodial Services will be expanded to include recyclable containers and compostable food scraps. Restroom collection will be expanded to include

compostable paper (paper towels).

Figure 2: Haakon Williams, PSI intern for Grounds Services, coordinated a waste assessment of the McHenry Library in Fall 2013. The waste assessment revealed that a large majority of compostable materials ultimately end up in the trash.

44


Pilot Collection Processes by Material Stream

Refuse/Trash: Items that cannot be diverted in any other way and are disposed of at the landfill. Four-stream bin color = BLACK

o Grounds Services: Collects liners from exterior trash cans and dumps in loading dock trash dumpster. Equipment crew empties dumpster with front loader truck equipped with on board scales.

o Custodial: Collects liners from interior trash cans including four-stream stations and dumps in loading dock trash dumpster.

Recyclable Containers (bottles, cans, etc.): Mixed plastic, aluminum, glass, and other recyclable containers. Four-Stream bin color = BLUE

o Grounds Services: Recycle crew collects recycle containers indoors on all floors from four-stream stations and outdoors by loading dock. Equipment crew empties container recycle (bottles and cans) blue dumpster at loading dock.

White Office Paper o Grounds Services: Recycle crew collects white office paper in copy rooms only.

Mixed Paper: Mixed colors of paper, envelopes, manila folders, magazines, newspapers, cereal boxes. Four-Stream bin color = GRAY

o Grounds Services: Recycle crew collects mixed paper in copy rooms and in four-stream units o Custodial: Collects mixed paper as part of office desk side collection and deposits it into

appropriate 4-stream bin.

Compostables: Includes food scraps, compostable containers and wares, and soiled paper such as paper towels. Four-Stream bin color = GREEN

o Grounds Services: Recycle crew picks up compostables from GVC and custodial collections at loading dock and delivers to staging bin or compactor.

o Custodial: Collects paper towel streams from bathrooms, compostable streams from 4-stream stations and office desk side. Collect using 64 gallon rolling cart and deliver to loading dock for Grounds Services pick up.

Cardboard Cardboard, flattened, no packaging materials.

45


o Grounds Services: Picks up cardboard dumpsters from loading dock and northeast corner

locations with front loader truck. Cardboard is brought to dumpsters by library and café staff. Outdoor collection only.

Styrofoam Expanded polystyrene in block form only (no “peanuts”).

o Grounds Services: Picks up large mattress bags full of polystyrene block. Deposits in existing roll off box dedicated to polystyrene collection. Mattress bags are filled by library staff and stored until full and ready for pick up. Collection location TBD.

Pilot Collection Process by Area

Custodial and Grounds Services practices will be amended to improve coordination, communication and collection efficiency. Custodial Services will collect all trash throughout the building, and place it in the outside waste dumpsters. Custodial staff will also collect all office/desk side mixed office paper, all desk side compostable material, restrooms, and the four-stream waste stations throughout the building and deposit it in a central location and/or the loading dock to be collected by Grounds Services. Common Areas

o Grounds Services will provide four-stream material collection stations. Each station will have four receptacles labeled, and color identified for Mixed Paper, Recyclable Containers (bottles & cans), Compostables, and Trash.

Offices o Custodial Service will provide two small “Piggy Back” receptacles for each office/desk, these

two new containers will attach to the existing receptacle in each office/desk. One new small receptacle will labeled ”Compostable”, the other “Trash”, the larger existing receptacle (currently the trash can) will be labeled “Mixed Paper”. Labels will match labels on common area four-stream waste stations.

Restrooms o Custodial Services will provide a small “piggy back” receptacle labeled “Trash“ that will attach to

the existing large receptacle. The existing large receptacle (previously used for trash) will now be labeled “Compostable” and used to collect paper towels.

46


Communication and Rollout of Pilot

Physical Plant and the Sustainability Office understand that communication and education about the program could make or break this pilot project! A brief communication and rollout plan is outlined below.

o Consult with Staff Human Resources and Labor Relations in regards to alteration of duties (task completed March 2014).

o Meet with Union representatives as well as staff from both the Custodial, and Grounds Departments, to present the waste diversion pilot program, discuss changes in “terms, and agreements of employment”, staff workload, safety issues, and provide an opportunity for feedback (planned for April 2014).

o Meet with McHenry Library managers to draft a notification of the pilot program to Library staff (late Spring 2014).

o Develop educational materials announcing the zero waste pilot program to library guests, faculty, staff and students (Summer 2014). Potential educational ideas include:

Interactive tabling by student interns to educate about the program, including incentives and prizes for those who participate

Announcing the pilot online through the McHenry Library, Grounds Services and Sustainability Office websites and electronic newsletters

Creating a looping educational video presentation to run on a screen above a waste station in a prominent location

Inviting George Blumenthal to announce the program at a grand opening rollout event

Pilot Program Assessment

Ongoing monitoring of the pilot will be key to gauging the success of this program. Monitoring will include:

o Assigning a Zero Waste student intern to focus on user education and communicate with staff stakeholders

o Administering surveys to users for feedback and engagement

o Observing and monitoring waste stream stations to gauge frequency of use and accuracy of material sorting by users

Figure 3: Sustainability Office Zero Waste Team associate Chris Kane helps out at the Fall 2013 McHenry library waste assessment. Ongoing monitoring of the pilot, including conducing further waste assessments, will be key to gauging the success of this program.

47


Cost Payback Analysis of Proposed Pilot

Literature Review: Best Practices and Lessons Learned

This summary reflects the current best practices and lessons learned industry-wide across the country, for both municipalities and university campuses. The points outlined below focus on best practices in relation to behavior change principles for users, engaging custodial staff, choosing container systems, communications and education about the waste streams, and funding models.

Best Practices

48


Behavioral Change o Consider user behavior early-on in the

planning processes of creating a zero waste collection program It is important for users to participate in source-separation of each waste stream to minimize contamination and take responsibility for their own waste

o Create a system that “builds habits that are supported by having familiar bins in predictable places coupled with a consistent understanding” of what can be composted and recycled (Ten Tips for

Designing Public Space Recycling Programs, Nov. 2013).

o Consider that users are often focused on other things as they dispose of their waste, such as texting and walking

o Coordinating across jurisdictions will create the least confusion for the user: “Standardizing a recycling program to match the recycling experience at work, home and in public facilities is one of the most important initiatives” to improve the program (Ten Tips for Designing Public Space Recycling Programs, Nov. 2013).

Engaging Custodial & Collection Staff o Involve custodians in the process of creating a collection model early-on to generate ideas

and create buy-in o Provide ongoing and multi-lingual education and training about the waste stream o Provide a mechanism for custodians to help identify improper sorting by users to increase

communication, feedback and connection between staff and users

Containers o Container systems should be based on user-friendly principles for both the customer and

the custodian servicing the bins o Choose a color-coding system for each waste stream and stick with it! o Use clear, consistent labeling & signage that minimize words and use of industry jargon, and

maximize use of images o Place the signage at eye-level or immediately next to the bin opening o Place bins in convenient locations that match foot traffic patterns o Group bins for all waste streams together o Provide containers indoors as well as outdoors o Use restrictive lids to reduce contamination and provide a visual cue to users

Figure 4: These bins at the San Francisco Giants stadium demonstrate several best practices: three waste streams of compost, recycling and trash are grouped together for the ease of the user, labeling is clear and color coded and includes visual images.

49


Communication & Education

o Provide easily accessible online resources for users (instructions, PDFs of signs, etc.) o Education should be ongoing in areas where the population shifts often o Identify waste diversion liaisons or “green teams” within the users’ peer group to help promote

the cause and provide ongoing program feedback o Communicate successes to the users on an ongoing basis, consider a “ribbon-cutting

ceremony” type of event to launch the program

Funding Models o Build a rate structure that provides financial incentives for recycling, composting and source

reduction. o “Multiple, diversified revenue sources represent the best options for meeting fiscal

obligations and achieving key [zero waste] objectives” (Footing the Bill for Diversion Programs, 2007).

Key Lessons Learned

o Know your waste stream and understand your users. Understand what types of waste are

generated in which locations and where that waste will likely travel. Conduct waste audits, informal assessments, and survey users regularly. Keep in regular communication with the facilities where the waste is going.

o Avoid isolated trash containers: offering users no other option vastly increases contamination of recycling and compostables in the trash.

o Dirty, overflowing, or badly contaminated bins will lead to users treating them as trash. o “Where public space recycling programs often fail is when considerations [to get people

to use bins correctly] are ignored or treated as an afterthought to other planning priorities, such as aesthetics…or placement of bins in relation to landscaping and other site features” (Ten Tips for Designing Public Space Recycling Programs, Nov. 2013).

o Starting with a pilot for several months is key to avoiding expensive mistakes and receiving staff and user input before the full rollout.

o Desk side bins should never be placed under desks, to avoid the need for custodians to crawl under them to service bins.

o When collecting paper towels for composting in restrooms, an additional receptacle needs to be provided in women’s restrooms to avoid contamination by feminine hygiene products.

References

50


“Planning for Success: Ten Tips for Designing Public Space Recycling Programs”, Nov. 2013 “Footing the Bill for Diversion Programs: Funding Options”, 2007 “Toward Zero Waste”, The Urbanist, Feb. 2010 “Internal Containers for Recycling and Compost Collection” website, SF Dept. of the Environment “Commercial Office Building Recycling and Composting Guidelines”, SF Dept. of the Environment “Resource Recovery and Materials Flow in the City: Zero Waste and Sustainable Consumption as Paradigms in Urban Development”, Sustainable Development Law and Policy, Fall 2010 “Big Building Recycling: Diversion Techniques to Minimize Your Solid Waste Bill”, Powerpoint presentation, Reduce Your Waste LLC, 2009 “Mini Trash Bins Help Office Settings Reduce Waste 50 Percent and More: A Model for Local Government Recycling and Waste Reduction”, Model Studies, California Integrated Waste Management Board, July 2002

Acknowledgments A special thank you to the Physical Plant and Sustainability Office Staff who made this pilot project possible: Bill Alderson, Recycling Supervisor Brad Angell, Grounds Analyst Roger Edberg, Grounds Senior Superintendent Elida Erickson, Sustainability Programs Manager Henry Salameh, Physical Plant Director George Valerga, Custodial Supervisor Haakon Williams, Provost’s Sustainability Intern

51


Appendix A – Zero Waste Station Bin Location Maps

52

APPENDIX B: ZERO WASTE INCOME, EXPENSE & CAPITAL EXPENDITURE ANALYSIS

Alternatives Analysis for Resource Recovery Operations

Grounds Services, Physical Plant University of California at Santa Cruz

The following economic analysis encompasses a six-year time period that begins with FY 2014-2015 and ends at FY 2019-2020. This timeline reflects the UCOP sustainability deadline established for the campus to reach Zero Waste, that is, a 95% diversion from landfill rate for all resources recovered in campus operations. The following economic analysis has been modeled after industry standard pro forma business finance statements regularly employed to judge the fiscal outlook for a subject proposal. Here, as seven alternatives were defined for analysis, all alternatives were subjected to the same economic review based on a standard set of assumptions listed on the page titled “Project Assumptions.” A comparative enumeration of the total project’s projected income, expenses and cash flow are outlined on the page titled “Project Summary Sheet.” In terms of economic viability of each alternative, a table titled “Necessary Recharge Rate for Total Project Installation” is given on this sheet for direct comparisons. When reviewing the “Potential Gross Income” for each alternative, this value encompasses all possible income streams for the proposed program including OMP budget funds, recharge funds and revenues borne from recycle activities; essentially, this provides a total budget statement for the alternative. In the following pages, the sheet structure for the economic analysis is as follows:

Project Summary Sheet Project Assumptions

Alt. 1. Refuse Sorted Recycle, Kitchen Organics (Status Quo) - Income Roll, Operating Statement, Annual Cash Flow Alt. 2. All Streams to Refuse - Income Roll, Operating Statement, Annual Cash Flow Alt. 3. Refuse, Single Stream Recycle, Kitchen Composting - Income Roll, Operating Statement, Annual Cash Flow Alt. 4. Zero Waste, Sorted Recycle, Composting On-Campus - Income Roll, Operating Statement, Annual Cash Flow Alt. 5. Zero Waste*, Sorted Recycle, Vendor Composting - Income Roll, Operating Statement, Annual Cash Flow Alt. 6. Zero Waste, Single Stream Recycle, Composting On-Campus - Income Roll, Operating Statement, Annual Cash Flow Alt. 7. Zero Waste*, Single Stream Recycle, Vendor Composting - Income Roll, Operating Statement, Annual Cash Flow

53

Zero Waste Income, Expense & Capital Expenditure AnalysisProject Summary Sheet

Potential Gross Income (PGI), Total Project over Six-Year Time FrameAlternative 1: Refuse, Sorted Recycle, Kitchen Organics (Status Quo) 8,807,522$ Alternative 2: All Streams to Refuse 10,607,976$ Alternative 3: Refuse, Single Stream Recycle, Kitchen Composting 8,536,104$ Alternative 4: Zero Waste, Sorted Recycle, Composting On-Campus 9,379,507$ Alternative 5: Zero Waste*, Sorted Recycle, Vendor Composting 6,733,715$ Alternative 6: Zero Waste, Single Stream Recycle, Composting On-Campus 8,433,266$ Alternative 7: Zero Waste*, Single Stream Recycle, Vendor Composting 6,452,402$

Operating Expenses (OE), Total Project over Six-Year Time FrameAlternative 1: Refuse, Sorted Recycle, Kitchen Organics (Status Quo) 7,787,268$ Alternative 2: All Streams to Refuse 5,850,957$ Alternative 3: Refuse, Single Stream Recycle, Kitchen Composting 7,133,544$ Alternative 4: Zero Waste, Sorted Recycle, Composting On-Campus 8,034,771$ Alternative 5: Zero Waste*, Sorted Recycle, Vendor Composting 7,463,510$ Alternative 6: Zero Waste, Single Stream Recycle, Composting On-Campus 7,296,740$ Alternative 7: Zero Waste*, Single Stream Recycle, Vendor Composting 6,964,114$

Debt Service (DS), Total Project over Six-Year Time FrameAlternative 1: Refuse, Sorted Recycle, Kitchen Organics (Status Quo) 571,103$ Alternative 2: All Streams to Refuse 571,103$ Alternative 3: Refuse, Single Stream Recycle, Kitchen Composting 571,103$ Alternative 4: Zero Waste, Sorted Recycle, Composting On-Campus 1,175,903$ Alternative 5: Zero Waste*, Sorted Recycle, Vendor Composting 847,307$ Alternative 6: Zero Waste, Single Stream Recycle, Composting On-Campus 1,175,903$ Alternative 7: Zero Waste*, Single Stream Recycle, Vendor Composting 847,307$

Annual Cash Flow, Total Project over Six-Year Time FrameAlternative 1: Refuse, Sorted Recycle, Kitchen Organics (Status Quo) 449,152$ 5.1%Alternative 2: All Streams to Refuse 2,531,874$ 23.9%Alternative 3: Refuse, Single Stream Recycle, Kitchen Composting 831,458$ 9.7%Alternative 4: Zero Waste, Sorted Recycle, Composting On-Campus 168,833$ 1.8%Alternative 5: Zero Waste*, Sorted Recycle, Vendor Composting (1,577,101)$ -23.4%Alternative 6: Zero Waste, Single Stream Recycle, Composting On-Campus (39,377)$ -0.5%Alternative 7: Zero Waste*, Single Stream Recycle, Vendor Composting (1,359,019)$ -21.1%

Necessary Recharge Rate for Total Project Installation Avg. $/LB Avg. $/TONAlternative 1: Refuse, Sorted Recycle, Kitchen Organics (Status Quo) 0.228$ 456.00$ Alternative 2: All Streams to Refuse 0.183$ 366.00$ Alternative 3: Refuse, Single Stream Recycle, Kitchen Composting 0.214$ 428.00$ Alternative 4: Zero Waste, Sorted Recycle, Composting On-Campus 0.238$ 476.00$ Alternative 5: Zero Waste*, Sorted Recycle, Vendor Composting 0.318$ 636.00$ Alternative 6: Zero Waste, Single Stream Recycle, Composting On-Campus 0.245$ 490.00$ Alternative 7: Zero Waste*, Single Stream Recycle, Vendor Composting 0.308$ 616.00$

Cost Differentials for Qualitative Services at Issue Avg. per Year Project TermCost of Preferred Zero-Waste System [Alt. 4] vs. All Refuse Processing [Alt. 2] 393,840$ 2,363,041$ additional cost of zero waste as compared to an all landfill option 23$ per student/yearCost of Zero-Waste Goals [Alt. 4] vs. Current Operations (Status Quo) [Alt.1] 46,720$ 280,319$ additional cost of zero waste endeavor 3$ per student/yearCost of Sorted Recycling [Alt. 4] vs. Single-Stream Recycling [Alt.6] 34,702$ 208,210$ additional cost of single stream recycling 2$ per student/yearCost of On-Site Composting [Alt.4] vs. Vendor Composting [Alt.5] 290,989$ 1,745,934$ additional cost of off-site composting at $42/ton 17$ per student/yearCost of Current Resource Recovery by On-Campus Staff [Alt.1] vs. City of Santa Cruz 1,054,088$ 6,324,531$ additional cost of using City of Santa Cruz 62$ per student/year

Cost Recovery Ratio to PGI

54

Zero Waste Income, Expense & Capital Expenditure Analysis

Project Assumptions

Service Recharge Rates per Material Stream $/LBRefuse 0.238$ Cardboard 0.238$ Mixed Recycling 0.238$

Compost (Bin Pickup) 0.238$

Compost (Roll-Off Pickup) 0.05$ Roll-Off Box 0.05$ Green Waste 0.10$

Fuel Rates per Unit $/UnitCNG 3.20$ per GGE (Gas Gallon Equivalent)Diesel 3.90$ per gallonUnleaded Gasoline 3.60$ per gallon

Maintenance & Economy Rates per Vehicle Type $/mileLarge Frontloading Truck 4.50$ Personal Truck 0.75$ Box Truck 1.40$ Roll-Off Box 1.90$

Other Incomes from Material Stream $/LB $/YR %OMP Allocation Beyond Service Charge Proportion -$ -$

Compost Recharge/Resale 0.300$ -$

$600/ton is the rate quoted by Clements

Consulting for worm castings2015 % Organics Collected For Compost Sale 0.00%2016 % Organics Collected For Compost Sale 0.25%2017 % Organics Collected For Compost Sale 2.50%2018 % Organics Collected For Compost Sale 5.00%2019 % Organics Collected For Compost Sale 7.50%2020 % Organics Collected For Compost Sale 10.00%

Wood Chip Recharge/Resale 0.025$ -$ $50/ton is the rate charged by MontereyRWMD2015 % Greenwaste Collected For Chips Sale 10.00%2016 % Greenwaste Collected For Chips Sale 11.00%2017 % Greenwaste Collected For Chips Sale 12.00%2018 % Greenwaste Collected For Chips Sale 13.00%2019 % Greenwaste Collected For Chips Sale 14.00%2020 % Greenwaste Collected For Chips Sale 15.00%

CRV Resale 0.064$

Average rate based on 33% stream

monetization rate, this average could be

increased with more thorough sorting and

vendor delivery.

CRV Credits 0.063$

CRV, Metal & Paper averages are taken from

2012-2013 average rates, outlined in the excel

spreadsheet in the "pieces" folder: "Average-

Recycle-Rates_Filemaker_Jan-24-

2014.xlsx". Material Credits 0.132$

Paper Resale 0.037$

Average rate based on current paper collection

system Sorted White Ledger 0.084$ Sorted Office Pack 0.039$ Mixed Paper 0.019$

OCC Resale 0.060$ GreenWaste Recycling (San Jose) buys at $120Metal Resale 0.113$ 9,396.05$ 2012-2013 Annual Total

Mixed Recycle Resale 0.018$ New Castroville MRF Credits at $35 per ton

Pounds Tons %Total Resources Recovered 7,200,000 3,600Construction Resources Recovered Campus Operational Resources Recovered 7,200,000 3,600CRV Stream Proportion of All Recycling 72% Based on 2012-2013Paper Stream Proportion of All Recycling 28% Based on 2012-2013Roll-Off Box Resource Recovered 900,000 450

Tipping Fee Assumptions $/Ton Round Trip MileageCity of Santa Cruz, Refuse 74.56$ 10.5City of Santa Cruz, Greenwaste 30.72$ 10.5MontereyRWMD, Refuse 51.75$ 70MontereyRWMD, Organics 42.00$ 70Roll-Off Box, Average from FY2012-2013 35.43$

Operations InfrastructureR&D/New Equipment Testing Budget 8,000.00$ /yearTraining Budget per Division Employee 1,200.00$ /year

Total Equipment Replacement/Repair Budget 50,000.00$ /yearSort Line Annual Repair Budget 12,144.00$ /yearInformation Technology - Collection 1,250.00$ /yearInformation Technology per employee hour 0.49$ /hour 1,019.20$ /yearInformation Technology - General Operations 7,500.00$ /yearInsurance Costs per employee hour 0.58$ /hour 1,206.40$ /yearUtilites and Office Supplies per employee hour 0.77$ /hour 1,601.60$ /yearRoll-Off Box Equipment Replacement Budget 12,000.00$ /year642400 Adjustment Rate/Transfer of Expenses 0.013$ /pound 25.00$ / ton

Capital ImprovementsNew Bear Saver Outdoor Bin Replacement 1,200.00$ /stationNew Wastestation Indoor Bin Installation 400.00$ /stationBear Saver Stations 250 total stationsIndoor Wastestations 225 total stationsBioBin Compost Roll-Off Box Install 25,000.00$ / box, four total, one per year

The following operational assumptions were applied to all alternatives and are based on Fiscal Year 2012-2013 resource metrics, costs, and price values. The reader should be aware

that there can be considerable variability in the commodity pricing of recyclable materials, as well as the market rates for compost product and the materials recovery facility tipping fees

associated with the campus resource recovery operation.

Includes $1,000 per year for updating batteries in kitchen

compactors.

FY 2012-2013, OMP & Recharge paid $0.25/lbFY 2012-2013, OMP & Recharge paid $0.40/lbFY 2012-2013, OMP & Recharge paid $0.18/lbBased on single sample, Cafés pay estimated $0.15/lb for Recycle Crew to service their compost

stream.

FY 2012-2013, Kitchens paid average $0.04 per pound for roll-off box organics service. FY 2012-2013, clients paid average of $ 0.06/lb

As operational revenues are principally based on the total resource recovered over a given fiscal year on campus, the differential from one year to the next should be outlined for reader

understanding. In general, total resources recovered has slowly reduced since Fiscal Year 2008-2009. Since then, an annual differential from one year to the next has averaged +/-

9.2%, with a peak differential of 26% (between FY0809 & FY0910) and a minimum differential of 2% (between FY1213 & FY1314).

55

Alt 1: Refuse, Sorted Recycle, Kitchen Organics (Status Quo)INCOME ROLL

Income Type Avg. Annual PGIRefuse 4,318,272$ 719,712$ Cardboard/OCC Resale 1,287,360$ 214,560$ Mixed Recycling/CRV & Paper Resale 2,037,434$ 339,572$ Organics/Compost 138,240$ 23,040$ Roll-Off Box/Metal Resale 326,376$ 54,396$ Green Waste/Woodchips 699,840$ 116,640$

TOTAL 8,807,522$ 1,467,920$

GROSS INCOME

Income Type Resource Weigth Resource % $/LB Income Resource Weigth Resource % $/LB Income Resource Weigth Resource % $/LB IncomeRefuse 3,024,000 42.0% 0.24$ 719,712.00$ 3,024,000 42.0% 0.24$ 719,712.00$ 3,024,000 42.0% 0.24$ 719,712.00$ Cardboard 720,000 10.0% 0.24$ 171,360.00$ 720,000 10.0% 0.24$ 171,360.00$ 720,000 10.0% 0.24$ 171,360.00$ OCC Resale 720,000 0.06$ 43,200.00$ 720,000 0.06$ 43,200.00$ 720,000 0.06$ 43,200.00$ Mixed Recycling 1,152,000 16.0% 0.24$ 274,176.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.24$ 274,176.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.24$ 274,176.00$ CRV Resale 829,440 0.06$ 53,461.56$ 829,440 0.06$ 53,461.56$ 829,440 0.06$ 53,461.56$ Paper Resale 322,560 0.04$ 11,934.72$ 322,560 0.04$ 11,934.72$ 322,560 0.04$ 11,934.72$ Organics 1,152,000 16.0% 0.02$ 23,040.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.02$ 23,040.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.02$ 23,040.00$ Compost Resales 0.30$ 0.30$ 0.30$ Roll-Off Box 900,000 0.05$ 45,000.00$ 900,000 0.05$ 45,000.00$ 900,000 0.05$ 45,000.00$ Metal Resale 9,396.05$ 9,396.05$ 9,396.05$ Green Waste 1,152,000 16.0% 0.10$ 115,200.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.10$ 115,200.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.10$ 115,200.00$ Woodchip Resales 57,600 0.03$ 1,440.00$ 57,600 0.03$ 1,440.00$ 57,600 0.03$ 1,440.00$

TOTAL 100.0% 1,467,920.33$ 100.0% 1,467,920.33$ 100.0% 1,467,920.33$

GROSS INCOME (cont.)

Income Type Resource Weigth Resource % $/LB Income Resource Weigth Resource % $/LB Income Resource Weigth Resource % $/LB IncomeRefuse 3,024,000 42.0% 0.24$ 719,712.00$ 3,024,000 42.0% 0.24$ 719,712.00$ 3,024,000 42.0% 0.24$ 719,712.00$ Cardboard 720,000 10.0% 0.24$ 171,360.00$ 720,000 10.0% 0.24$ 171,360.00$ 720,000 10.0% 0.24$ 171,360.00$ OCC Resale 720,000 0.06$ 43,200.00$ 720,000 0.06$ 43,200.00$ 720,000 0.06$ 43,200.00$ Mixed Recycling 1,152,000 16.0% 0.24$ 274,176.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.24$ 274,176.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.24$ 274,176.00$ CRV Resale 829,440 0.06$ 53,461.56$ 829,440 0.06$ 53,461.56$ 829,440 0.06$ 53,461.56$ Paper Resale 322,560 0.04$ 11,934.72$ 322,560 0.04$ 11,934.72$ 322,560 0.04$ 11,934.72$ Organics 1,152,000 16.0% 0.02$ 23,040.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.02$ 23,040.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.02$ 23,040.00$ Compost Resales 0.30$ 0.30$ 0.30$ Roll-Off Box 900,000 0.05$ 45,000.00$ 900,000 0.05$ 45,000.00$ 900,000 0.05$ 45,000.00$ Metal Resale 9,396.05$ 9,396.05$ 9,396.05$ Green Waste 1,152,000 16.0% 0.10$ 115,200.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.10$ 115,200.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.10$ 115,200.00$ Woodchip Resales 57,600 0.03$ 1,440.00$ 57,600 0.03$ 1,440.00$ 57,600 0.03$ 1,440.00$

TOTAL 100.0% 1,467,920.33$ 100.0% 1,467,920.33$ 100.0% 1,467,920.33$

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTSIncome Type YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6

Refuse -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Cardboard -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ OCC Resale -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Mixed Recycling -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ CRV Resale -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Paper Resale -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Organics -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Compost Resales -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Roll-Off Box -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Metal Resale -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Green Waste -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Woodchip Resales -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

TOTAL -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

GROSS INCOME + CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS

Income Type YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6Refuse 719,712.00$ 719,712.00$ 719,712.00$ 719,712.00$ 719,712.00$ 719,712.00$ Cardboard/OCC Resale 214,560.00$ 214,560.00$ 214,560.00$ 214,560.00$ 214,560.00$ 214,560.00$ Mixed Recycling /CRV & Paper Re 339,572.28$ 339,572.28$ 339,572.28$ 339,572.28$ 339,572.28$ 339,572.28$ Organics/Compost 23,040.00$ 23,040.00$ 23,040.00$ 23,040.00$ 23,040.00$ 23,040.00$ Roll-Off Box/Metal Resale 54,396.05$ 54,396.05$ 54,396.05$ 54,396.05$ 54,396.05$ 54,396.05$ Green Waste/Woodchips 116,640.00$ 116,640.00$ 116,640.00$ 116,640.00$ 116,640.00$ 116,640.00$

TOTAL 1,467,920.33$ 1,467,920.33$ 1,467,920.33$ 1,467,920.33$ 1,467,920.33$ 1,467,920.33$

Potential Gross Income (PGI)

Potential Gross Income, Life of Project

YEAR 1: 2014-2015 YEAR 2: 2015-2016 YEAR 3: 2016-2017

YEAR 4: 2017-2018 YEAR 5: 2018-2019 YEAR 6: 2019-2020

56

Alt 1: Refuse, Sorted Recycle, Kitchen Organics (Status QuoOPERATING STATEMENT

Resource Category Avg. Annual OEGeneral 1,776,154$ 296,026$ YR 1: FY14-15 OE YR 2: FY15-16 OE YR 3: FY16-17 OERefuse 1,689,847$ 281,641$ 1,202,527$ 1,238,050$ 1,275,290$ Cardboard/OCC Resale 771,360$ 128,560$ Mixed Recycling /CRV & Paper Resale 2,113,432$ 352,239$ Organics/Compost Resale 586,780$ 97,797$ YR 4: FY17-18 OE YR 5: FY18-19 OE YR 6: FY19-20 OERoll-Off Box/Metal Resale 452,080$ 75,347$ 1,315,539$ 1,356,471$ 1,399,390$ Greenwaste/Woodchips Resale 397,616$ 66,269$

TOTAL 7,787,268$ 1,297,878$

OE: General Life of Project Subtotals YEAR 1: 2014-2015 YEAR 2: 2015-2016 YEAR 3: 2016-2017 YEAR 4: 2017-2018 YEAR 5: 2018-2019 YEAR 6: 2019-2020Labor 842,915.82$ 123,923.35$ 130,119.52$ 136,625.49$ 143,456.77$ 150,629.61$ 158,161.09$

R&D/New Equipment Testing 48,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 8,000.00$ Vehicle Fuel & Maintenance 4,500.00$ 750.00$ 750.00$ 750.00$ 750.00$ 750.00$ 750.00$

Information Technology 45,000.00$ 7,500.00$ 7,500.00$ 7,500.00$ 7,500.00$ 7,500.00$ 7,500.00$ Maintenance/Repairs/Utilites 22,744.80$ 3,790.80$ 3,790.80$ 3,790.80$ 3,790.80$ 3,790.80$ 3,790.80$

Training 9,720.00$ 1,620.00$ 1,620.00$ 1,620.00$ 1,620.00$ 1,620.00$ 1,620.00$ Expense Adjustment 642400 540,000.00$ 90,000.00$ 90,000.00$ 90,000.00$ 90,000.00$ 90,000.00$ 90,000.00$

Administrative Overhead 263,272.93$ 40,255.80$ 41,463.47$ 42,671.15$ 45,086.50$ 46,294.17$ 47,501.84$

TOTALS 1,776,153.55$ 275,839.95$ 283,243.79$ 290,957.44$ 300,204.06$ 308,584.58$ 317,323.73$

OE: Refuse Collection Life of Project Subtotals YEAR 1: 2014-2015 YEAR 2: 2015-2016 YEAR 3: 2016-2017 YEAR 4: 2017-2018 YEAR 5: 2018-2019 YEAR 6: 2019-2020Labor 697,836.12$ 102,594.10$ 107,723.81$ 113,110.00$ 118,765.50$ 124,703.77$ 130,938.96$

Tipping Fees 676,408.32$ 112,734.72$ 112,734.72$ 112,734.72$ 112,734.72$ 112,734.72$ 112,734.72$ Equipment 126,000.00$ 21,000.00$ 21,000.00$ 21,000.00$ 21,000.00$ 21,000.00$ 21,000.00$

Vehicle Fuel & Maintenance 151,185.00$ 25,197.50$ 25,197.50$ 25,197.50$ 25,197.50$ 25,197.50$ 25,197.50$ Information Technology 13,768.08$ 2,294.68$ 2,294.68$ 2,294.68$ 2,294.68$ 2,294.68$ 2,294.68$

Maintenance/Repairs/Utilites 17,269.20$ 2,878.20$ 2,878.20$ 2,878.20$ 2,878.20$ 2,878.20$ 2,878.20$ Training 7,380.00$ 1,230.00$ 1,230.00$ 1,230.00$ 1,230.00$ 1,230.00$ 1,230.00$

TOTALS 1,689,846.72$ 267,929.20$ 273,058.91$ 278,445.10$ 284,100.60$ 290,038.87$ 296,274.06$

OE: Cardboard Collection Life of Project Subtotals YEAR 1: 2014-2015 YEAR 2: 2015-2016 YEAR 3: 2016-2017 YEAR 4: 2017-2018 YEAR 5: 2018-2019 YEAR 6: 2019-2020Labor 464,968.56$ 68,358.50$ 71,776.43$ 75,365.25$ 79,133.51$ 83,090.18$ 87,244.69$

Equipment 30,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ 5,000.00$ Vehicle Fuel & Maintenance 159,120.00$ 26,520.00$ 26,520.00$ 26,520.00$ 26,520.00$ 26,520.00$ 26,520.00$


Training 6,840.00$ 1,140.00$ 1,140.00$ 1,140.00$ 1,140.00$ 1,140.00$ 1,140.00$

TOTALS 690,243.60$ 105,904.34$ 109,322.27$ 112,911.09$ 116,679.35$ 120,636.02$ 124,790.53$

OE: OCC Resale Life of Project Subtotals YEAR 1: 2014-2015 YEAR 2: 2015-2016 YEAR 3: 2016-2017 YEAR 4: 2017-2018 YEAR 5: 2018-2019 YEAR 6: 2019-2020Labor 39,973.99$ 5,876.88$ 6,170.72$ 6,479.25$ 6,803.22$ 7,143.38$ 7,500.55$

Equipment -$ Vehicle Fuel & Maintenance 38,880.00$ 6,480.00$ 6,480.00$ 6,480.00$ 6,480.00$ 6,480.00$ 6,480.00$

Information Technology 458.64$ 76.44$ 76.44$ 76.44$ 76.44$ 76.44$ 76.44$ Maintenance/Repairs/Utilites 1,263.60$ 210.60$ 210.60$ 210.60$ 210.60$ 210.60$ 210.60$

Training 540.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$

TOTALS 81,116.23$ 12,733.92$ 13,027.76$ 13,336.29$ 13,660.26$ 14,000.42$ 14,357.59$

OE: Mixed Recycling Collection Life of Project Subtotals YEAR 1: 2014-2015 YEAR 2: 2015-2016 YEAR 3: 2016-2017 YEAR 4: 2017-2018 YEAR 5: 2018-2019 YEAR 6: 2019-2020Labor 851,196.47$ 125,140.75$ 131,397.79$ 137,967.68$ 144,866.06$ 152,109.36$ 159,714.83$



Training 16,740.00$ 2,790.00$ 2,790.00$ 2,790.00$ 2,790.00$ 2,790.00$ 2,790.00$

TOTALS 1,109,635.91$ 168,213.99$ 174,471.03$ 181,040.92$ 187,939.30$ 195,182.60$ 202,788.07$

OE: CRV Resale Life of Project Subtotals YEAR 1: 2014-2015 YEAR 2: 2015-2016 YEAR 3: 2016-2017 YEAR 4: 2017-2018 YEAR 5: 2018-2019 YEAR 6: 2019-2020Labor 407,613.30$ 59,926.28$ 62,922.59$ 66,068.72$ 69,372.15$ 72,840.76$ 76,482.80$



Training 7,380.00$ 1,230.00$ 1,230.00$ 1,230.00$ 1,230.00$ 1,230.00$ 1,230.00$

TOTALS 454,205.58$ 67,691.66$ 70,687.97$ 73,834.10$ 77,137.53$ 80,606.14$ 84,248.18$

OE: Paper Resale Life of Project Subtotals YEAR 1: 2014-2015 YEAR 2: 2015-2016 YEAR 3: 2016-2017 YEAR 4: 2017-2018 YEAR 5: 2018-2019 YEAR 6: 2019-2020Labor 451,784.07$ 66,420.15$ 69,741.16$ 73,228.22$ 76,889.63$ 80,734.11$ 84,770.81$



Training 9,540.00$ 1,590.00$ 1,590.00$ 1,590.00$ 1,590.00$ 1,590.00$ 1,590.00$

TOTALS 549,590.31$ 82,721.19$ 86,042.20$ 89,529.26$ 93,190.67$ 97,035.15$ 101,071.85$

OE: Organics Collection Life of Project Subtotals YEAR 1: 2014-2015 YEAR 2: 2015-2016 YEAR 3: 2016-2017 YEAR 4: 2017-2018 YEAR 5: 2018-2019 YEAR 6: 2019-2020Labor 341,725.38$ 50,239.60$ 52,751.58$ 55,389.16$ 58,158.62$ 61,066.55$ 64,119.88$


Vehicle Fuel & Maintenance 29,280.00$ 4,880.00$ 4,880.00$ 4,880.00$ 4,880.00$ 4,880.00$ 4,880.00$ Information Technology 4,586.40$ 764.40$ 764.40$ 764.40$ 764.40$ 764.40$ 764.40$

Maintenance/Repairs/Utilites 12,636.00$ 2,106.00$ 2,106.00$ 2,106.00$ 2,106.00$ 2,106.00$ 2,106.00$ Training 5,400.00$ 900.00$ 900.00$ 900.00$ 900.00$ 900.00$ 900.00$

TOTALS 586,779.78$ 91,082.00$ 93,593.98$ 96,231.56$ 99,001.02$ 101,908.95$ 104,962.28$

OE: Composting Resale Life of Project Subtotals YEAR 1: 2014-2015 YEAR 2: 2015-2016 YEAR 3: 2016-2017 YEAR 4: 2017-2018 YEAR 5: 2018-2019 YEAR 6: 2019-2020Labor -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Equipment -$ Vehicle Fuel & Maintenance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Information Technology -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Maintenance/Repairs/Utilites -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Training -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

TOTALS -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

OE: Roll-Off Box Life of Project Subtotals YEAR 1: 2014-2015 YEAR 2: 2015-2016 YEAR 3: 2016-2017 YEAR 4: 2017-2018 YEAR 5: 2018-2019 YEAR 6: 2019-2020Labor 310,145.80$ 45,596.85$ 47,876.69$ 50,270.53$ 52,784.05$ 55,423.26$ 58,194.42$

Tipping Fees -$ Equipment -$



TOTALS 401,293.72$ 60,788.17$ 63,068.01$ 65,461.85$ 67,975.37$ 70,614.58$ 73,385.74$

OE: Metal Resale (Roll-Off) Life of Project Subtotals YEAR 1: 2014-2015 YEAR 2: 2015-2016 YEAR 3: 2016-2017 YEAR 4: 2017-2018 YEAR 5: 2018-2019 YEAR 6: 2019-2020Labor 39,973.99$ 5,876.88$ 6,170.72$ 6,479.25$ 6,803.22$ 7,143.38$ 7,500.55$



Training 540.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$

TOTALS 50,786.23$ 7,678.92$ 7,972.76$ 8,281.29$ 8,605.26$ 8,945.42$ 9,302.59$

OE: Greenwaste Collection Life of Project Subtotals YEAR 1: 2014-2015 YEAR 2: 2015-2016 YEAR 3: 2016-2017 YEAR 4: 2017-2018 YEAR 5: 2018-2019 YEAR 6: 2019-2020Labor 131,448.16$ 19,325.18$ 20,291.43$ 21,306.01$ 22,371.31$ 23,489.87$ 24,664.36$


Vehicle Fuel & Maintenance 3,135.00$ 522.50$ 522.50$ 522.50$ 522.50$ 522.50$ 522.50$ Information Technology 1,528.80$ 254.80$ 254.80$ 254.80$ 254.80$ 254.80$ 254.80$

Maintenance/Repairs/Utilites 4,212.00$ 702.00$ 702.00$ 702.00$ 702.00$ 702.00$ 702.00$ Training 1,800.00$ 300.00$ 300.00$ 300.00$ 300.00$ 300.00$ 300.00$

TOTALS 296,292.28$ 46,799.20$ 47,765.45$ 48,780.03$ 49,845.33$ 50,963.89$ 52,138.38$

OE: Woodchips Resale Life of Project Subtotals YEAR 1: 2014-2015 YEAR 2: 2015-2016 YEAR 3: 2016-2017 YEAR 4: 2017-2018 YEAR 5: 2018-2019 YEAR 6: 2019-2020Labor 88,710.21$ 13,041.95$ 13,694.05$ 14,378.75$ 15,097.69$ 15,852.57$ 16,645.20$


Information Technology 1,070.16$ 178.36$ 178.36$ 178.36$ 178.36$ 178.36$ 178.36$ Maintenance/Repairs/Utilites 2,948.40$ 491.40$ 491.40$ 491.40$ 491.40$ 491.40$ 491.40$

Training 1,260.00$ 210.00$ 210.00$ 210.00$ 210.00$ 210.00$ 210.00$

TOTALS 101,323.77$ 15,144.21$ 15,796.31$ 16,481.01$ 17,199.95$ 17,954.83$ 18,747.46$

Operating Expenses (OE), Life of Project

57

Alt 1: Refuse, Sorted Recycle, Kitchen Organics (Status Quo)ANNUAL CASH FLOW

Potential Gross Income YR 1 (2015) YR 2 (2016) YR 3 (2017) YR 4 (2018) YR 5 (2019) YR 6 (2020)1,467,920$ 1,467,920$ 1,467,920$ 1,467,920$ 1,467,920$ 1,467,920$

Total Potential Gross Income 8,807,522$

Operating Expenses YR 1 (2015) YR 2 (2016) YR 3 (2017) YR 4 (2018) YR 5 (2019) YR 6 (2020)1,202,527$ 1,238,050$ 1,275,290$ 1,315,539$ 1,356,471$ 1,399,390$

Total Operating Expenses 7,787,268$

Debt Service Equipment Price Years Interest YR 1 (2015) YR 2 (2016) YR 3 (2017) YR 4 (2018) YR 5 (2019) YR 6 (2020)Monstro (Frontloader) 253,900.46$ 7 2.1513% 39,168.36$ 39,168.36$ 39,168.36$ 39,168.36$ 9,792.09$ -$ Godzilla (Frontloader) 367,846.13$ 7 1.6413% 55,733.59$ 55,733.59$ 55,733.59$ 55,733.59$ 55,733.59$ 55,733.59$ Roll-Off Truck 113,821.73$ 7 2.1513% 17,558.89$ 17,558.89$ 17,558.89$ 17,558.89$ -$ -$

Annual Cost of Debt Service 112,460.84$ 112,460.84$ 112,460.84$ 112,460.84$ 65,525.68$ 55,733.59$

Total Debt Service 571,103$

Annual Cash Flow YR 1 (2015) YR 2 (2016) YR 3 (2017) YR 4 (2018) YR 5 (2019) YR 6 (2020)Potential Gross Income 1,467,920$ 1,467,920$ 1,467,920$ 1,467,920$ 1,467,920$ 1,467,920$

Operating Expenses 1,202,527$ 1,238,050$ 1,275,290$ 1,315,539$ 1,356,471$ 1,399,390$ Debt Service 112,461$ 112,461$ 112,461$ 112,461$ 65,526$ 55,734$

Annual Cash Flow 152,933$ 117,409$ 80,170$ 39,921$ 45,923$ 12,796$

Total Project Cash Flow 449,152$

58

Alt 2: All Streams to RefuseINCOME ROLL

Income Type Avg. Annual PGIRefuse 10,281,600$ 1,713,600$ Cardboard/OCC Resale -$ -$ Mixed Recycling/CRV & Paper Resale -$ -$ Organics/Compost -$ -$ Roll-Off Box/Metal Resale 326,376$ 54,396$ Green Waste/Woodchips -$ -$

TOTAL 10,607,976$ 1,767,996$

GROSS INCOME

Income Type Resource Weigth Resource % $/LB Income Resource Weigth Resource % $/LB Income Resource Weigth Resource % $/LB IncomeRefuse 7,200,000 100.0% 0.24$ 1,713,600.00$ 7,200,000 100.0% 0.24$ 1,713,600.00$ 7,200,000 100.0% 0.24$ 1,713,600.00$ Cardboard 0 0.0% 0.24$ -$ 0 0.0% 0.24$ -$ 0 0.0% 0.24$ -$ OCC Resale 0 0.06$ -$ 0 0.06$ -$ 0 0.06$ -$ Mixed Recycling 0 0.0% 0.24$ -$ 0 0.0% 0.24$ -$ 0 0.0% 0.24$ -$ CRV Resale 0 0.06$ -$ 0 0.06$ -$ 0 0.06$ -$ Paper Resale 0 0.04$ -$ 0 0.04$ -$ 0 0.04$ -$ Organics 0 0.0% 0.24$ -$ 0 0.0% 0.24$ -$ 0 0.0% 0.24$ -$ Compost Resales 0.30$ 0.30$ 0.30$ Roll-Off Box 900,000 0.05$ 45,000.00$ 900,000 0.05$ 45,000.00$ 900,000 0.05$ 45,000.00$ Metal Resale 9,396.05$ 9,396.05$ 9,396.05$ Green Waste 0 0.0% 0.10$ -$ 0 0.0% 0.10$ -$ 0 0.0% 0.10$ -$ Woodchip Resales 0 0.03$ -$ 0 0.03$ -$ 0 0.03$ -$

TOTAL 100.0% 1,767,996.05$ 100.0% 1,767,996.05$ 100.0% 1,767,996.05$


Income Type Resource Weigth Resource % $/LB Income Resource Weigth Resource % $/LB Income Resource Weigth Resource % $/LB IncomeRefuse 7,200,000 100.0% 0.24$ 1,713,600.00$ 7,200,000 100.0% 0.24$ 1,713,600.00$ 7,200,000 100.0% 0.24$ 1,713,600.00$ Cardboard 0 0.0% 0.24$ -$ 0 0.0% 0.24$ -$ 0 0.0% 0.24$ -$ OCC Resale 0 0.06$ -$ 0 0.06$ -$ 0 0.06$ -$ Mixed Recycling 0 0.0% 0.24$ -$ 0 0.0% 0.24$ -$ 0 0.0% 0.24$ -$ CRV Resale 0 0.06$ -$ 0 0.06$ -$ 0 0.06$ -$ Paper Resale 0 0.04$ -$ 0 0.04$ -$ 0 0.04$ -$ Organics 0 0.0% 0.24$ -$ 0 0.0% 0.24$ -$ 0 0.0% 0.24$ -$ Compost Resales 0.30$ 0.30$ 0.30$ Roll-Off Box 900,000 0.05$ 45,000.00$ 900,000 0.05$ 45,000.00$ 900,000 0.05$ 45,000.00$ Metal Resale 9,396.05$ 9,396.05$ 9,396.05$ Green Waste 0 0.0% 0.10$ -$ 0 0.0% 0.10$ -$ 0 0.0% 0.10$ -$ Woodchip Resales 0 0.03$ -$ 0 0.03$ -$ 0 0.03$ -$

TOTAL 100.0% 1,767,996.05$ 100.0% 1,767,996.05$ 100.0% 1,767,996.05$



TOTAL -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$


Income Type YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5 YEAR 6Refuse 1,713,600.00$ 1,713,600.00$ 1,713,600.00$ 1,713,600.00$ 1,713,600.00$ 1,713,600.00$ Cardboard/OCC Resale -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Mixed Recycling /CRV & Paper Re -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Organics/Compost -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Roll-Off Box/Metal Resale 54,396.05$ 54,396.05$ 54,396.05$ 54,396.05$ 54,396.05$ 54,396.05$ Green Waste/Woodchips -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

TOTAL 1,767,996.05$ 1,767,996.05$ 1,767,996.05$ 1,767,996.05$ 1,767,996.05$ 1,767,996.05$



YEAR 1: 2014-2015 YEAR 2: 2015-2016 YEAR 3: 2016-2017

YEAR 4: 2017-2018 YEAR 5: 2018-2019 YEAR 6: 2019-2020

59

Alt 2: All Streams to RefusOPERATING STATEMENT

Resource Category Avg. Annual OEGeneral 1,404,426$ 234,071$ YR 1: FY14-15 OE YR 2: FY15-16 OE YR 3: FY16-17 OERefuse 4,011,746$ 668,624$ 920,259$ 940,732$ 962,201$ Cardboard/OCC Resale -$ -$ Mixed Recycling /CRV & Paper Resale -$ -$ Organics/Compost Resale -$ -$ YR 4: FY17-18 OE YR 5: FY18-19 OE YR 6: FY19-20 OERoll-Off Box/Metal Resale 434,786$ 72,464$ 985,256$ 1,008,871$ 1,033,639$ Greenwaste/Woodchips Resale -$ -$

TOTAL 5,850,957$ 975,160$


R&D/New Equipment Testing -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Vehicle Fuel & Maintenance 4,500.00$ 750.00$ 750.00$ 750.00$ 750.00$ 750.00$ 750.00$

Information Technology 45,000.00$ 7,500.00$ 7,500.00$ 7,500.00$ 7,500.00$ 7,500.00$ 7,500.00$ Maintenance/Repairs/Utilites -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$



TOTALS 1,404,425.67$ 218,897.95$ 224,508.39$ 230,372.43$ 237,041.19$ 243,451.11$ 250,154.60$

OE: Refuse Collection Life of Project Subtotals YEAR 1: 2014-2015 YEAR 2: 2015-2016 YEAR 3: 2016-2017 YEAR 4: 2017-2018 YEAR 5: 2018-2019 YEAR 6: 2019-2020Labor 1,688,274.89$ 248,205.90$ 260,616.20$ 273,647.00$ 287,329.35$ 301,695.82$ 316,780.61$

Tipping Fees 1,610,496.00$ 268,416.00$ 268,416.00$ 268,416.00$ 268,416.00$ 268,416.00$ 268,416.00$ Equipment 300,000.00$ 50,000.00$ 50,000.00$ 50,000.00$ 50,000.00$ 50,000.00$ 50,000.00$



TOTALS 4,011,745.61$ 635,451.02$ 647,861.32$ 660,892.12$ 674,574.47$ 688,940.94$ 704,025.73$

OE: Cardboard Collection Life of Project Subtotals YEAR 1: 2014-2015 YEAR 2: 2015-2016 YEAR 3: 2016-2017 YEAR 4: 2017-2018 YEAR 5: 2018-2019 YEAR 6: 2019-2020Labor -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Equipment -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Vehicle Fuel & Maintenance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$


Training -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

TOTALS -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

OE: OCC Resale Life of Project Subtotals YEAR 1: 2014-2015 YEAR 2: 2015-2016 YEAR 3: 2016-2017 YEAR 4: 2017-2018 YEAR 5: 2018-2019 YEAR 6: 2019-2020Labor -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$



Training -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

TOTALS -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

OE: Mixed Recycling Collection Life of Project Subtotals YEAR 1: 2014-2015 YEAR 2: 2015-2016 YEAR 3: 2016-2017 YEAR 4: 2017-2018 YEAR 5: 2018-2019 YEAR 6: 2019-2020Labor -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$



Training -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

TOTALS -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

OE: CRV Resale Life of Project Subtotals YEAR 1: 2014-2015 YEAR 2: 2015-2016 YEAR 3: 2016-2017 YEAR 4: 2017-2018 YEAR 5: 2018-2019 YEAR 6: 2019-2020Labor -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$



Training -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

TOTALS -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

OE: Paper Resale Life of Project Subtotals YEAR 1: 2014-2015 YEAR 2: 2015-2016 YEAR 3: 2016-2017 YEAR 4: 2017-2018 YEAR 5: 2018-2019 YEAR 6: 2019-2020Labor -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$



Training -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

TOTALS -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

OE: Organics Collection Life of Project Subtotals YEAR 1: 2014-2015 YEAR 2: 2015-2016 YEAR 3: 2016-2017 YEAR 4: 2017-2018 YEAR 5: 2018-2019 YEAR 6: 2019-2020Labor -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Tipping Fees -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Equipment -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Vehicle Fuel & Maintenance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Information Technology -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Maintenance/Repairs/Utilites -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Training -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

TOTALS -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$




Training -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

TOTALS -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$





TOTALS 401,293.72$ 60,788.17$ 63,068.01$ 65,461.85$ 67,975.37$ 70,614.58$ 73,385.74$



Information Technology 305.76$ 50.96$ 50.96$ 50.96$ 50.96$ 50.96$ 50.96$ Maintenance/Repairs/Utilites 842.40$ 140.40$ 140.40$ 140.40$ 140.40$ 140.40$ 140.40$

Training 360.00$ 60.00$ 60.00$ 60.00$ 60.00$ 60.00$ 60.00$

TOTALS 33,492.11$ 5,121.56$ 5,293.82$ 5,474.69$ 5,664.61$ 5,864.02$ 6,073.41$

OE: Greenwaste Collection Life of Project Subtotals YEAR 1: 2014-2015 YEAR 2: 2015-2016 YEAR 3: 2016-2017 YEAR 4: 2017-2018 YEAR 5: 2018-2019 YEAR 6: 2019-2020Labor -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Tipping Fees -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Equipment -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Vehicle Fuel & Maintenance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Information Technology -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Maintenance/Repairs/Utilites -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Training -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

TOTALS -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

OE: Woodchips Resale Life of Project Subtotals YEAR 1: 2014-2015 YEAR 2: 2015-2016 YEAR 3: 2016-2017 YEAR 4: 2017-2018 YEAR 5: 2018-2019 YEAR 6: 2019-2020Labor -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$



Training -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

TOTALS -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$


60

Alt 2: All Streams to RefuseANNUAL CASH FLOW



Operating Expenses YR 1 (2015) YR 2 (2016) YR 3 (2017) YR 4 (2018) YR 5 (2019) YR 6 (2020)920,259$ 1,238,050$ 1,275,290$ 1,315,539$ 1,356,471$ 1,399,390$






Operating Expenses 920,259$ 1,238,050$ 1,275,290$ 1,315,539$ 1,356,471$ 1,399,390$ Debt Service 112,461$ 112,461$ 112,461$ 112,461$ 65,526$ 55,734$

Annual Cash Flow 735,277$ 417,485$ 380,245$ 339,997$ 345,999$ 312,872$

Total Project Cash Flow 2,531,874$

61

Alt 3: Refuse, Single Stream Recycle, Kitchen CompostingINCOME ROLL

Income Type Avg. Annual PGIRefuse 4,318,272$ 719,712$ Cardboard/OCC Resale 1,287,360$ 214,560$ Mixed Recycling/Resale 1,766,016$ 294,336$ Organics/Compost 138,240$ 23,040$ Roll-Off Box/Metal Resale 326,376$ 54,396$ Green Waste/Woodchips 699,840$ 116,640$

TOTAL 8,536,104$ 1,422,684$

GROSS INCOME

Income Type Resource Weigth Resource % $/LB Income Resource Weigth Resource % $/LB Income Resource Weigth Resource % $/LB IncomeRefuse 3,024,000 42.0% 0.24$ 719,712.00$ 3,024,000 42.0% 0.24$ 719,712.00$ 3,024,000 42.0% 0.24$ 719,712.00$ Cardboard 720,000 10.0% 0.24$ 171,360.00$ 720,000 10.0% 0.24$ 171,360.00$ 720,000 10.0% 0.24$ 171,360.00$ OCC Resale 720,000 0.06$ 43,200.00$ 720,000 0.06$ 43,200.00$ 720,000 0.06$ 43,200.00$ Mixed Recycling 1,152,000 16.0% 0.24$ 274,176.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.24$ 274,176.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.24$ 274,176.00$ Mixed Recycle Resale 20,160.00$ 20,160.00$ 20,160.00$

Organics 1,152,000 16.0% 0.02$ 23,040.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.02$ 23,040.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.02$ 23,040.00$

Roll-Off Box 900,000 0.05$ 45,000.00$ 900,000 0.05$ 45,000.00$ 900,000 0.05$ 45,000.00$ Metal Resale 9,396.05$ 9,396.05$ 9,396.05$ Green Waste 1,152,000 16.0% 0.10$ 115,200.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.10$ 115,200.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.10$ 115,200.00$ Woodchip Resales 57,600 0.03$ 1,440.00$ 57,600 0.03$ 1,440.00$ 57,600 0.03$ 1,440.00$

TOTAL 100.0% 1,422,684.05$ 100.0% 1,422,684.05$ 100.0% 1,422,684.05$



Organics 1,152,000 16.0% 0.02$ 23,040.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.02$ 23,040.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.02$ 23,040.00$

Roll-Off Box 900,000 0.05$ 45,000.00$ 900,000 0.05$ 45,000.00$ 900,000 0.05$ 45,000.00$ Metal Resale 9,396.05$ 9,396.05$ 9,396.05$ Green Waste 1,152,000 16.0% 0.10$ 115,200.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.10$ 115,200.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.10$ 115,200.00$ Woodchip Resales 57,600 0.03$ 1,440.00$ 57,600 0.03$ 1,440.00$ 57,600 0.03$ 1,440.00$

TOTAL 100.0% 1,422,684.05$ 100.0% 1,422,684.05$ 100.0% 1,422,684.05$



TOTAL -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$



TOTAL 1,422,684.05$ 1,422,684.05$ 1,422,684.05$ 1,422,684.05$ 1,422,684.05$ 1,422,684.05$



YEAR 1: 2014-2015 YEAR 2: 2015-2016 YEAR 3: 2016-2017

YEAR 4: 2017-2018 YEAR 5: 2018-2019 YEAR 6: 2019-2020

62

Alt 3: Refuse, Single Stream Recycle, Kitchen CompostingOPERATING STATEMENT

Resource Category Avg. Annual OEGeneral 1,598,933$ 266,489$ YR 1: FY14-15 OE YR 2: FY15-16 OE YR 3: FY16-17 OERefuse 1,653,458$ 275,576$ 1,104,503$ 1,135,962$ 1,168,944$ Cardboard/OCC Resale 684,889$ 114,148$ Mixed Recycling /CRV & Paper Resale 1,853,972$ 308,995$ Organics/Compost Resale 417,769$ 69,628$ YR 4: FY17-18 OE YR 5: FY18-19 OE YR 6: FY19-20 OERoll-Off Box/Metal Resale 526,906$ 87,818$ 1,204,531$ 1,240,791$ 1,278,812$ Greenwaste/Woodchips Resale 397,616$ 66,269$

TOTAL 7,133,544$ 1,188,924$






TOTALS 1,598,932.62$ 249,409.55$ 255,675.82$ 262,205.06$ 270,017.31$ 277,112.59$ 284,512.29$





TOTALS 1,653,458.48$ 262,514.49$ 267,401.03$ 272,531.89$ 277,919.30$ 283,576.08$ 289,515.69$




Training 5,940.00$ 990.00$ 990.00$ 990.00$ 990.00$ 990.00$ 990.00$

TOTALS 603,772.99$ 93,117.57$ 95,927.57$ 98,878.08$ 101,976.11$ 105,229.04$ 108,644.62$




Training 540.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$

TOTALS 81,116.23$ 12,733.92$ 13,027.76$ 13,336.29$ 13,660.26$ 14,000.42$ 14,357.59$




Training 19,800.00$ 3,300.00$ 3,300.00$ 3,300.00$ 3,300.00$ 3,300.00$ 3,300.00$

TOTALS 1,264,426.78$ 191,635.48$ 198,781.76$ 206,285.36$ 214,164.13$ 222,436.85$ 231,123.20$



Information Technology 5,503.68$ 917.28$ 917.28$ 917.28$ 917.28$ 917.28$ 917.28$ Maintenance/Repairs/Utilites 15,163.20$ 2,527.20$ 2,527.20$ 2,527.20$ 2,527.20$ 2,527.20$ 2,527.20$

Training 6,480.00$ 1,080.00$ 1,080.00$ 1,080.00$ 1,080.00$ 1,080.00$ 1,080.00$

TOTALS 589,545.64$ 87,647.56$ 91,616.83$ 95,784.58$ 100,160.71$ 104,755.64$ 109,580.33$




Training -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

TOTALS -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$



Vehicle Fuel & Maintenance 25,080.00$ 4,180.00$ 4,180.00$ 4,180.00$ 4,180.00$ 4,180.00$ 4,180.00$ Information Technology 2,446.08$ 407.68$ 407.68$ 407.68$ 407.68$ 407.68$ 407.68$


TOTALS 417,768.88$ 65,944.48$ 67,322.56$ 68,769.54$ 70,288.88$ 71,884.18$ 73,559.24$




Training -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

TOTALS -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$





TOTALS 476,120.05$ 71,877.85$ 74,674.47$ 77,610.93$ 80,694.20$ 83,931.64$ 87,330.95$




Training 540.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$

TOTALS 50,786.23$ 7,678.92$ 7,972.76$ 8,281.29$ 8,605.26$ 8,945.42$ 9,302.59$





TOTALS 296,292.28$ 46,799.20$ 47,765.45$ 48,780.03$ 49,845.33$ 50,963.89$ 52,138.38$




Training 1,260.00$ 210.00$ 210.00$ 210.00$ 210.00$ 210.00$ 210.00$

TOTALS 101,323.77$ 15,144.21$ 15,796.31$ 16,481.01$ 17,199.95$ 17,954.83$ 18,747.46$


63

Alt 3: Refuse, Single Stream Recycle, Kitchen CompostingANNUAL CASH FLOW










Annual Cash Flow 205,720$ 174,261$ 141,279$ 105,692$ 116,368$ 88,138$


64

Alt 4: Zero Waste, Sorted Recycle, Composting On-CampusINCOME ROLL

Income Type Avg. Annual PGIRefuse 2,190,860$ 365,143$ Cardboard/OCC Resale 1,426,824$ 237,804$ Mixed Recycling/CRV & Paper Resale 2,631,643$ 438,607$ Organics/Compost 2,103,964$ 350,661$ Roll-Off Box/Metal Resale 326,376$ 54,396$ Green Waste/Woodchips 699,840$ 116,640$

TOTAL 9,379,507$ 1,563,251$

GROSS INCOME

Income Type Resource Weigth Resource % $/LB Income Resource Weigth Resource % $/LB Income Resource Weigth Resource % $/LB IncomeRefuse 3,024,000 42.0% 0.24$ 719,712.00$ 2,448,000 34.0% 0.24$ 582,624.00$ 1,872,000 26.0% 0.24$ 445,536.00$ Cardboard 720,000 10.0% 0.24$ 171,360.00$ 720,000 10.0% 0.24$ 171,360.00$ 720,000 10.0% 0.24$ 171,360.00$ OCC Resale 720,000 0.06$ 43,200.00$ 720,000 0.06$ 43,200.00$ 720,000 0.06$ 43,200.00$ Mixed Recycling 1,152,000 16.0% 0.24$ 274,176.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.24$ 274,176.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.24$ 274,176.00$ CRV Resale 829,440 0.19$ 160,384.67$ 829,440 0.19$ 160,384.67$ 829,440 0.19$ 160,384.67$ Paper Resale 322,560 0.04$ 11,934.72$ 322,560 0.04$ 11,934.72$ 322,560 0.04$ 11,934.72$ Organics (Bin Pickup) 0 0.0% 0.24$ -$ 576,000 8.0% 0.24$ 137,088.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.24$ 274,176.00$ Organics (Roll-Off) 1,152,000 16.0% 0.05$ 57,600.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.05$ 57,600.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.05$ 57,600.00$ Compost Resales 0 0.30$ -$ 1,440 0.30$ 432.00$ 28,800 0.30$ 8,640.00$ Roll-Off Box 900,000 0.05$ 45,000.00$ 900,000 0.05$ 45,000.00$ 900,000 0.05$ 45,000.00$ Metal Resale 9,396.05$ 9,396.05$ 9,396.05$ Green Waste 1,152,000 16.0% 0.10$ 115,200.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.10$ 115,200.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.10$ 115,200.00$ Woodchip Resales 57,600 0.03$ 1,440.00$ 57,600 0.03$ 1,440.00$ 57,600 0.03$ 1,440.00$

TOTAL 100.0% 1,609,403.44$ 100.0% 1,609,835.44$ 100.0% 1,618,043.44$


Income Type Resource Weigth Resource % $/LB Income Resource Weigth Resource % $/LB Income Resource Weigth Resource % $/LB IncomeRefuse 1,296,000 18.0% 0.24$ 308,448.00$ 720,000 10.0% 0.24$ 171,360.00$ 360,000 5.0% 0.24$ 85,680.00$ Cardboard 720,000 10.0% 0.24$ 171,360.00$ 900,000 12.5% 0.24$ 214,200.00$ 1,008,000 14.0% 0.24$ 239,904.00$ OCC Resale 720,000 0.06$ 43,200.00$ 900,000 0.06$ 54,000.00$ 1,008,000 0.06$ 60,480.00$ Mixed Recycling 1,152,000 16.0% 0.24$ 274,176.00$ 1,260,000 17.5% 0.24$ 299,880.00$ 1,296,000 18.0% 0.24$ 308,448.00$ CRV Resale 829,440 0.19$ 160,384.67$ 907,200 0.19$ 175,420.73$ 933,120 0.19$ 180,432.75$ Paper Resale 322,560 0.04$ 11,934.72$ 352,800 0.04$ 13,053.60$ 362,880 0.04$ 13,426.56$ Organics (Bin Pickup) 1,728,000 24.0% 0.24$ 411,264.00$ 2,016,000 28.0% 0.24$ 479,808.00$ 2,232,000 31.0% 0.24$ 531,216.00$ Organics (Roll-Off) 1,152,000 16.0% 0.05$ 57,600.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.05$ 57,600.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.05$ 57,600.00$ Compost Resales 86,400 0.30$ 25,920.00$ 151,200 0.30$ 45,360.00$ 223,200 0.30$ 66,960.00$ Roll-Off Box 900,000 0.05$ 45,000.00$ 900,000 0.05$ 45,000.00$ 900,000 0.05$ 45,000.00$ Metal Resale 9,396.05$ 9,396.05$ 9,396.05$ Green Waste 1,152,000 16.0% 0.10$ 115,200.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.10$ 115,200.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.10$ 115,200.00$ Woodchip Resales 57,600 0.03$ 1,440.00$ 57,600 0.03$ 1,440.00$ 57,600 0.03$ 1,440.00$

TOTAL 100.0% 1,635,323.44$ 100.0% 1,681,718.38$ 100.0% 1,715,183.36$


Refuse 30,625.00$ 30,625.00$ 30,625.00$ 30,625.00$ -$ -$ Cardboard -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ OCC Resale -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Mixed Recycling 30,625.00$ 30,625.00$ 30,625.00$ 30,625.00$ -$ -$ CRV Resale -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Paper Resale 5,625.00$ 5,625.00$ 5,625.00$ 5,625.00$ -$ -$ Organics 55,625.00$ 55,625.00$ 55,625.00$ 55,625.00$ -$ -$ Compost Resales -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Roll-Off Box -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Metal Resale -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Green Waste -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Woodchip Resales -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

TOTAL 122,500.00$ 122,500.00$ 122,500.00$ 122,500.00$ -$ -$



TOTAL 1,486,903.44$ 1,487,335.44$ 1,495,543.44$ 1,512,823.44$ 1,681,718.38$ 1,715,183.36$



YEAR 1: 2014-2015 YEAR 2: 2015-2016 YEAR 3: 2016-2017

YEAR 4: 2017-2018 YEAR 5: 2018-2019 YEAR 6: 2019-2020

65

Alt 4: Zero Waste, Sorted Recycle, Composting On-CampuOPERATING STATEMENT

Resource Category Avg. Annual OEGeneral 1,802,878$ 300,480$ YR 1: FY14-15 OE YR 2: FY15-16 OE YR 3: FY16-17 OERefuse 939,860$ 156,643$ 1,232,836$ 1,276,881$ 1,323,206$ Cardboard/OCC Resale 660,153$ 110,026$ Mixed Recycling /CRV & Paper Resale 2,348,294$ 391,382$ Organics/Compost Resale 1,492,278$ 248,713$ YR 4: FY17-18 OE YR 5: FY18-19 OE YR 6: FY19-20 OERoll-Off Box/Metal Resale 400,388$ 66,731$ 1,373,172$ 1,397,164$ 1,431,512$ Greenwaste/Woodchips Resale 390,920$ 65,153$

TOTAL 8,034,771$ 1,339,129$






TOTALS 1,802,878.14$ 280,909.95$ 288,465.89$ 296,021.83$ 304,937.55$ 312,493.49$ 320,049.43$




Maintenance/Repairs/Utilites 8,800.07$ 2,737.80$ 2,216.31$ 1,694.83$ 1,173.34$ 651.86$ 325.93$ Training 3,760.71$ 1,170.00$ 947.14$ 724.29$ 501.43$ 278.57$ 139.29$

TOTALS 939,860.00$ 262,409.99$ 221,343.47$ 178,415.42$ 133,625.83$ 86,974.70$ 57,090.58$




Training 5,580.00$ 930.00$ 930.00$ 930.00$ 930.00$ 930.00$ 930.00$

TOTALS 579,342.22$ 89,421.01$ 92,058.75$ 94,696.50$ 97,334.24$ 101,221.99$ 104,609.74$




Training 540.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$

TOTALS 80,811.15$ 12,733.92$ 13,027.76$ 13,321.60$ 13,615.45$ 13,909.29$ 14,203.13$




Training 16,740.00$ 2,790.00$ 2,790.00$ 2,790.00$ 2,790.00$ 2,790.00$ 2,790.00$

TOTALS 1,158,636.94$ 175,795.24$ 182,641.44$ 189,487.64$ 196,333.84$ 203,682.54$ 210,696.24$


Equipment 72,864.00$ 12,144.00$ 12,144.00$ 12,144.00$ 12,144.00$ 12,144.00$ 12,144.00$ Vehicle Fuel & Maintenance 2,508.00$ 418.00$ 418.00$ 418.00$ 418.00$ 418.00$ 418.00$


Training 9,180.00$ 1,530.00$ 1,530.00$ 1,530.00$ 1,530.00$ 1,530.00$ 1,530.00$

TOTALS 637,635.31$ 96,572.46$ 100,452.49$ 104,332.53$ 108,212.57$ 112,092.61$ 115,972.65$




Training 9,540.00$ 1,590.00$ 1,590.00$ 1,590.00$ 1,590.00$ 1,590.00$ 1,590.00$

TOTALS 552,021.88$ 83,506.69$ 86,866.97$ 90,227.26$ 93,587.54$ 97,195.32$ 100,638.10$

OE: Organics Collection Life of Project Subtotals YEAR 1: 2014-2015 YEAR 2: 2015-2016 YEAR 3: 2016-2017 YEAR 4: 2017-2018 YEAR 5: 2018-2019 YEAR 6: 2019-2020Labor 1,211,266.99$ 82,839.38$ 130,472.02$ 182,246.63$ 238,163.20$ 273,369.94$ 304,175.83$

Tipping Fees -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Equipment 53,500.00$ -$ 4,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 12,000.00$ 14,000.00$ 15,500.00$



TOTALS 1,391,279.71$ 94,819.58$ 150,536.82$ 210,396.03$ 274,397.20$ 313,646.24$ 347,483.86$

OE: Composting Resale Life of Project Subtotals YEAR 1: 2014-2015 YEAR 2: 2015-2016 YEAR 3: 2016-2017 YEAR 4: 2017-2018 YEAR 5: 2018-2019 YEAR 6: 2019-2020Labor 84,783.21$ 12,560.48$ 13,188.50$ 13,816.52$ 14,444.55$ 15,072.57$ 15,700.59$

Equipment -$ Vehicle Fuel & Maintenance 5,658.00$ 943.00$ 943.00$ 943.00$ 943.00$ 943.00$ 943.00$


Training 2,520.00$ 420.00$ 420.00$ 420.00$ 420.00$ 420.00$ 420.00$

TOTALS 100,998.33$ 15,263.00$ 15,891.02$ 16,519.04$ 17,147.07$ 17,775.09$ 18,403.11$





TOTALS 350,932.66$ 52,789.17$ 55,069.01$ 57,348.86$ 59,628.70$ 61,908.54$ 64,188.38$




Training 540.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$

TOTALS 49,455.15$ 7,507.92$ 7,801.76$ 8,095.60$ 8,389.45$ 8,683.29$ 8,977.13$



Vehicle Fuel & Maintenance 627.00$ 104.50$ 104.50$ 104.50$ 104.50$ 104.50$ 104.50$ Information Technology 1,528.80$ 254.80$ 254.80$ 254.80$ 254.80$ 254.80$ 254.80$


TOTALS 292,781.05$ 46,381.20$ 47,347.45$ 48,313.71$ 49,279.97$ 50,246.23$ 51,212.49$




Training 1,260.00$ 210.00$ 210.00$ 210.00$ 210.00$ 210.00$ 210.00$

TOTALS 98,138.72$ 14,726.21$ 15,378.31$ 16,030.41$ 16,682.50$ 17,334.60$ 17,986.70$


66

Alt 4: Zero Waste, Sorted Recycle, Composting On-CampusANNUAL CASH FLOW





Debt Service Equipment Price Years Interest YR 1 (2015) YR 2 (2016) YR 3 (2017) YR 4 (2018) YR 5 (2019) YR 6 (2020)Monstro (Frontloader) 253,900.46$ 7 2.1513% 39,168.36$ 39,168.36$ 39,168.36$ 39,168.36$ 9,792.09$ -$ Godzilla (Frontloader) 367,846.13$ 7 1.6413% 55,733.59$ 55,733.59$ 55,733.59$ 55,733.59$ 55,733.59$ 55,733.59$ Roll-Off Truck 113,821.73$ 7 2.1513% 17,558.89$ 17,558.89$ 17,558.89$ 17,558.89$ -$ -$ Trommel 50,000.00$ 5 2.00% 10,533.29$ 10,533.29$ 10,533.29$ 10,533.29$ 10,533.29$ 10,533.29$ Grinder (Roto) 300,000.00$ 7 2.00% 46,034.00$ 46,034.00$ 46,034.00$ 46,034.00$ 46,034.00$ 46,034.00$ Composter 400,000.00$ 10 2.00% 44,232.83$ 44,232.83$ 44,232.83$ 44,232.83$ 44,232.83$ 44,232.83$


Total Debt Service 1,175,903$

YR 1 (2015) YR 2 (2016) YR 3 (2017) YR 4 (2018) YR 5 (2019) YR 6 (2020)Annual Cash Flow Potential Gross Income 1,486,903$ 1,487,335$ 1,495,543$ 1,512,823$ 1,681,718$ 1,715,183$


Annual Cash Flow 40,806$ (2,807)$ (40,924)$ (73,609)$ 118,229$ 127,138$


67

Alt 5: Zero Waste*, Sorted Recycle, Vendor CompostingINCOME ROLL


TOTAL 6,733,715$ 1,122,286$

GROSS INCOME

Income Type Resource Weigth Resource % $/LB Income Resource Weigth Resource % $/LB Income Resource Weigth Resource % $/LB IncomeRefuse 3,024,000 42.0% 0.24$ 719,712.00$ 2,448,000 34.0% 0.24$ 582,624.00$ 1,872,000 26.0% 0.24$ 445,536.00$ Cardboard 720,000 10.0% 0.24$ 171,360.00$ 720,000 10.0% 0.24$ 171,360.00$ 720,000 10.0% 0.24$ 171,360.00$ OCC Resale 720,000 0.06$ 43,200.00$ 720,000 0.06$ 43,200.00$ 720,000 0.06$ 43,200.00$ Mixed Recycling 1,152,000 16.0% 0.24$ 274,176.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.24$ 274,176.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.24$ 274,176.00$ CRV Resale 829,440 0.06$ 53,461.56$ 829,440 0.06$ 53,461.56$ 829,440 0.06$ 53,461.56$ Paper Resale 322,560 0.04$ 11,934.72$ 322,560 0.04$ 11,934.72$ 322,560 0.04$ 11,934.72$ Organics (Bin Pickup) 0 0.0% 0.24$ -$ 576,000 8.0% 0.24$ 137,088.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.24$ 274,176.00$ Organics (Roll-Off) 1,152,000 16.0% 0.05$ 57,600.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.05$ 57,600.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.05$ 57,600.00$ Compost Resales 0 0.30$ -$ 0 0.30$ -$ 0 0.30$ -$ Roll-Off Box 900,000 0.05$ 45,000.00$ 900,000 0.05$ 45,000.00$ 900,000 0.05$ 45,000.00$ Metal Resale 9,396.05$ 9,396.05$ 9,396.05$ Green Waste 1,152,000 16.0% 0.10$ 115,200.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.10$ 115,200.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.10$ 115,200.00$ Woodchip Resales 57,600 0.03$ 1,440.00$ 57,600 0.03$ 1,440.00$ 57,600 0.03$ 1,440.00$

TOTAL 100.0% 1,502,480.33$ 100.0% 1,502,480.33$ 100.0% 1,502,480.33$


Income Type Resource Weigth Resource % $/LB Income Resource Weigth Resource % $/LB Income Resource Weigth Resource % $/LB IncomeRefuse 1,296,000 18.0% 0.24$ 308,448.00$ 720,000 10.0% 0.24$ 171,360.00$ 360,000 5.0% 0.24$ 85,680.00$ Cardboard 720,000 10.0% 0.24$ 171,360.00$ 900,000 12.5% 0.24$ 214,200.00$ 1,008,000 14.0% 0.24$ 239,904.00$ OCC Resale 720,000 0.06$ 43,200.00$ 900,000 0.06$ 54,000.00$ 1,008,000 0.06$ 60,480.00$ Mixed Recycling 1,152,000 16.0% 0.24$ 274,176.00$ 1,260,000 17.5% 0.24$ 299,880.00$ 1,296,000 18.0% 0.24$ 308,448.00$ CRV Resale 829,440 0.06$ 53,461.56$ 907,200 0.06$ 58,473.58$ 933,120 0.06$ 60,144.25$ Paper Resale 322,560 0.04$ 11,934.72$ 352,800 0.04$ 13,053.60$ 362,880 0.04$ 13,426.56$ Organics (Bin Pickup) 1,728,000 24.0% 0.24$ 411,264.00$ 2,016,000 28.0% 0.24$ 479,808.00$ 2,232,000 31.0% 0.24$ 531,216.00$ Organics (Roll-Off) 1,152,000 16.0% 0.05$ 57,600.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.05$ 57,600.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.05$ 57,600.00$ Compost Resales 0 0.30$ -$ 0 0.30$ -$ 0 0.30$ -$ Roll-Off Box 900,000 0.05$ 45,000.00$ 900,000 0.05$ 45,000.00$ 900,000 0.05$ 45,000.00$ Metal Resale 9,396.05$ 9,396.05$ 9,396.05$ Green Waste 1,152,000 16.0% 0.10$ 115,200.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.10$ 115,200.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.10$ 115,200.00$ Woodchip Resales 57,600 0.03$ 1,440.00$ 57,600 0.03$ 1,440.00$ 57,600 0.03$ 1,440.00$

TOTAL 100.0% 1,502,480.33$ 100.0% 1,519,411.23$ 100.0% 1,527,934.86$



TOTAL 122,500.00$ 122,500.00$ 122,500.00$ 122,500.00$ -$ -$



TOTAL 1,379,980.33$ 1,242,892.33$ 1,105,804.33$ 968,716.33$ 1,039,603.23$ 996,718.86$



YEAR 1: 2014-2015 YEAR 2: 2015-2016 YEAR 3: 2016-2017

YEAR 4: 2017-2018 YEAR 5: 2018-2019 YEAR 6: 2019-2020

68

Alt 5: Zero Waste*, Sorted Recycle, Vendor CompostinOPERATING STATEMENT

Resource Category Avg. Annual OEGeneral 1,726,028$ 287,671$ YR 1: FY14-15 OE YR 2: FY15-16 OE YR 3: FY16-17 OERefuse 940,487$ 156,748$ 1,266,554$ 1,258,144$ 1,247,873$ Cardboard/OCC Resale 684,917$ 114,153$ Mixed Recycling /CRV & Paper Resale 2,361,461$ 393,577$ Organics/Compost Resale 909,834$ 151,639$ YR 4: FY17-18 OE YR 5: FY18-19 OE YR 6: FY19-20 OERoll-Off Box/Metal Resale 444,848$ 74,141$ 1,237,051$ 1,225,057$ 1,228,830$ Greenwaste/Woodchips Resale 395,936$ 65,989$

TOTAL 7,463,510$ 1,243,918$






TOTALS 1,726,027.65$ 269,418.55$ 276,457.42$ 283,496.29$ 291,846.26$ 298,885.13$ 305,924.00$





TOTALS 940,487.00$ 262,514.49$ 221,447.97$ 178,519.92$ 133,730.33$ 87,079.20$ 57,195.08$




Training 5,940.00$ 990.00$ 990.00$ 990.00$ 990.00$ 990.00$ 990.00$

TOTALS 604,105.48$ 93,117.57$ 95,927.57$ 98,737.58$ 101,547.58$ 105,607.59$ 109,167.60$




Training 540.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$

TOTALS 80,811.15$ 12,733.92$ 13,027.76$ 13,321.60$ 13,615.45$ 13,909.29$ 14,203.13$




Training 16,740.00$ 2,790.00$ 2,790.00$ 2,790.00$ 2,790.00$ 2,790.00$ 2,790.00$

TOTALS 1,158,636.94$ 175,795.24$ 182,641.44$ 189,487.64$ 196,333.84$ 203,682.54$ 210,696.24$




Training 9,180.00$ 1,530.00$ 1,530.00$ 1,530.00$ 1,530.00$ 1,530.00$ 1,530.00$

TOTALS 650,802.31$ 98,766.96$ 102,646.99$ 106,527.03$ 110,407.07$ 114,287.11$ 118,167.15$




Training 9,540.00$ 1,590.00$ 1,590.00$ 1,590.00$ 1,590.00$ 1,590.00$ 1,590.00$

TOTALS 552,021.88$ 83,506.69$ 86,866.97$ 90,227.26$ 93,587.54$ 97,195.32$ 100,638.10$





TOTALS 896,432.98$ 139,050.58$ 143,192.54$ 147,334.51$ 151,476.48$ 155,618.45$ 159,760.42$



Information Technology 152.88$ 25.48$ 25.48$ 25.48$ 25.48$ 25.48$ 25.48$ Maintenance/Repairs/Utilites 421.20$ 70.20$ 70.20$ 70.20$ 70.20$ 70.20$ 70.20$

Training 180.00$ 30.00$ 30.00$ 30.00$ 30.00$ 30.00$ 30.00$

TOTALS 13,400.88$ 1,999.28$ 2,092.96$ 2,186.64$ 2,280.32$ 2,374.00$ 2,467.68$





TOTALS 394,594.66$ 60,066.17$ 62,346.01$ 64,625.86$ 66,905.70$ 69,185.54$ 71,465.38$




Training 540.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$

TOTALS 50,253.15$ 7,640.92$ 7,934.76$ 8,228.60$ 8,522.45$ 8,816.29$ 9,110.13$





TOTALS 295,289.05$ 46,799.20$ 47,765.45$ 48,731.71$ 49,697.97$ 50,664.23$ 51,630.49$




Training 1,260.00$ 210.00$ 210.00$ 210.00$ 210.00$ 210.00$ 210.00$

TOTALS 100,646.72$ 15,144.21$ 15,796.31$ 16,448.41$ 17,100.50$ 17,752.60$ 18,404.70$


69

Alt 5: Zero Waste*, Sorted Recycle, Vendor CompostingANNUAL CASH FLOW

Potential Gross Income YR 1 (2015) YR 2 (2016) YR 3 (2017) YR 4 (2018) YR 5 (2019) YR 6 (2020)1,379,980$ 1,242,892$ 1,105,804$ 968,716$ 1,039,603$ 996,719$




Debt Service Equipment Price Years Interest YR 1 (2015) YR 2 (2016) YR 3 (2017) YR 4 (2018) YR 5 (2019) YR 6 (2020)Monstro (Frontloader) 253,900.46$ 7 2.1513% 39,168.36$ 39,168.36$ 39,168.36$ 39,168.36$ 9,792.09$ -$ Godzilla (Frontloader) 367,846.13$ 7 1.6413% 55,733.59$ 55,733.59$ 55,733.59$ 55,733.59$ 55,733.59$ 55,733.59$ Roll-Off Truck 113,821.73$ 7 2.1513% 17,558.89$ 17,558.89$ 17,558.89$ 17,558.89$ -$ -$ Grinder (Roto) 300,000.00$ 7 2.00% 46,034.00$ 46,034.00$ 46,034.00$ 46,034.00$ 46,034.00$ 46,034.00$

Annual Cost of Debt Service 158,495$ 158,495$ 158,495$ 158,495$ 111,560$ 101,768$


Annual Cash Flow YR 1 (2015) YR 2 (2016) YR 3 (2017) YR 4 (2018) YR 5 (2019) YR 6 (2020)Potential Gross Income 1,379,980$ 1,242,892$ 1,105,804$ 968,716$ 1,039,603$ 996,719$


Annual Cash Flow (45,068)$ (173,747)$ (300,564)$ (426,830)$ (297,014)$ (333,879)$

Total Project Cash Flow (1,577,101)$

70

Alt 6: Zero Waste, Single Stream Recycle, Composting On-CampusINCOME ROLL

Income Type Avg. Annual PGIRefuse 2,190,860$ 365,143$ Cardboard/OCC Resale 1,426,824$ 237,804$ Mixed Recycling/CRV & Paper Resale 1,685,402$ 280,900$ Organics/Compost 2,103,964$ 350,661$ Roll-Off Box/Metal Resale 326,376$ 54,396$ Green Waste/Woodchips 699,840$ 116,640$

TOTAL 8,433,266$ 1,405,544$

GROSS INCOME


Organics (Bin Pickup) 0 0.0% 0.24$ -$ 576,000 8.0% 0.24$ 137,088.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.24$ 274,176.00$ Organics (Roll-Off) 1,152,000 16.0% 0.05$ 57,600.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.05$ 57,600.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.05$ 57,600.00$ Compost Resales 0 0.30$ -$ 1,440 0.30$ 432.00$ 28,800 0.30$ 8,640.00$ Roll-Off Box 900,000 0.05$ 45,000.00$ 900,000 0.05$ 45,000.00$ 900,000 0.05$ 45,000.00$ Metal Resale 9,396.05$ 9,396.05$ 9,396.05$ Green Waste 1,152,000 16.0% 0.10$ 115,200.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.10$ 115,200.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.10$ 115,200.00$ Woodchip Resales 57,600 0.03$ 1,440.00$ 57,600 0.03$ 1,440.00$ 57,600 0.03$ 1,440.00$

TOTAL 100.0% 1,457,244.05$ 100.0% 1,457,676.05$ 100.0% 1,465,884.05$


Income Type Resource Weigth Resource % $/LB Income Resource Weigth Resource % $/LB Income Resource Weigth Resource % $/LB IncomeRefuse 1,296,000 18.0% 0.24$ 308,448.00$ 720,000 10.0% 0.24$ 171,360.00$ 360,000 5.0% 0.24$ 85,680.00$ Cardboard 720,000 10.0% 0.24$ 171,360.00$ 900,000 12.5% 0.24$ 214,200.00$ 1,008,000 14.0% 0.24$ 239,904.00$ OCC Resale 720,000 0.06$ 43,200.00$ 900,000 0.06$ 54,000.00$ 1,008,000 0.06$ 60,480.00$ Mixed Recycling 1,152,000 16.0% 0.24$ 274,176.00$ 1,260,000 17.5% 0.24$ 299,880.00$ 1,296,000 18.0% 0.24$ 308,448.00$ Mixed Recycle Resale 20,160.00$ 22,050.00$ 22,680.00$

Organics (Bin Pickup) 1,728,000 24.0% 0.24$ 411,264.00$ 2,016,000 28.0% 0.24$ 479,808.00$ 2,232,000 31.0% 0.24$ 531,216.00$ Organics (Roll-Off) 1,152,000 16.0% 0.05$ 57,600.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.05$ 57,600.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.05$ 57,600.00$ Compost Resales 86,400 0.30$ 25,920.00$ 151,200 0.30$ 45,360.00$ 223,200 0.30$ 66,960.00$ Roll-Off Box 900,000 0.05$ 45,000.00$ 900,000 0.05$ 45,000.00$ 900,000 0.05$ 45,000.00$ Metal Resale 9,396.05$ 9,396.05$ 9,396.05$ Green Waste 1,152,000 16.0% 0.10$ 115,200.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.10$ 115,200.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.10$ 115,200.00$ Woodchip Resales 57,600 0.03$ 1,440.00$ 57,600 0.03$ 1,440.00$ 57,600 0.03$ 1,440.00$

TOTAL 100.0% 1,483,164.05$ 100.0% 1,515,294.05$ 100.0% 1,544,004.05$



TOTAL 122,500.00$ 122,500.00$ 122,500.00$ 122,500.00$ -$ -$



TOTAL 1,334,744.05$ 1,335,176.05$ 1,343,384.05$ 1,360,664.05$ 1,515,294.05$ 1,544,004.05$



YEAR 1: 2014-2015 YEAR 2: 2015-2016 YEAR 3: 2016-2017

YEAR 4: 2017-2018 YEAR 5: 2018-2019 YEAR 6: 2019-2020

71

Alt 6: Zero Waste, Single Stream Recycle, Composting On-CampuOPERATING STATEMENT

Resource Category Avg. Annual OEGeneral 1,628,359$ 271,393$ YR 1: FY14-15 OE YR 2: FY15-16 OE YR 3: FY16-17 OERefuse 939,860$ 156,643$ 1,132,952$ 1,167,749$ 1,204,360$ Cardboard/OCC Resale 660,153$ 110,026$ Mixed Recycling /CRV & Paper Resale 1,860,022$ 310,004$ Organics/Compost Resale 1,342,749$ 223,791$ YR 4: FY17-18 OE YR 5: FY18-19 OE YR 6: FY19-20 OERoll-Off Box/Metal Resale 474,678$ 79,113$ 1,243,963$ 1,260,263$ 1,287,452$ Greenwaste/Woodchips Resale 390,920$ 65,153$

TOTAL 7,296,740$ 1,216,123$






TOTALS 1,628,358.78$ 254,712.95$ 261,149.57$ 267,586.19$ 275,200.07$ 281,636.69$ 288,073.31$





TOTALS 939,860.00$ 262,409.99$ 221,343.47$ 178,415.42$ 133,625.83$ 86,974.70$ 57,090.58$




Training 5,580.00$ 930.00$ 930.00$ 930.00$ 930.00$ 930.00$ 930.00$

TOTALS 579,342.22$ 89,421.01$ 92,058.75$ 94,696.50$ 97,334.24$ 101,221.99$ 104,609.74$




Training 540.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$

TOTALS 80,811.15$ 12,733.92$ 13,027.76$ 13,321.60$ 13,615.45$ 13,909.29$ 14,203.13$




Training 19,800.00$ 3,300.00$ 3,300.00$ 3,300.00$ 3,300.00$ 3,300.00$ 3,300.00$

TOTALS 1,258,179.61$ 191,635.48$ 198,781.76$ 205,928.04$ 213,074.33$ 220,723.11$ 228,036.89$




Training 6,480.00$ 1,080.00$ 1,080.00$ 1,080.00$ 1,080.00$ 1,080.00$ 1,080.00$

TOTALS 585,424.51$ 87,647.56$ 91,616.83$ 95,586.11$ 99,555.39$ 103,524.67$ 107,493.95$


Equipment 16,417.50$ 2,640.00$ 2,640.00$ 2,640.00$ 2,640.00$ 2,887.50$ 2,970.00$ Vehicle Fuel & Maintenance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$


Training -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

TOTALS 16,417.50$ 2,640.00$ 2,640.00$ 2,640.00$ 2,640.00$ 2,887.50$ 2,970.00$

OE: Organics Collection Life of Project Subtotals YEAR 1: 2014-201 YEAR 2: 2015-20 YEAR 3: 2016-20 YEAR 4: 2017-20 YEAR 5: 2018-2019 YEAR 6: 2019-2020Labor 1,074,960.77$ 73,517.30$ 115,789.75$ 161,738.06$ 211,362.24$ 242,607.09$ 269,946.34$

Tipping Fees -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Equipment 53,500.00$ -$ 4,000.00$ 8,000.00$ 12,000.00$ 14,000.00$ 15,500.00$



TOTALS 1,241,750.67$ 83,994.10$ 134,036.95$ 187,755.66$ 245,150.24$ 280,280.29$ 310,533.44$




Training 2,520.00$ 420.00$ 420.00$ 420.00$ 420.00$ 420.00$ 420.00$

TOTALS 100,998.33$ 15,263.00$ 15,891.02$ 16,519.04$ 17,147.07$ 17,775.09$ 18,403.11$





TOTALS 425,222.44$ 63,878.85$ 66,675.47$ 69,472.10$ 72,268.72$ 75,065.34$ 77,861.96$




Training 540.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$

TOTALS 49,455.15$ 7,507.92$ 7,801.76$ 8,095.60$ 8,389.45$ 8,683.29$ 8,977.13$



Vehicle Fuel & Maintenance 627.00$ 104.50$ 104.50$ 104.50$ 104.50$ 104.50$ 104.50$ Information Technology 1,528.80$ 254.80$ 254.80$ 254.80$ 254.80$ 254.80$ 254.80$


TOTALS 292,781.05$ 46,381.20$ 47,347.45$ 48,313.71$ 49,279.97$ 50,246.23$ 51,212.49$




Training 1,260.00$ 210.00$ 210.00$ 210.00$ 210.00$ 210.00$ 210.00$

TOTALS 98,138.72$ 14,726.21$ 15,378.31$ 16,030.41$ 16,682.50$ 17,334.60$ 17,986.70$


72

Alt 6: Zero Waste, Single Stream Recycle, Composting On-CampusANNUAL CASH FLOW





Debt Service Equipment Price Years Interest YR 1 (2015) YR 2 (2016) YR 3 (2017) YR 4 (2018) YR 5 (2019) YR 6 (2020)Monstro (Frontloader) 253,900.46$ 7 2.1513% 39,168.36$ 39,168.36$ 39,168.36$ 39,168.36$ 9,792.09$ -$ Godzilla (Frontloader) 367,846.13$ 7 1.6413% 55,733.59$ 55,733.59$ 55,733.59$ 55,733.59$ 55,733.59$ 55,733.59$ Roll-Off Truck 113,821.73$ 7 2.1513% 17,558.89$ 17,558.89$ 17,558.89$ 17,558.89$ -$ -$ Trommel 50,000.00$ 5 2.00% 10,533.29$ 10,533.29$ 10,533.29$ 10,533.29$ 10,533.29$ 10,533.29$ Grinder (Roto) 300,000.00$ 7 2.00% 46,034.00$ 46,034.00$ 46,034.00$ 46,034.00$ 46,034.00$ 46,034.00$ Composter 400,000.00$ 10 2.00% 44,232.83$ 44,232.83$ 44,232.83$ 44,232.83$ 44,232.83$ 44,232.83$


Total Debt Service 1,175,903$

YR 1 (2015) YR 2 (2016) YR 3 (2017) YR 4 (2018) YR 5 (2019) YR 6 (2020)Annual Cash Flow Potential Gross Income 1,334,744$ 1,335,176$ 1,343,384$ 1,360,664$ 1,515,294$ 1,544,004$


Annual Cash Flow (11,469)$ (45,834)$ (74,237)$ (96,560)$ 88,705$ 100,018$

Total Project Cash Flow (39,377)$

73

Alt 7: Zero Waste*, Single Stream Recycle, Vendor CompostingINCOME ROLL


TOTAL 6,452,402$ 1,075,400$

GROSS INCOME


Organics (Bin Pickup) 0 0.0% 0.24$ -$ 576,000 8.0% 0.24$ 137,088.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.24$ 274,176.00$ Organics (Roll-Off) 1,152,000 16.0% 0.05$ 57,600.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.05$ 57,600.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.05$ 57,600.00$ Compost Resales 0 0.30$ -$ 0 0.30$ -$ 0 0.30$ -$ Roll-Off Box 900,000 0.05$ 45,000.00$ 900,000 0.05$ 45,000.00$ 900,000 0.05$ 45,000.00$ Metal Resale 9,396.05$ 9,396.05$ 9,396.05$ Green Waste 1,152,000 16.0% 0.10$ 115,200.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.10$ 115,200.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.10$ 115,200.00$ Woodchip Resales 57,600 0.03$ 1,440.00$ 57,600 0.03$ 1,440.00$ 57,600 0.03$ 1,440.00$

TOTAL 100.0% 1,457,244.05$ 100.0% 1,457,244.05$ 100.0% 1,457,244.05$


Income Type Resource Weigth Resource % $/LB Income Resource Weigth Resource % $/LB Income Resource Weigth Resource % $/LB IncomeRefuse 1,296,000 18.0% 0.24$ 308,448.00$ 720,000 10.0% 0.24$ 171,360.00$ 360,000 5.0% 0.24$ 85,680.00$ Cardboard 720,000 10.0% 0.24$ 171,360.00$ 900,000 12.5% 0.24$ 214,200.00$ 1,008,000 14.0% 0.24$ 239,904.00$ OCC Resale 720,000 0.06$ 43,200.00$ 900,000 0.06$ 54,000.00$ 1,008,000 0.06$ 60,480.00$ Mixed Recycling 1,152,000 16.0% 0.24$ 274,176.00$ 1,260,000 17.5% 0.24$ 299,880.00$ 1,296,000 18.0% 0.24$ 308,448.00$ Mixed Recycle Resale 20,160.00$ 22,050.00$ 22,680.00$

Organics (Bin Pickup) 1,728,000 24.0% 0.24$ 411,264.00$ 2,016,000 28.0% 0.24$ 479,808.00$ 2,232,000 31.0% 0.24$ 531,216.00$ Organics (Roll-Off) 1,152,000 16.0% 0.05$ 57,600.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.05$ 57,600.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.05$ 57,600.00$ Compost Resales 0 0.30$ -$ 0 0.30$ -$ 0 0.30$ -$ Roll-Off Box 900,000 0.05$ 45,000.00$ 900,000 0.05$ 45,000.00$ 900,000 0.05$ 45,000.00$ Metal Resale 9,396.05$ 9,396.05$ 9,396.05$ Green Waste 1,152,000 16.0% 0.10$ 115,200.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.10$ 115,200.00$ 1,152,000 16.0% 0.10$ 115,200.00$ Woodchip Resales 57,600 0.03$ 1,440.00$ 57,600 0.03$ 1,440.00$ 57,600 0.03$ 1,440.00$

TOTAL 100.0% 1,457,244.05$ 100.0% 1,469,934.05$ 100.0% 1,477,044.05$



TOTAL 122,500.00$ 122,500.00$ 122,500.00$ 122,500.00$ -$ -$



TOTAL 1,334,744.05$ 1,197,656.05$ 1,060,568.05$ 923,480.05$ 990,126.05$ 945,828.05$



YEAR 1: 2014-2015 YEAR 2: 2015-2016 YEAR 3: 2016-2017

YEAR 4: 2017-2018 YEAR 5: 2018-2019 YEAR 6: 2019-2020

74

Alt 7: Zero Waste*, Single Stream Recycle, Vendor CompostingOPERATING STATEMENT

Resource Category Avg. Annual OEGeneral 1,691,946$ 281,991$ YR 1: FY14-15 OE YR 2: FY15-16 OE YR 3: FY16-17 OERefuse 940,487$ 156,748$ 1,190,560$ 1,179,284$ 1,166,147$ Cardboard/OCC Resale 684,917$ 114,153$ Mixed Recycling /CRV & Paper Resale 1,860,022$ 310,004$ Organics/Compost Resale 945,960$ 157,660$ YR 4: FY17-18 OE YR 5: FY18-19 OE YR 6: FY19-20 OERoll-Off Box/Metal Resale 444,848$ 74,141$ 1,152,313$ 1,137,453$ 1,138,359$ Greenwaste/Woodchips Resale 395,936$ 65,989$

TOTAL 6,964,114$ 1,160,686$






TOTALS 1,691,946.16$ 264,176.35$ 271,069.20$ 277,962.06$ 286,020.00$ 292,912.85$ 299,805.70$





TOTALS 940,487.00$ 262,514.49$ 221,447.97$ 178,519.92$ 133,730.33$ 87,079.20$ 57,195.08$




Training 5,940.00$ 990.00$ 990.00$ 990.00$ 990.00$ 990.00$ 990.00$

TOTALS 604,105.48$ 93,117.57$ 95,927.57$ 98,737.58$ 101,547.58$ 105,607.59$ 109,167.60$




Training 540.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$

TOTALS 80,811.15$ 12,733.92$ 13,027.76$ 13,321.60$ 13,615.45$ 13,909.29$ 14,203.13$




Training 19,800.00$ 3,300.00$ 3,300.00$ 3,300.00$ 3,300.00$ 3,300.00$ 3,300.00$

TOTALS 1,258,179.61$ 191,635.48$ 198,781.76$ 205,928.04$ 213,074.33$ 220,723.11$ 228,036.89$




Training 6,480.00$ 1,080.00$ 1,080.00$ 1,080.00$ 1,080.00$ 1,080.00$ 1,080.00$

TOTALS 585,424.51$ 87,647.56$ 91,616.83$ 95,586.11$ 99,555.39$ 103,524.67$ 107,493.95$


Equipment 16,417.50$ 2,640.00$ 2,640.00$ 2,640.00$ 2,640.00$ 2,887.50$ 2,970.00$ Vehicle Fuel & Maintenance -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$


Training -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

TOTALS 16,417.50$ 2,640.00$ 2,640.00$ 2,640.00$ 2,640.00$ 2,887.50$ 2,970.00$





TOTALS 945,959.50$ 146,443.70$ 150,930.18$ 155,416.67$ 159,903.16$ 164,389.65$ 168,876.14$




Training -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

TOTALS -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$





TOTALS 394,594.66$ 60,066.17$ 62,346.01$ 64,625.86$ 66,905.70$ 69,185.54$ 71,465.38$




Training 540.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$ 90.00$

TOTALS 50,253.15$ 7,640.92$ 7,934.76$ 8,228.60$ 8,522.45$ 8,816.29$ 9,110.13$





TOTALS 295,289.05$ 46,799.20$ 47,765.45$ 48,731.71$ 49,697.97$ 50,664.23$ 51,630.49$




Training 1,260.00$ 210.00$ 210.00$ 210.00$ 210.00$ 210.00$ 210.00$

TOTALS 100,646.72$ 15,144.21$ 15,796.31$ 16,448.41$ 17,100.50$ 17,752.60$ 18,404.70$


75

Alt 7: Zero Waste*, Single Stream Recycle, Vendor CompostingANNUAL CASH FLOW

Potential Gross Income YR 1 (2015) YR 2 (2016) YR 3 (2017) YR 4 (2018) YR 5 (2019) YR 6 (2020)1,334,744$ 1,197,656$ 1,060,568$ 923,480$ 990,126$ 945,828$




Debt Service Equipment Price Years Interest YR 1 (2015) YR 2 (2016) YR 3 (2017) YR 4 (2018) YR 5 (2019) YR 6 (2020)Monstro (Frontloader) 253,900.46$ 7 2.1513% 39,168.36$ 39,168.36$ 39,168.36$ 39,168.36$ 9,792.09$ -$ Godzilla (Frontloader) 367,846.13$ 7 1.6413% 55,733.59$ 55,733.59$ 55,733.59$ 55,733.59$ 55,733.59$ 55,733.59$ Roll-Off Truck 113,821.73$ 7 2.1513% 17,558.89$ 17,558.89$ 17,558.89$ 17,558.89$ -$ -$ Grinder (Roto) 300,000.00$ 7 2.00% 46,034.00$ 46,034.00$ 46,034.00$ 46,034.00$ 46,034.00$ 46,034.00$



Annual Cash Flow YR 1 (2015) YR 2 (2016) YR 3 (2017) YR 4 (2018) YR 5 (2019) YR 6 (2020)Potential Gross Income 1,334,744$ 1,197,656$ 1,060,568$ 923,480$ 990,126$ 945,828$


Annual Cash Flow (14,310)$ (140,123)$ (264,073)$ (387,328)$ (258,886)$ (294,299)$

Total Project Cash Flow (1,359,019)$

76

APPENDIX C: UC DAVIS BIODIGESTER TURNS CAMPUS

WASTE INTO CAMPUS ENERGY



77

Cam

pus

and

com

mun

ity f

ood

and

yard

was

te w

ill b

e pu

t ins

ide

larg

e, w

hite

, ox

ygen

-dep

rive

d

tank

s. B

acte

rial

mic

robe

s in

the

tank

s fe

ast o

n th

e w

aste

,

conv

ertin

g it

into

cle

an e

nerg

y

that

fee

ds th

e ca

mpu

s el

ectr

ical

grid

. (G

raph

ic b

y R

uss

Theb

aud/

UC

Dav

is)

UC

Dav

is b

iodi

gest

er tu

rns

cam

pus

was

te in

to c

ampu

s en

ergy

Mor

e th

an a

dec

ade

ago,

Rui

hon

g Z

han

g, a

pro

fess

or o

f bi

olo

gic

al a

nd a

gric

ultu

ral e

ngin

eeri

ng a

t the

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

alifo

rnia

, Dav

is, s

tart

ed

wor

king

on

a p

robl

em

: H

ow to

turn

as

muc

h or

gani

c w

ast

e a

s po

ssib

le in

to a

s m

uch

ren

ewab

le e

nerg

y as

pos

sibl

e.

On

Ear

th D

ay, A

pril

22, 2

014

the

uni

vers

ity a

nd S

acra

me

nto-

base

d te

chno

logy

pa

rtne

r C

lean

Wor

ld u

nvei

led

the

UC

Dav

is R

enew

able

Ene

rgy

An

aero

bic

Dig

est

er

(RE

AD

) at

the

cam

pus’

for

me

r la

ndfil

l. H

ere,

the

ana

erob

ic d

ige

stio

n te

chno

logy

Zha

ng

inve

nted

is b

eing

use

d in

side

larg

e,

whi

te, o

xyge

n-d

epriv

ed t

anks

. B

acte

rial m

icro

bes

in t

he ta

nks

feas

t on

cam

pus

and

com

mun

ity f

ood

and

yar

d w

ast

e, c

onve

rtin

g it

into

cle

an

ene

rgy

tha

t fee

ds

the

cam

pus

elec

tric

al g

rid.

“It

has

bee

n th

e th

rust

of m

y re

sear

ch to

brin

g th

e in

nova

tions

we

ma

de p

ossi

ble

at U

C D

avis

to c

omm

erci

al

scal

e,”

Zha

ng s

aid.

“T

his

tech

nolo

gy c

an c

han

ge th

e w

ay w

e m

ana

ge o

ur s

olid

was

te. I

t will

allo

w u

s to

be

mor

e ec

ono

mic

ally

an

d en

viro

nmen

tally

sus

tain

able

. I a

m p

rou

d an

d g

rate

ful t

o be

a p

art o

f the

team

wh

o

hel

ped

mak

e th

is m

omen

t a r

ealit

y.”

It is

the

third

com

mer

cial

bio

dig

este

r C

lean

Wor

ld h

as o

pen

ed u

sing

Zha

ng’s

tech

nolo

gy w

ithin

the

pas

t tw

o

yea

rs a

nd

is th

e na

tion

’s la

rge

st a

nae

robi

c bi

odig

este

r on

a c

olle

ge

cam

pus.

The

sys

tem

is d

esig

ned

to c

onve

rt 5

0 to

ns o

f or

gani

c w

aste

to 1

2,0

00 k

Wh

of r

enew

able

ele

ctric

ity e

ach

day

usi

ng s

tate

-of-

the-

art g

ener

ato

rs, d

iver

ting

20,0

00 t

ons

of w

ast

e fr

om lo

cal l

andf

ills

each

yea

r.

The

fac

ility

too

k u

niq

ue a

dva

ntag

e o

f its

loca

tion

at th

e n

ow c

lose

d U

C D

avis

land

fill b

y bl

endi

ng la

ndfil

l

gas

es —

prim

arily

met

hane

— w

ith th

e b

iog

as to

cre

ate

a to

tal o

f 5.6

mill

ion

kWh

per

year

of c

lean

ele

ctric

ity.

It is

exp

ecte

d to

red

uce

gre

enh

ouse

ga

s e

mis

sion

s by

13,

500

tons

per

yea

r.

The

RE

AD

Bio

Dig

est

er

enco

mpa

sse

s se

vera

l of t

he

univ

ersi

ty’s

goa

ls: r

educ

ing

cam

pus

was

te in

a w

ay th

at

mak

es b

oth

eco

nom

ic a

nd e

nviro

nmen

tal s

ens

e, g

ener

atin

g re

new

able

en

ergy

, an

d tr

ansf

errin

g te

chno

log

y

dev

elo

ped

at U

C D

avi

s to

the

co

mm

erci

al m

arke

tpla

ce.

“Th

e bi

odig

este

r is

the

late

st c

hapt

er in

UC

Dav

is’ w

orld

-ren

owne

d le

gacy

of e

nviro

nmen

tal s

usta

inab

ility

,”

said

Lin

da P

.B. K

ate

hi, c

hanc

ello

r o

f UC

Da

vis.

“T

his

pro

ject

sta

nds

as a

mod

el p

ublic

-priv

ate

part

ners

hip

and

dem

onst

rate

s w

hat c

an

be a

chie

ved

whe

n r

ese

arch

uni

vers

ities

an

d pr

ivat

e in

dust

ry c

olla

bor

ate

to

add

ress

soc

iety

’s m

ost

pre

ssin

g ch

alle

nges

.”

The

pro

ject

is d

ecid

edly

hom

egro

wn:

Cam

pus

was

te is

co

nver

ted

into

re

new

able

ene

rgy

for

the

UC

Dav

is

ele

ctric

al g

rid u

sing

tech

nolo

gy

inve

nte

d by

a U

C D

avis

pro

fess

or a

nd li

cens

ed b

y C

lean

Wor

ld. T

he

com

pany

’s c

hief

exe

cutiv

e o

ffice

r M

iche

le W

ong

and

vic

e p

resi

dent

of r

esea

rch

and

deve

lopm

ent J

osh

Ne

ws,

Ann

ou

nce

me

nts

an

d E

ven

ts

Eng

inee

ring

New

s

Eng

inee

ring

Eve

nts

Eng

inee

ring

YouT

ube

Eng

inee

ring

Pro

gres

s M

agaz

ine

UC

Dav

isM

aps,

Dir

ectio

ns

& P

arki

ng

UC D

avis

bio

dige

ster t

urns

cam

pus w

aste

into

cam

pus e

nerg

y »

Colle

ge o

f Eng

inee

ring

UC D

avis

http

://en

gine

erin

g.uc

davi

s.edu

/blo

g/uc

-dav

is-b

iodi

geste

r-tu

rns-

cam

pus-

was

te-c

ampu

s-en

ergy

/

1 of

35/

7/20

14 1

:31

P M

78

The

UC

Dav

is R

enew

able

Ene

rgy

Ana

erob

ic D

iges

ter,

whi

ch o

ffic

ially

ope

ned

Ear

th D

ay,

Apr

il 22

, 20

14,

conv

erts

org

anic

was

te f

rom

cam

pus

and

othe

r so

urce

s in

to c

lean

ene

rgy

for

the

cam

pus

elec

tric

al g

rid.

The

ana

erob

ic d

iges

tion

tech

nolo

gy u

sed

in th

e fa

cilit

y w

as

inve

nted

by

UC

Dav

is p

rofe

ssor

Rui

hong

Zha

ng a

nd li

cens

ed to

Sac

ram

ento

-bas

ed

Cle

anW

orld

.

Rap

port

are

UC

Da

vis

alu

mn

i. R

app

ort r

ecei

ved

his

doct

orat

e in

ana

erob

ic d

iges

tion

from

UC

Dav

is u

nde

r Z

han

g’s

tute

lage

in 2

011

.

“Th

ere

is s

o m

uch

to c

ele

bra

te to

day

as

we

reco

gniz

e th

e fa

r-re

achi

ng e

nvir

onm

enta

l and

sus

tain

abili

ty im

pact

s th

is te

chno

logy

will

hav

e,”

Wo

ng

said

. “It

will

en

able

the

mor

e th

an

100

mill

ion

tons

of o

rga

nic

was

te e

ach

year

tha

t is

curr

ently

bei

ng

land

fille

d in

the

U.S

. to

be

conv

erte

d to

cle

an

ene

rgy

and

so

il pr

odu

cts.

Cle

anW

orld

is p

rou

d to

be

the

com

me

rcia

lizat

ion

part

ner

with

Dr.

Zh

ang

and

UC

Dav

is fo

r th

ese

gam

e-ch

angi

ng

inno

vatio

ns.

With

this

pro

ject

, we’

ve c

ross

ed th

e br

idge

from

res

earc

h an

d de

velo

pmen

t to

com

mer

cial

izat

ion

and

pro

ven

tha

t Cle

anW

orld

’s

hig

h-s

olid

AD

sys

tem

can

be

a fe

asib

le, c

ost-

effe

ctiv

e, a

nd r

epea

tabl

e s

olu

tion,

not

onl

y fo

r m

unic

ipal

itie

s a

nd c

omm

uniti

es,

but

als

o fo

r

uni

vers

ities

and

pub

lic in

stitu

tion

s th

roug

hou

t Ca

lifor

nia

and

the

U.S

.”

The

RE

AD

Bio

Dig

est

er

is a

clo

sed

loop

sys

tem

, mov

ing

from

farm

to fo

rk t

o fu

el a

nd b

ack

to f

arm

. W

hat

ever

is n

ot t

urne

d in

to b

ioga

s to

gen

erat

e

ren

ewab

le e

lect

ricity

can

be

use

d a

s fe

rtili

zer

and

soil

amen

dmen

ts —

4 m

illio

n ga

llon

s o

f it

per

year

, whi

ch c

ould

pro

vide

nat

ural

fert

ilize

rs fo

r an

est

imat

ed 1

45 a

cres

of

farm

lan

ds e

ach

day.

Nea

rly h

alf

of t

he o

rgan

ic w

aste

, or

feed

stoc

k, n

eed

ed to

ope

rate

the

bio

dige

ster

to f

ull b

enef

it w

ill c

ome

fro

m U

C D

avis

din

ing

hal

ls,

anim

al

faci

litie

s an

d g

roun

ds. C

lean

Wor

ld is

wo

rkin

g w

ith a

rea

foo

d pr

oces

sing

and

dis

trib

utio

n c

ent

ers

to s

upp

ly th

e r

em

ain

ing

amou

nt.

Mea

nwhi

le,

UC

Dav

is w

ill e

arn

100

perc

ent

of th

e p

roje

ct’s

gre

en e

nerg

y an

d ca

rbon

cre

dits

and

re

ceiv

e al

l of t

he e

lect

ricity

gen

era

ted.

An

aero

bic

dig

estio

n is

an

age-

old

proc

ess.

How

eve

r,

Zh

ang’

s p

aten

ted

tech

nolo

gy m

ade

it m

ore

effi

cie

nt

— c

apa

ble

of e

atin

g a

broa

der

va

riet

y an

d bi

gger

qua

ntity

of w

aste

, tur

ning

it in

to c

lean

ene

rgy

fast

er

and

mor

e co

nsi

ste

ntly

than

oth

er c

omm

erc

ial

ana

erob

ic b

iodi

gest

ers.

The

pro

ject

ben

efits

from

a u

niq

ue p

ubl

ic-p

riva

te

par

tner

ship

. Whi

le Z

hang

mov

ed t

he te

chn

olo

gy

forw

ard,

Cle

anW

orld

’s c

omm

erc

ializ

ing

effo

rts

have

mad

e it

mod

ular

, cos

t-ef

fect

ive

and

fas

ter

to d

eplo

y,

mak

ing

it on

e o

f th

e m

ost a

dvan

ced

, com

me

rcia

lly

ava

ilabl

e an

aer

obic

dig

est

ion

syst

ems

in th

e co

untr

y.

The

RE

AD

Bio

Dig

est

er,

for

exa

mpl

e, w

ent

from

bar

e

gro

und

to fu

ll in

stal

latio

n w

ithin

six

mon

ths.

Its

$8.5

mill

ion

co

st w

as r

oug

hly

two-

thir

ds le

ss th

an o

the

r

ana

erob

ic d

iges

ters

the

uni

vers

ity r

esea

rche

d a

s

pot

entia

l ren

ew

able

en

ergy

sou

rces

.

Cle

anW

orld

fina

nce

d th

e m

ajo

rity

of t

he p

roje

ct w

ith

priv

ate

equ

ity a

nd a

co

mm

erci

al lo

an w

ith F

irst

Nor

ther

n B

ank.

App

roxi

mat

ely

$2 m

illio

n in

pub

lic

fund

ing

cam

e fr

om

the

U.S

. De

part

men

t of E

ner

gy

and

the

Cal

iforn

ia E

nerg

y C

omm

issi

on.

Cle

anW

orld

’s o

ther

two

bio

dig

este

rs a

re in

the

Sac

ram

ent

o a

rea:

Th

e S

acra

men

to B

ioD

ige

ste

r o

pene

d in

Dec

embe

r 2

012

and

can

dig

est

25 to

ns p

er d

ay.

Con

stru

ctio

n is

un

derw

ay to

exp

and

its s

ize

to

dige

st 1

00

ton

s p

er d

ay a

nd p

rodu

ce 7

00,0

00 g

allo

ns p

er

yea

r o

f ren

ewab

le c

ompr

esse

d n

atu

ral g

as,

fue

ling

bot

h p

ublic

and

pri

vate

flee

ts.

UC D

avis

bio

dige

ster t

urns

cam

pus w

aste

into

cam

pus e

nerg

y »

Colle

ge o

f Eng

inee

ring

UC D

avis

http

://en

gine

erin

g.uc

davi

s.edu

/blo

g/uc

-dav

is-b

iodi

geste

r-tu

rns-

cam

pus-

was

te-c

ampu

s-en

ergy

/

2 of

35/

7/20

14 1

:31

P M

79

APPENDIX D: EMAIL FROM Z-BEST OF GILROY

Alternatives Analysis for Resource Recovery Operations

Grounds Services, Physical Plant University of California at Santa Cruz

80

Subject: RE: Paper‐based organic compos ng pping fee?From: "John Doyle" <[email protected]>Date: 3/12/2014 1:38 PMTo: "'Bradley E. Angell'" <[email protected]>

Brad,

the feedstock you are describing is not suitable for Zbest facility.

Thanks for the inquiry

John DoyleOperations ManagerZbest Products980 Hwy 25 Gilroy, CA 95020408‐846‐1575408‐722‐1999 cell

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐From: Bradley E. Angell [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, March 10, 2014 5:38 PMTo: [email protected]; Roger EdbergSubject: Paper‐based organic composting tipping fee?

Howdy John:

It was good to talk to you on the phone.

UC Santa Cruz is looking to expand our organics/composting program oncampus, and I would like to know if you have the capacity/ability accept apaper‐intensive organic feedstock at your Gilroy facility. Such paper itemswould include used paper towels from bathrooms, compostable clam‐shells,compostable silverware, pizza boxes, non‐recyclable computer and tablepaper, and other like items.

At this point, I am simply putting together a cost/benefit feasibilitystudy, so the location of a potential deposit location (for a mileage/costestimate) and the per ton tipping fee is all I need to continue my analysis.

Thanks for your help!

Sincerely,Brad Angell

‐‐Brad AngellGrounds Services ‐ Physical PlantPhone: 831/459‐3947Cell: 831/419‐9720

RE:Paper‐basedorganiccompostingtippingfee?

1of1 5/2/20144:43PM

81

APPENDIX E: SAIC SOLID WASTE ASSESSMENT

AND EARLY ACTION ITEMS REPORT



82

Solid Waste Assessment and Early Action Items Report University of California, Santa Cruz

February 2012

83

Solid Waste Assessment and Early Action Items Report University of California, Santa Cruz

February 2012

85

This report has been prepared for the use of the client for the specific purposes identified in the report. The conclusions, observations and recommendations contained herein attributed to SAIC constitute the opinions of SAIC. To the extent that statements, information and opinions provided by the client or others have been used in the preparation of this report, SAIC has relied upon the same to be accurate, and for which no assurances are intended and no representations or warranties are made. SAIC makes no certification and gives no assurances except as explicitly set forth in this report.

© 2012 SAIC All rights reserved.

86

File: 013105/2652109006

Solid Waste Assessment and Early Action Items Report

University of California, Santa Cruz

Table of Contents

Acknowledgements

Section 1 SOLID WASTE ASSESSMENT ........................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Existing Conditions and Data Needs ....................................................... 1-1 1.3 Waste Assessment Methodology ............................................................. 1-4 1.4 Waste Assessment Results ....................................................................... 1-8 1.5 Ongoing Research Needs ....................................................................... 1-16

Section 2 WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING: EARLY ACTION ITEMS ........................................................................................................................ 2-1

2.1 Analyzed Solid Waste Collection Data.................................................... 2-1 2.2 Recommendations for Early Action Items ............................................... 2-6

2.2.1 Policy ........................................................................................... 2-6 2.2.2 Program ........................................................................................ 2-6 2.2.3 Metrics ......................................................................................... 2-7 2.2.4 Infrastructure ................................................................................ 2-8 2.2.5 Staffing ......................................................................................... 2-8 2.2.6 Communications .......................................................................... 2-9 2.2.7 Fee Structure ................................................................................ 2-9

87

Table of Contents

ii SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC SAIC FINAL waste report.docx 5/19/14

List of Tables 1-1 Weight-Based Data ............................................................................................... 1-5 1-2 List of Buildings Selected for Waste Assessment ................................................ 1-7 1-3 Volume of Discards, by College Affiliation ....................................................... 1-10 1-4 Estimated Weight of Discards, by College Affiliation ....................................... 1-11 1-5 Volume of Discards by Building Function ......................................................... 1-12 1-6 Estimated Weight of Discards, by Building Function ........................................ 1-13 1-7 Overall Composition of Materials Sampled ....................................................... 1-14 2-1 Estimated Total Trash Generation, By College, January - December 2010 ......... 2-2 2-2 Estimated Total Trash Generation, by Building Type, January -

December 2010 ................................................................................................. 2-3 2-3 Percentile Rankings of Generators, by Trash Disposal Volume .......................... 2-4 2-4 Top 40 Percent of Buildings, by Trash Volume (2010) ....................................... 2-5 List of Appendices A Field Data Sheets

88

File: 013105/2652109006

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report was written by Steven Sherman, Senior Sustainability Consultant, of SAIC’s Oakland office, with assistance from SAIC colleagues Randy Russell, Sustainability Analyst, and Reagan Chung, Environmental Scientist (University of California, San Cruz (UCSC), Class of 2008).

This project was directed by Jim Dunne, Director of Physical Plant, with assistance from Roger Edberg, Senior Superintendent, Grounds Services, and Elida Erickson, Sustainability Coordinator. Several Physical Plant, Custodial, Sustainability Office, Food Service, and Housing staff, and temporary student campus recycling program support staff provided valuable logistical help and observations during the conduct of the work.

The project was funded by the Office of the Campus Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor, for the purposes of gathering and analyzing data for use in making recommendations and developing waste diversion strategies that support making further progress toward the system-wide policy of 75 percent diversion by 2012 and zero waste by 2020.

89

File: 013005/2652109006

1. SOLID WASTE ASSESSMENT

1. Introduction In April 2011, the Office of the Campus Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor allocated funds to obtain professional services to perform data gathering and analysis, recommend and develop waste diversion strategies, and develop tracking systems and training programs. This waste assessment study and early action recommendations report was launched in partial fulfillment of this initiative.

In her memo to Tom Vani, Vice Chancellor, Business and Administrative Services, Alison Galloway, Campus Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor, provided context for this work: “In order to make further progress toward the system-wide policy of 75 percent diversion by 2012 and 100 percent diversion by 2020, an assessment of campus solid waste is needed to assist in strategic decision-making. Improvement of waste diversion infrastructure and development of outreach, education and behavioral change initiatives will be included in the recommendations.”

In September 2011, SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure (“SAIC”) was retained to provide the requested professional services. In October 2011, preparations were made for the conduct of a waste assessment. The waste assessment was carried out over a three-day period spanning two weeks in November 2011. Data analysis was performed during December 2011.

The field-level waste assessment work provides a foundation for the broader task: identification of a set of early action items for implementation. As identified in the body of the report, the actions will be geared toward waste reduction and materials diversion and toward greater operating efficiency. These items cover actions that are anticipated to be able to begin to demonstrate tangible results in the 2011-2012 academic year, with expansion in the following academic year.

2. Existing Conditions and Data Needs To gain an initial understanding of existing conditions, SAIC reviewed the following types of UCSC documents:

background recycling memos prepared in May 2011 by Physical Plant student interns that provided an overview of recycling activities and accomplishments,

disposal and diversion data,

dorm waste studies conducted by Ecology Action in 2010, residential recycling implementation plan prepared by Ecology Action (“UCSC

91

1

1-2 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC SAIC FINAL waste report.docx

Residential Recycling Implementation Plan Best Practices,” undated),

sustainability plan,

system-wide diversion measurement and policy framework.

In addition, SAIC met with and interviewed several staff from various departments, such as:

Physical Plant

Housing

Food Service

Sustainability

From these efforts, the following working assumptions and perspectives were developed about existing conditions and data needs:

UCSC has a mandate to raise its diversion rate (reported by UCSC to be 66 percent in FY 2010-11). Sixty-three percent diversion of general campus refuse, 66 percent campus diversion with E-Waste, and 84 percent campus refuse with C/D data.

UCSC has engaged in various waste reduction and recycling activities for several years. Reusables are collected by various departments. Recyclables are collected by Physical Plant, and rudimentary and preliminary materials processing (mostly sorting into higher grades of commodities) occurs in the parking lot next to the Physical Plant. Food scraps are collected from central food service areas and taken in compactors to a composting site in Monterey County. Various informal recycling and composting activities also exist. Overall, participation is widespread, and support appears strong amongst everybody SAIC encountered for deepened efforts, more uniform program offerings, and more extensive outreach efforts and consistent outreach materials.

The gathering, analysis and reporting of waste diversion data is a cumbersome and time-consuming task for UCSC staff. The resulting diversion figure is fraught with challenges, such as information gaps and methodological inconsistencies from year to year. Indeed, this effort inhibits the ability of the few professional staff at Physical Plant who work on recycling to concentrate squarely on advancing program implementation and engaging with other departments in strategy and policy development, and education and outreach. Unlike local governments and special districts throughout the state, UCSC (and the university system overall) does not use the State of California’s updated methodology, which has shifted from diversion-based estimation to disposal-based accounting.

92

SOLID WASTE ASSESSMENT

File: 013105/2652109006 SAIC Energy, Environment & Infrastructure, LLC 1-3

UCSC does not have a waste reduction coordinator who focuses on ways to reduce the generation of discards, whether in the form of recyclables, compostables, or trash. The act of generating materials that require collection and processing tends to signify an inefficient use of financial and material resources. A waste reduction coordinator focuses on ways to prevent waste rather than how to collect and market recoverable components of solid waste. Frequently, these distinct functions are combined in a single job, but not always.

UCSC does not have a recycling coordinator who focuses on education and outreach for greater student and staff engagement. The duties that are typically associated with such a position are spread in an overlapping, disjoint, and frequently informal manner amongst several staff in several departments.

UCSC’s recycling operations site has been moved repeatedly. There is no permanent or semi-permanent location for it.

UCSC has not allocated a site for a composting system that could process a substantial portion of the campus’ discarded organics, such as food scraps and compostable, non-recyclable paper.

UCSC’s waste collection and recycling program does not operate on a clear fee-for-service basis. Some services have fees, which others, such as collecting recyclables in carts, do not. At several buildings, Physical Plant materials haulers spend considerable time aggregating materials from inside buildings, a task typically done by custodians in large commercial facilities rather than by haulers. At the operations level, the cost model does not ensure the program’s economic sustainability.

While UCSC’s dorm waste study provided guidance for setting early action priorities for one major building type (dorms), it did not directly address the setting of priorities throughout the campus.

UCSC did not need a full-blown waste characterization in order to develop early actions. Rather, a rapid visual waste assessment, using quantitative analysis and bolstered by qualitative observations, of a large sample of buildings was thought by staff and the consulting team to be adequate and fiscally prudent.

93

1


3. Waste Assessment Methodology Three days spread over a two-week period were allocated for the conduct of visual waste assessments. The chosen dates (Monday, November 7th; Monday, November 14th; Tuesday, November 15th) were intended to be reasonably representative of two typical weeks on campus. Two Mondays were selected in order to increase the likelihood of having trash dumpsters that contained adequate samples; Monday is the day of highest trash collection volume. SAIC staff trained four students of the Campus Recycling Program Support Staff employed by the Sustainability Office to provide assistance as needed; in addition, field-level logistical assistance provided by Physical Plant staff helped the work to proceed at maximum efficiency.

The waste assessments sought to identify broad categories of recoverable materials found within discarded trash, on a volumetric basis by percentage. Samples were categorized as follows:

Recyclable corrugated cardboard

Recyclable mixed paper

Expanded polystyrene (not necessarily recoverable, but a material of interest to UCSC)

Landscape trimmings

Food waste and non-recyclable but compostable paper

Recyclable glass containers

Recyclable aluminum containers

Recyclable ferrous metal containers

Recyclable plastic containers

Trash

The sample consisted of a broad range of generator types (“building functions”) thought in advance to offer a reasonable opportunity for greater diversion, such as: dining, student housing, academic buildings, science labs, administration, and others. Campus-wide, there are approximately 150 trash dumpsters that are serviced by Physical Plant. SAIC sampled the contents of 49 dumpsters, spread approximately equally over the three days. The sample was skewed toward larger trash generators, which were determined based on Physical Plant records of trash volumes collected in the previous academic year.

To sample the contents, bags were sliced open and materials were spread around to observe well at least a two-foot layer of the contents of the dumpster. Visual estimates were then made and recorded of the volume of targeted materials present in the sample, on a percentage basis. These volumetric-based data were converted to weight-based data, using industry-accepted density estimates shown in the following table:

94



Table 1-1 Weight-Based Data

*Data Source Abbreviations

CIWMB 2006 refers to the report “Targeted Statewide Waste Characterization Study: Detailed Characterization of Construction and Demolition Waste".

U.S. EPA refers to two sources. 1) Business Waste Prevention Quantification Methodologies - Business Users Guide: Washington, D.C. and Los Angeles: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste, and University of California at Los Angeles Extension, Recycling and Municipal Solid Waste Management Program: Grant Number CX 824548-01-0, 1996. 2) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's "Measuring Recycling: A Guide for State and Local Governments," document no. EPA530-R-97-011, published September 1997.

R. W. Beck 2011 refers to a conversion factor table developed in-house for use in California Waste Assessments.

SEE&I 2011 refers to a conversion factor derived by SEE&I.

Material Group Density (Pounds/Cubic Yards) Density (Tons/Cubic Yards) Source*

Uncoated OCC/Kraft 105 0.05 RW Beck 2011

Prunings, Trimmings, Branches, & Stumps 127 0.06 CIWMB 2006 #6 Expanded Polystyrene Packaging & Insulation

32 0.02 CIWMB 2006

Mixed Paper - Remainder/Composite Paper 364 0.18 U.S. EPA 1996, 1997Recyclable Glass Bottles and Jars 693 0.35 RW Beck 2011Aluminum Beverage Containers 65 0.03 RW Beck 2011#1 PET Water bottles 35 0.02 RW Beck 2011#2 HDPE Bottles/Jars 27 0.01 RW Beck 2011#3-#7 Other - ALL 50 0.03 RW Beck 2011Plastic Containers (all resins) 39 0.02 Median of RW Beck 2011 factorsFerrous containers (tin cans) 150 0.08 RW Beck 2011Compostable Paper 53 0.03 RW Beck 2011Food Scraps - Remainder/Composite 1,123 0.60 RW Beck 2011Food Scraps + Compostable Paper 300 0.15 SEE&I 2011Campus Trash (loose) 90 0.05 U.S. EPA 1997Residential Trash (loose) 225 0.11 U.S. EPA 1997

95

1


The data shown in Table 1-1 are shown in graphic form below:

Prior to the field work, SAIC staff analyzed 12 consecutive recent months of trash collection data, and categorized buildings by affiliation and function. One objective was to sample buildings from most or all of the colleges. Another objective was to sample buildings from most of the main building function categories. Below is the list of 50 buildings, organized by building function and affiliation, that were selected for inclusion in the waste assessment.

96



Table 1-2 List of Buildings Selected for Waste Assessment

Building Function

Student Housing College 8 College 9 College 10 Cowell Crown Merrill Kresge Oakes Porter Stevenson None

COLLEGE EIGHT DORMS x

COLLEGE EIGHT APARTMENTS x

COLLEGE NINE DORMS x

COLLEGE NINE APTS x

COLLEGE TEN DORMS x

COWELL A‐7, GRNDS. x

CROWN/MERRILL APTS. x

CROWN ‐ GAUSS x

KRESGE ‐ WEST x

KRESGE EAST (NEW HSG), N. x

MERRILL ‐ C & D x

MERRILL ‐ A (east) x

OAKES APTS. x

OAKES DORMS x

PORTER ‐ WEST x

PORTER INFILL APTS x

STEVENSON INFILL APTS. x

STEVENSON RH‐5 & RH‐6 x

VILLAGE WEST x

CAMPER PARK R.V. x

Dining Service

COLLEGE EIGHT FOOD SERVICE x

COWELL/STEV FOOD SERVICE x

CROWN/MER FOOD SERVICE x

KRESGE NORTH (FOOD SERVICE, Owl's Nest) x

Academic/ Administration

COLLEGE NINE ACADEMIC x

COLLEGE TEN ACADEMIC x

PORTER‐ACADEMIC x

APPLIED SCIENCES (Jack Basking 1) x

PHYS. SCIENCE BUILDING ‐ PSB x

BAYTREE BOOKSTORE (Hagar) x

ENGINEERING BUILDING 2 x

HUMANITIES x

INTERDISC. SCI BLDING (ISB) x

SCIENCE LIBRARY x

x

CLASSSROOM UNIT I x

COMMUNICATIONS x

KERR HALL x

HAHN STUDENT SERVICES x

ARC Academic Resource Center x

PERFORMING ARTS‐SOUTH x

Science/ Labs/ Medical

THIMANN LABS x

SINSHEIMER LABS x

EARTH & MARINE SCIENCE x

Family/ Faculty Housing

FAM STU HSG ‐ 200 LOOP x

FACULTY APTS. x

GRADUATE HOUSING x

Semi Public Location

FIELD HOUSE EAST (E) x

STUDENT UNION & GRAD COM‐(back) x

LIBRARY

College Affiliation

97

1


On an anecdotal basis at some of the buildings, SAIC also visually assessed recyclable containers for level and type of contamination, placement, size, and adequacy of signage.

4. Waste Assessment Results The waste assessment proceeded nearly completely as planned, in terms of sample size (n=49; planned n=50), adequacy of amount of materials in dumpsters during sample (100 percent adequate), and ordinariness of the composition of the trash at each sampled building (100 percent typical, according to Physical Plant staff).

Materials were categorized into the following material types:

Old corrugated cardboard (OCC): included brown and colored corrugated cardboard boxes. Excluded: waxed, boxboard, and composite paper products.

Mixed paper: included colored boxboard such as cereal boxes, white and colored office paper, notebook paper and similar white and colored paper products such as clean brown paper bags or sticky notes. Excluded: corrugated cardboard, soiled pizza boxes and aseptic packaging.

Expanded Polystyrene Packaging: included polystyrene packing peanuts and packaging blocks and other polystyrene protective foam packaging for furniture, electronics and other delicate items. Excluded: used polystyrene hot/cold cups and used food to-go containers like “clamshells.”

Landscape Trimmings: included woody branches, pruning, leaves, grass clippings, flowers, and bark. Excluded: purchased food.

Food Scraps and Compostable Paper: included food matter, such as fruits, rinds, vegetables, grains, dairy, and meat; used paper towels and napkins, pizza boxes, paper food containers, soiled brown paper bags, and used paper cold/hot cups. Excluded: waxed corrugated cardboard boxes, coffee cup lids, bio-plastic cups, paper milk cartons, paper egg batter cartons, clean white and colored office paper, landscape trimmings, paper towels from science laboratories.

Glass Bottles and Jars: included clear, green and brown beverage containers such as beverage bottles, jars and lab beakers. Excluded: windows and beverage glasses.

Aluminum Containers: included beverage containers, pie plates and clean foil. Excluded: soiled foil and soup cans.

Ferrous Containers (tin cans): included ribbed soup cans, #10 tin cans, and other cans. Excluded: aluminum foil, aluminum soda cans, and large bulky scrap metal such as office furniture and chairs.

98



Plastic Containers: included all #1 - #5 plastics, plastic bottles for soft drinks, water, juice, sports drinks, mouthwash, ketchup and salad dressing, food jars for peanut butter, jelly, yogurt, bottles for milk, cosmetics, shampoo, household cleaners, dish and laundry detergents. Excluded plastics: #6 - #7, food service items such as cups, coffee cup lids, plates, bowls, cutlery, food takeout containers (clamshells), meat and poultry trays, plastic grocery bags, garbage bags, packing peanuts, protective foam packaging for furniture, electronics and other delicate items.

Trash: includes used polystyrene hot/cold cups and used food to-go containers like “clamshells,” aseptic beverage containers, bio-plastic cups, solo® plastic cups, windows, beverage glasses, plastics #6 - #7, food service items such as cups, plates, bowls, cutlery, food takeout containers (clamshells), meat and poultry trays, milk carton containers (not accepted for composting), egg batter containers (not accepted for composting), paper towels from science laboratories, protective laboratory gloves, loose plastic grocery bags, garbage bags; bulky furniture items, construction/demolition debris. Excluded: old corrugated cardboard, mixed paper, expanded polystyrene packaging, landscape trimmings, food scraps, compostable paper, glass bottles, glass jars, aluminum containers, ferrous containers (tin cans) and plastic containers (#1 - #5).

In the following four tables, summary results are presented in terms of volume and weight of materials by college affiliation and by building function. A fifth table provides an overall summary of the composition of materials.

No attempt was made to analyze the cause of variability of results between colleges. That variability could have come from various sources, including: error or inconsistency in field-level estimation and recording; data input or analysis error; sample error; inherent differences between the waste streams of the various samples.

99

1


Table 1-3 Volume of Discards, by College Affiliation

Totals may not sum to 100 percent due to rounding.

Analysis: The top three recyclable materials, on a volume basis, were food scraps and compostable paper (40 percent) (two materials counted together) and mixed recyclable paper (8 percent). These materials constituted nearly half of the volume of discards overall. Trash (excluding expanded polystyrene) was an estimated 40 percent of total discards by volume container, relative to the results at other building functions.

COLLEGE Uncoated

Corrugated Cardboard

Mixed

Recyclable Paper

Expanded

Polystyrene

Landscape Trimmings

Food Scraps + Compostable Paper

Glass Bottles & Jars

Aluminum Containers

Ferrous Containers (tin cans)

Plastic Containers

Trash

No Affiliation 3% 9% 3% 0% 38% 0% 1% 0% 3% 42%

College 8 2% 4% 0% 3% 22% 1% 2% 0% 6% 61%

College 9 1% 9% 3% 0% 40% 2% 1% 0% 8% 36%

College 10 2% 14% 7% 0% 43% 0% 1% 0% 9% 25%

Cowell 1% 4% 2% 0% 41% 0% 3% 0% 3% 45%

Crown 5% 8% 2% 0% 46% 0% 1% 5% 3% 30%

Kresge 5% 7% 0% 0% 38% 3% 2% 0% 10% 35%

Merrill 1% 2% 1% 0% 83% 0% 0% 0% 2% 11%

Oakes 0% 5% 0% 0% 60% 0% 2% 0% 7% 26%

Porter 2% 10% 1% 0% 35% 0% 2% 0% 6% 45%

Stevenson 5% 10% 0% 0% 33% 2% 7% 0% 11% 32%

TOTAL 3% 8% 3% 0% 40% 1% 1% 0% 4% 40%

MATERIAL CATEGORIES % of Total Waste (vol)

100



Table 1-4 Estimated Weight of Discards, by College Affiliation


Analysis: The top three recyclable materials, on an estimated weight basis, were food scraps and compostable paper (48 percent) (two materials counted together) and mixed recyclable paper (14 percent). These materials constituted over 60 percent of the weight of discards overall. Trash (excluding expanded polystyrene) was an estimated 32 percent of total discards by weight.

COLLEGE Uncoated


Mixed

Recyclable Paper

Expanded

Polystyrene

Landscape Trimmings



Aluminum Containers


Plastic Containers

Trash

No Affiliation 2% 17% 1% 0% 48% 2% 0% 0% 1% 29%

College 8 1% 6% 0% 2% 28% 2% 0% 0% 1% 60%

College 9 1% 15% 1% 0% 40% 6% 0% 0% 1% 36%

College 10 1% 23% 1% 0% 53% 0% 0% 0% 2% 20%

Cowell 1% 8% 0% 0% 36% 1% 1% 0% 1% 53%

Crown 1% 8% 0% 0% 66% 1% 0% 2% 0% 20%

Kresge 2% 10% 0% 0% 45% 10% 0% 0% 2% 32%

Merrill 0% 6% 0% 0% 71% 0% 0% 0% 1% 21%

Oakes 0% 7% 0% 0% 69% 0% 1% 0% 1% 22%

Porter 1% 17% 0% 0% 47% 0% 1% 0% 1% 34%

Stevenson 2% 15% 0% 0% 45% 6% 2% 0% 2% 29%

TOTAL 1% 14% 1% 0% 48% 2% 0% 0% 1% 32%

MATERIAL CATEGORIES % of Total Waste (tons)

101

1


Table 1-5 Volume of Discards by Building Function


Analysis: For each type of building function, food scraps and compostable paper constituted the largest single category of recyclable material by far, on a volume basis. The range for this material type was from 28 percent (Family/Faculty Housing) to 62 percent (Semi-Public Location), with an average of 40 percent overall.

On a material-by-material basis, the highest concentrations by volume were found at the following building functions: uncoated corrugated cardboard, Semi-Public Location (7 percent); mixed recyclable paper, Student Housing (11 percent); expanded polystyrene, Enterprise (5 percent); landscape trimmings, Science Labs/Medical (1 percent); food scraps and compostable paper, Semi-Public Location (62 percent); glass bottles and jars, Enterprise and Dining Service (2 percent); aluminum containers, Student Housing (2 percent); tin cans, Dining Service (2 percent); plastic containers, Semi-Public Location (8 percent); trash

BUILDING FUNCTION Uncoated


Mixed

Recyclable Paper

Expanded

Polystyrene

Landscape Trimmings



Aluminum Containers


Plastic Containers

Trash

Student Housing 2% 11% 2% 0% 43% 1% 2% 1% 7% 31%

Family/ Faculty Housing 0% 8% 0% 0% 28% 0% 1% 0% 6% 57%

Enterprise 3% 8% 5% 0% 30% 2% 0% 0% 0% 53%

Dining Service 1% 1% 1% 0% 29% 2% 1% 2% 4% 59%

Academic/ Administration 2% 7% 3% 0% 47% 0% 1% 0% 3% 37%

Science Labs/ Medical 5% 5% 3% 1% 32% 0% 0% 0% 4% 48%

Semi Public Location 7% 8% 0% 0% 62% 0% 0% 0% 8% 14%

TOTAL 3% 8% 3% 0% 40% 1% 1% 0% 4% 40%

MATERIAL CATEGORIES % of Total Waste (vol)

102



(excluding expanded polystyrene), Dining Service (59 percent). Counterintuitively, higher percentages of trash by various building functions (e.g., Dining Service, 59 percent; Family/Faculty Housing, 57 percent) means that there was a lower percentage of recyclable and compostable materials by volume incorrectly discarded in the sampled trash container, relative to the results at other building functions.

Table 1-6 Estimated Weight of Discards, by Building Function


Analysis: For each type of building function, food scraps and compostable paper constituted the largest single category of recyclable material, on a weight basis, with one exception. The range for this material type was from 22 percent (Enterprise) to 70 percent (Semi-Public Location), with an average of 49 percent overall.

BUILDING FUNCTION Uncoated


Mixed

Recyclable Paper

Expanded

Polystyrene

Landscape Trimmings



Aluminum Containers


Plastic Containers

Trash

Student Housing 1% 16% 0% 0% 50% 2% 1% 0% 1% 29%

Family/ Faculty Housing 0% 11% 0% 0% 43% 1% 0% 0% 1% 45%

Enterprise 2% 24% 2% 0% 22% 10% 0% 0% 0% 41%

Dining Service 0% 2% 0% 0% 31% 7% 0% 2% 1% 58%

Academic/ Administration 2% 17% 1% 0% 55% 1% 0% 0% 1% 23%

Science Labs/ Medical 3% 14% 1% 1% 53% 2% 0% 0% 1% 26%

Semi Public Location 5% 13% 0% 0% 70% 0% 0% 0% 2% 9%

TOTAL 1% 14% 1% 0% 49% 2% 0% 0% 1% 31%

MATERIAL CATEGORIES % of Total Waste (tons)

103

1


On a material-by-material basis, the highest concentrations by weight were found at the following building functions: uncoated corrugated cardboard, Semi-Public Location (5 percent); mixed recyclable paper, Enterprise (24 percent); expanded polystyrene, Enterprise (2 percent); landscape trimmings, Science Labs/Medical (1 percent); food scraps and compostable paper, Semi-Public Location (70 percent); glass bottles and jars, Enterprise (10 percent); aluminum containers, Student Housing (1 percent); tin cans, Dining Service (2 percent); plastic containers, Semi-Public Location (2 percent); trash (excluding expanded polystyrene), Dining Service (58 percent). Counterintuitively, higher percentages of trash by various building functions (e.g., Dining Service, 58 percent; Family/Faculty Housing, 45 percent) means that there was a lower percentage of recyclable and compostable materials by weight incorrectly discarded in the sampled trash container, relative to the results at other building functions.

Table 1-7 Overall Composition of Materials Sampled

Volume: Overall, food and compostable paper constituted 40 percent of the discarded materials sampled, as did trash (excluding expanded polystyrene). The other 20 percent was divided among various materials, led by mixed paper (8 percent).

Weight: Overall, food and compostable paper constituted 49 percent of the discarded materials sampled. Trash (excluding expanded polystyrene) was an estimated 32 percent of the total weight of the discards. Mixed paper was 14 percent of the total.

Material Type

Cardboard 3% 1%

Mixed Paper 8% 14%

Expanded Polystyrene 3% 1%

Landscape Trimmings 0% 0%

Food+Compost Paper 40% 49%

Food 5% 37%

Compost Paper 34% 12%

Containers 6% 3%

Glass 1% 2%

Aluminum 1% 0%

Ferrous 0% 0%

Plastic 4% 1%

Trash 40% 32%

Total 100% 100%

Volume Weight

Grand Total of Discards

104



Additional Analysis: On days 2 and 3 of the waste assessment, estimates were made of the relative amount, by volume, of food within the food and compostable paper category. These estimates yielded the following results:

By volume, food is 13 percent of the food and compostable paper category, and compostable paper is 87 percent of this category.

By weight, food is 76 percent of the food & compostable paper category, and compostable paper is 24 percent of this category.

Overall, food is an estimated 5 percent of the volume of discarded material, and 37 percent of the weight. This means that food scraps was found in the largest concentration, by weight, of any material type, including trash.

Overall, compostable paper is an estimated 34 percent of the volume of discarded material, and 12 percent of the weight. This means that compostable paper takes up the most space by far in the trash container of any recyclable material found in the samples. Compostable paper, which appeared to be mainly used paper towels thought to come largely from restrooms, thus had the third highest concentration, by weight, of the recyclable materials, after food and mixed paper.

Comparison of Results with Prior Studies:

In 2010, Ecology Action (EA) assessed trash generated by residents in UCSC’s dorms. Here are some comparisons:

Both organizations found that the combined category of food and compostable paper was the largest single material type. EA reported that food and compostable paper was 53 percent (unclear whether is by volume or weight) of the “residential” sector, while SAIC results show that food and compostable paper was 50 percent of the weight at Student Housing buildings.

EA found that recyclables other than food and compostable paper were 31 percent of the volume of the residential sector and approximately 35 percent of the office/classroom sector. SAIC’s results show that recyclables other than food and compostable paper were 26 percent of the volume at Student Housing buildings and 16 percent at Academic/Administration buildings.

EA found a substantially lower concentration of trash (average of approximately 15 percent by volume; a summary by weight was not found) than SAIC did for these two sectors (average of approximately 34 percent by volume, and 26 percent by weight).

105

1


In our opinion, the two studies’ key result is consistent, namely that food and compostable paper is the largest single material type found in disposed waste. Differences in materials and sector definitions, investigator training, sampling methods, analytical techniques, and inherent variability in the sample population may account for the variability in the studies’ other results.

Other Information:

In terms of useful anecdotal information, SAIC encountered and interviewed two student compost haulers from SEC, who were working with UCSC staff member Silas Snyder and Kresge Composting. SAIC also conducted limited visual assessments of cross-contamination in recycling and organics containers (e.g., Porter, Unit A). In addition, SAIC learned from discussions with UCSC staff and City solid waste management staff of an undetermined but sizable number of UCSC vehicles that self-haul materials to the Santa Cruz Landfill, sometimes for landfilling and sometimes for recycling.

5. Ongoing Research Needs As an ancillary part of the project, UCSC sought to build staff and student capacity to conduct future waste assessments. To this end, SAIC worked closely with Physical Plant and Sustainability Office staff in the planning and conduct of the waste assessments.

In addition, SAIC provided four students with field-level training. This training consisted of an overview of:

the goals and objectives of the work,

the differences between waste assessments and waste characterizations and how the results from each type of study are used,

methodology for the selection of samples,

waste assessment techniques at the dumpster level,

basic safety guidelines,

use of data recording instruments,

qualitative field-level interview techniques.

This training should be retained and passed on, by students and staff alike.

SAIC recommends that any staff or students who conduct future waste assessments receive adequate safety training before conducting field work. This focus is of paramount importance.

UCSC should consider conducting targeted waste assessments on a periodic basis. Such assessments could be done on an as-needed basis, annually, or less frequently (e.g., every five years).

106



At the micro-level, a baseline waste assessment of a few buildings can provide useful information about materials composition prior to a program change associated with a new pilot program. A second waste assessment of these same few buildings could then be done after the pilot program is well established. At the macro-level, a future targeted waste assessment might be used to understand which buildings generate the most problematic discarded materials, such as those for which there is no reasonable secondary market and hence are landfilled, or which building types need supplemental outreach in order to reduce the incidence of disposal in the trash of recyclable products or compostable materials.

107

File: 013105/2652109006

2. WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING:

EARLY ACTION ITEMS

This section was developed in accordance with UCSC’s need for analysis of its solid waste and recyclables generation and collection system, and recommendations for early action items that can help UCSC to move closer to achieving its stated 75 percent diversion goal, in the current academic year. This report consists of recommendations for early action items, bolstered by analyzed solid waste collection data and results of the waste assessment (Appendix A).

We began our work with a focus primarily on programmatic steps that can be taken in the short term, based on trash generation data, interviews, field observations, and the waste assessments, and then broadened the work when it became apparent to us that the matching of costs and revenues associated with program delivery needs greater attention from UCSC.

1. Analyzed Solid Waste Collection Data The primary source of solid waste generation data was raw disaggregated numbers entered by Physical Plant staff in monthly spreadsheets for calendar year 2010. The spreadsheets track visual estimates made by Physical Plant haulers of the amount (in cubic yards) of trash and recyclables collected in dumpsters, on a building-by-building and day-by-day basis. It lists the size of dumpster associated with each collection point. It summarizes on a building-by-building and monthly basis the estimated volume of trash and recyclables collected, the total service volume, and the number of pick-ups. In addition, the spreadsheet tracks the direct charges associated with the combination of these services during the month. The spreadsheets are not linked to provide annual or year-to-date results. The spreadsheets do not show the full collection picture. Various sources of diverted material, such as collection service results for recycling carts, roll-off boxes and organics compactors, are not shown in the “master” spreadsheet. As a result of the structure of the spreadsheet, no rapid tabulation could be made of total annual service volume by, and direct collection revenue, associated with various service categories (e.g., trash, recycling dumpsters, recycling carts, recycling roll-offs, organics compactors, etc.).

A primary purpose of analyzing the spreadsheet data was to develop an overview of the solid waste and recycling collection program results. Another was to extract from these rather unwieldy data logs some programmatic interpretations that could be useful to managers, in terms of allocating resources, discerning patterns and outliers, and raising questions that deserve further inquiry and resolution.

109

2


Several types of solid waste data were not analyzed, such as diversion results, revenues derived from the sale of recyclables, additional sources of revenue (such as indirect charges), and overall program budgets. Such analysis was beyond the scope of the work undertaken. The main focus was on identifying early actions to increase the diversion of materials.

Table 2-1 Estimated Total Trash Generation, By College, January - December 2010

Number of Dumpsters

Number of Dumpsters (%)

Estimated Trash Volume (cy)

Trash Volume (%)

College

Cowell 11 8 5,238 7

Crown 13 9 5,648 8

Eight 8 6 4,376 6

Nine 7 5 4,348 6

Ten 2 1 1,823 3

Kresge 7 5 2,956 4

Merrill 5 3 2,192 3

Oakes 9 6 3,956 5

Porter 9 6 5,095 7

Stevenson 7 5 3,081 4

Subtotal (for the colleges) 78 55 38,713 54

Unaffiliated

Food 2 1 1,034 1

Housing 18 13 9,446 13

Administration 7 5 4,119 6

Academic 19 13 13,415 19

Other 19 13 5,504 8

Subtotal Unaffiliated 65 45 33,518 46

Total (overall): 143 100 72,231 100

As shown in Table 2-1, there are 143 trash dumpsters serviced. Of this amount, 55 percent of them are affiliated with a particular college, as is 54 percent of the total volume of trash collected. The unaffiliated dumpsters predominantly include academic buildings (13 percent), other (13 percent) and housing (13 percent), and to a lesser degree, administration (5 percent) and food service (1 percent). Overall, an estimated 70,000 (72,231) cubic yards per year of trash are collected and landfilled. These figures do not include recycling.

110

WASTE REDUCTION AND RECYCLING:

EARLY ACTION ITEMS


Table 2-2 Estimated Total Trash Generation, by Building Type, January - December 2010

Building Type Estimated Trash Volume (cy)

Trash Volume (%)

Student Housing 30,980 43

Family/ Faculty Housing 7,124 10

Enterprise 2,282 3

Private Food Service 1,034 1

Dining Service 5,201 7

Academic / Administration 14,894 21

Science/ Labs/ Medical 8,353 12

Physical Plant 974 1

Semi Public Location 1,390 2

Total 72,231 100

As shown in Table 2-2, housing (student, family, and faculty) generates over half of the campus’ trash by volume, while academic and administration buildings generate an estimated 21 percent and science/labs/medical generate 12 percent. It is estimated that dining services generates only 7 percent by volume of the campus’ trash.

Further analysis was done on the student housing component shown in Table 2-2. Dorms generated approximately 17,000 cubic yards of trash in 2010, while apartments generated approximately 14,000 cubic yards of trash that year. In other words, dorms generated an estimated 55 percent of the total amount of trash generated by student housing.

111

2


Table 2-3 Percentile Rankings of Generators, by Trash Disposal Volume

Percentile Group Total Estimated Annual Trash Disposal (cy)

% of Estimated Annual Trash Disposal (cy)

Rank by Size (Disposal/ yr in cy) Generator

Description

1 1-20% Largest 25,508 35

2 21-40% Large 16,299 23

3 41-60% Middle 14,670 20

4 61-80% Low 11,434 16

5 81-100% Smallest 4,320 6

Estimated Volume of Total Trash Disposal (cy): 72,231 100

In Table 2-3, generators are grouped by quintile (20 percent slices) to show the relative effect of generator size, in terms of estimated volume of trash disposed annually. Group 1, the largest 20 percent of generators (approximately 30 buildings), generate 35 percent of UCSC’s trash. By contrast, Groups 4 and 5, representing 40 percent of all buildings, generate only 22 percent of the campus’ trash. These findings lead to the preliminary conclusion that concentrating waste reduction and recycling education and outreach efforts on the largest 30 to 50 buildings may yield substantial results in terms of additional diversion and overall performance.

112


EARLY ACTION ITEMS


Table 2-4 Top 40 Percent of Buildings, by Trash Volume (2010)

1-20 Percent Largest 21-40 Percent Largest

College Ten Dorms Family Student Housing – 500 Loop

Applied Sciences Family Student Housing – 300 Loop

Sinsheimer Labs Family Student Housing – 700 Loop

Thimann Labs Family Student Housing – 800 Loop

College Nine Dorms Village West

Cowell/Stev Food Service Village East

Phys. Science Building – PSB Crown/Merrill Apartments

Baytree Book Store (Hagar) College Eight Dorms

Engineering Building 2 Camper Park R.V.

Humanities Porter Food Service

Interdisc. Sci Building (ISB) Cowell Student Health

College Nine and Ten Dining Stevenson RH-5 and RH-6

Joe’s Pizza and Subs (Up in Back) Cowell Infill Apartments

Science Library Graduate Housing

TAPS College Eight Apartments

Earth and Marine Science Faculty Apartments

Cowell Infill Apartments College Nine Apartments (S)

Communications Faculty Apartments

Porter-West College Nine Apartments (M)

Porter-West College Nine Apartments (N)

Oakes Apartments Library

Porter-Academic Oakes Dorms

College Eight Dorms College Nine Academic

Porter Infill Apartments Faculty Apartments

Crown/Mer Food Service Porter-North

Family Student Housing – 200 Loop Cowell A-2

Family Student Housing – 100 Loop Kerr Hall

Family Student Housing – 400 Loop Cowell A-1

Family Student Housing – 600 Loop Crown/Merrill Apartments

The list of buildings shown in Table 2-4 includes the top 40 percent of buildings by trash volume (2010). A total of 58 buildings are listed.

113

2


2. Recommendations for Early Action Items Early action items are defined as steps that UCSC has a reasonable chance of beginning during FY 2011-12 that are consistent with UCSC’s zero waste policy and 75 percent waste diversion goal. The following recommendations stem from the foregoing data analysis and waste assessments, interviews and discussions with staff in several departments, discussions with students, and field observations. (Some of the steps may have been taken by the time this report became final, but are considered “early actions” in that they began or were expanded during FY 2011-12.) While not all of these recommendations are likely to be pursued at once, it is suggested that at least one recommendation from each category type should be pursued as early action items.

1. Policy 1. Require all solid waste and recyclables transfer to Santa Cruz Landfill be done

by Physical Plant. Doing so will reduce UCSC’s liability for off-site transport of materials to the landfill, will result in greater logistical efficiency, and will allow UCSC to keep track of disposal and diversion more fully. (To Be Determined)

1. Program Focus new waste diversion efforts this year and next on diverting food scraps

and compostable, non-recyclable paper, especially paper towels. This is by far the single largest category of divertable material currently disposed as trash. (Physical Plant)

Develop on-site organics management feasibility study. (To Be Determined)

Conduct pilot programs, including dorm chute closures, fee for single-use hot beverage containers at one or two coffee kiosks or other food service area (to promote waste reduction), and explore the potential to expand on-site composting in a decentralized manner. While these programs might not result in substantial diversion, they can help to encourage waste reduction. (Sustainability Office, with coordination with Physical Plant, Food Service, and Housing)

Evaluate the potential of adding paper towels (as discussed earlier, observed to be the largest fraction of compostable paper, which is a large component of the trash) to compactors for off-site composting. If feasible, begin implementation. If not, consider other off-site and on-site processing options. (Physical Plant)

Expand compostables collection to additional food service establishments. This step may be straightforward to accomplish relative to the weight of materials that would be diverted. (Physical Plant, in coordination with Dining)

114


EARLY ACTION ITEMS


Re-evaluate the utility of supplying paper towels in dorms. Consider alternative means of encouraging good hygiene for transmissible disease reduction. (Housing, in coordination with Environmental Health & Safety)

Restrain, discourage, do not recommend, or take no position on the purchasing of single-use bio-plastics for food service. For the most part, at present bio-plastics contaminate recyclable commodity streams, are not converted to soil amendments by the off-site compost facility, and are thought to increase greenhouse gas emissions in the near term when landfilled. While conceptually of value, at present they are frequently considered by professional recyclers and composters to be a problematic material. (Sustainability Office)

Bolster existing recycling education and outreach efforts at the ten largest generators, to increase diversion. Efforts include unifying, integrating, and updating messaging and behavior prompts, and providing direct, in-person outreach and training where appropriate. The list includes: College 10 Dorms; Applied Sciences; Sinsheimer Labs; Thimann Labs; College 9 Dorms; Cowell/Stevenson Food Service; Physical Science Building; Baytree Bookstore (Hagar); Engineering Building 2; Humanities. In 2010, these ten generators represented an estimated 16 percent of disposed trash (by volume) at UCSC.

These steps—new materials collected for recycling, pilot testing incentives for waste reduction, reviewing assumptions about bio-plastics’ benefits in the light of current empirical evidence, bolstering existing recycling efforts, and others—all will help UCSC take incremental strides toward meeting its 75 percent diversion and broader sustainability goals.

2. Metrics Review the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery’s

(CalRecycle’s) accepted methodology for disposal-based accounting for local governments; enacted by statute, this newer methodology moves beyond the diversion-based accounting approach that the UCSC system still uses. (Physical Plant, in coordination with Sustainability Office)

Decide whether to use CalRecycle’s current methodology. If yes, (a) calculate results in terms of total disposed waste and disposed waste per capita; (b) recommend that UCOP’s reporting requirements reflect CalRecycle’s accepted methodology. (Zero Waste Task Force)

Setting targets for annual disposal via landfilling, in tons and on a pounds per capita basis, will keep the focus on the environmental impacts of wasting materials. These figures are also much easier and less time consuming to measure and more accurate than how diversion is calculated.

115

2


Collect and analyze data regarding trash and recycling collection efficiency, in terms of cost per cubic yard of service capacity provided and cost per ton collected. (Physical Plant)

Collect and analyze cost/benefit data regarding pre-processing steps taken to produce commodities with higher market value. (Physical Plant)

These management steps will help to establish baseline information against which future comparisons can be made.

3. Infrastructure Upgrade rudimentary paper sorting system, to increase worker safety and

operating efficiency. At the low end of the capital investment spectrum, the sorting system could use a large stationary sorting table or a basic moving sort line. (Physical Plant)

Develop or update a capital equipment replacement schedule. (Physical Plant)

Develop a schedule for replacing non-standardized exterior and interior collection containers, university-wide. (Physical Plant)

Articulate the need for a permanent location for materials aggregation and processing, including for recyclables and possibly organics (e.g., food scraps and compostable paper). (Physical Plant)

To its current credit, UCSC’s recycling program runs with a modest level of capital investment. However, in order to achieve higher rates of diversion, achieve efficiencies of scale, and to preserve more of the value of the commodities, additional investment will be necessary, especially for the collection and pre-processing of recyclables.

4. Staffing Develop task description for a campus waste reduction and recycling

coordinator. (To Be Determined)

Evaluate and propose ways to hire more student employees and involve more student volunteers in waste reduction and recycling outreach, operations, and research (including the feasibility of centralized on-site processing of food scraps; and an evaluation of a rental program for reusables, a la UC Davis’ “Aggieware”). (Sustainability Office, in coordination with other Departments)

To approach or reach 75 percent diversion and beyond, and to reduce the generation of discarded material (whether as trash or recyclables), UCSC needs to have additional professional staff and labor who concentrate on such efforts. Opportunities abound to integrate students more into these efforts.

116


EARLY ACTION ITEMS


5. Communications Develop consistent signage (stickers, posters, signs, etc.) for use campus-wide.

(Physical Plant, in coordination with Sustainability Office)

Re-sticker all bins. (Physical Plant)

Affix posters where useful. (Physical Plant, in coordination with Sustainability Office)

Maintain and review annually the recycling website to reflect the most current list of reusable or recyclable materials accepted and their proper preparation. (Physical Plant)

Link the site to appropriate pages on the Office of Sustainability’s website. Consider using [email protected] as a link, rather than using an individual’s email, to help with brand identification and to avoid having outdated contact information. Encourage users to call the telephone number that appears on the recycling stickers. (Physical Plant)

Develop clear responsibilities and protocols for responding to waste reduction and recycling inquiries campus-wide, and communicate the content through the Office of Sustainability’s website and via the establishment of a recycling hotline (using the telephone number printed on recycling stickers). (Physical Plant, in coordination with Sustainability Office)

Developing an overall vision, strategy, and plan for effective communications about waste reduction and recycling will help UCSC to approach its zero waste and broader sustainability goals. While this work could be developed over the summer, early action items (a) through (d) above should be developed sooner.

6. Fee Structure Set up committee to write white paper report on issues raised, guiding

principles (including incentivizing waste reduction first and foremost and recycling second, with trash the last and most expensive choice), and recommendations for putting the solid waste and recycling program on an economically sustainable cost and revenue model. (Waste Task Force)

Make strides toward the fuller inclusion of major cost components in the rates, especially capital costs. It is assumed that a substantial portion of the true cost of service is not currently reflected in the rate. UCSC’s charges for trash collection are roughly one-quarter of what the City of Santa Cruz charges its commercial customers. (Physical Plant)

Whether all of these activities are accomplished in the first half of 2012 or not, it is useful to point toward a fee structure that works well in a 75 percent diversion scenario and beyond.

117

File: 013105/2652109006

1. FIELD DATA SHEETS

Three days spread over a two-week period were allocated for the conduct of visual waste assessments. The chosen dates (Monday, November 7th; Monday, November 14th; Tuesday, November 15th) were intended to be reasonably representative of two typical weeks on campus. This appendix consists of the field data sheets used to conduct the visual waste assessment. Each page is a single data sheet from the field collection. The first 17 pages show the 17 samples that were collected on Monday, November 7th. Pages 18 through 35 show the second day of sampling on Monday, November 14th. Sample site #2 on the second day was not assessed because it was a non-representative portrayal of its typical trash, due to a temporary equipment malfunction in the College 9 and 10 dining halls. Pages 15 through 50 show the 15 samples that were collected on Tuesday, November 15th.

119

File: 000000/99-99999-99999-9999

121

APPENDIX F: DRAFT REPORT ON THE APRIL 2014

CAMPUS-WIDE WASTE ASSESSMENT



122

Introduction

As of 2004, the University of California Office of the President (UCOP) established UC-

wide goals aimed at achieving environmental sustainability, one of which is Zero Waste by the

year 2020. UCOP has established Zero Waste as 95% of all materials exiting from University of

California campus streams being diverted from the landfill, by means of recycling, composting,

or other form of reuse (cite). In this context, waste refers to any material that cannot be recycled,

composted, or reused in any way, and so deemed unsalvageable.

To map UCSC’s progress towards Zero Waste by 2020, it is necessary to assess the

composition of materials leaving campus. A campus-wide waste assessment was conducted in

2011 by the external contractor, SAIC, hired by the University. Of the materials found in campus

dumpsters and destined for the landfill, almost half of the volume had the potential to be

diverted, consisting mainly of three materials: food scraps, compostable paper towels, and mixed

recyclable paper (CSP 2013).

Thanks to the information provided by this assessment, efforts have been made to reduce

the amount of divertible materials ending up in the landfill stream. This includes removing paper

towels from student residence halls, standardizing labeling of recycling containers around

campus, and overall increased education and outreach (CSP 2013). To measure these efforts and

the reassess the status of UCSC in reaching Zero Waste by 2020, the Campus Sustainability

Office, in partnership with the University’s Physical Plant Department, conducted a second

campus-wide assessment in April 2014.

This recent endeavor is the first assessment conducted by internal campus stakeholders,

without the help of hired outside contractors. Its purpose is to provide the campus with updated

data on UCSC’s waste diversion rate, in reporting to UCOP, as well as gauging the effectiveness

123

of waste reduction efforts and where these efforts can be focused in further reducing campus

waste.

Methodology and Procedure

The Waste Assessment Planning Committee, met on a weekly basis to plan and coordinate a

timeline for the project (Appendix H), a workforce, supplies, logistics, material categories, a

budget, and a daily schedule. The committee consisted of one Physical Plant employee, one

Grounds Services employee, four Sustainability Office employees, and external assistance from

a campus statician.

Times and Location

The UCSC Waste Assessment took place on the dates of April 14 and 15. With weather

conditions averaging at 65° F, the first assessment day lasted from 7:30am to 4:00pm and the

second assessment day from 7:00am to 3:30pm. An unpaid, half-hour long lunch was allotted at

midday, with two designated 15 minute breaks, one before lunch and one after. We found that

starting earlier was most efficient due to avoiding warm weather which hardens work condition

and increases the smell of waste, as well as avoiding the pickup of wind during the afternoon.

The UCSC Waste Assessment was managed at the outside and unused material holding area of

the off-campus facility at 2300 Delaware, Santa Cruz. This location was chosen due to the large

amount of open space provided, walled perimeter that blocked wind, close proximity to the main

campus, and seclusion from public or other campus operations.

Statistics and Logistics

The UCSC Waste Assessment was based on a sample of 50 out of 104 campus dumpsters.

While there are a total of 127 dumpsters on campus, 23 were disqualified due to being out of

124

service, auxiliary, or not meeting the 6 yard dimension standard. [Insert statistical reasoning

behind this decision.] Each dumpster was categorized as either kitchen, lab, mixed lab-office,

office, or residential. Of the 104 total, 9.6% of dumpsters were kitchen, 1.9% were lab, 9.6%

were mixed lab-office, 26.9% were office, and 51.9% were residential (Appendix E). In an effort

to have our sample adequately reflect the distribution of total campus dumpsters, similar

category percentages were applied to the smaller scale of 50. Kitchens had 4 dumpsters assessed

(8% of sample total), labs had 1 dumpster (2%), mixed lab-office had 5 dumpsters (10%), offices

had 13 dumpsters (26%), and residential had 27 dumpsters (54%). Within each category of our

sample, dumpsters were randomly selected to avoid a bias in the assessment (Appendix F).

Certain categories were combined or separated into single truck loads. All dumpsters

were collected on the morning of April 14, with half being sorted that day and half sitting

overnight to be sorted on April 15. On April 14, three different loads were assessed: one

dumpster from Porter A residential housing, then all dumpsters from kitchens, and followed by

the combined load of lab, mixed office-lab, and office dumpsters. Though the Porter A dumpster

was randomly selected and categorized as residential, we decided to look at it individually so as

to assess the distinct issue of trash chutes within residential housing and quantify the observation

by truck-drivers of large amounts of material contamination from these chutes. [Insert statistical

assessment of this decision.] On April 15, a single load of residential dumpsters was assessed.

Set-Up

At 2300 Delaware, a plastic tarp [insert details] was placed over a level surface spanning

around 20ft by 20ft. Rock weights were placed on the corners to stabilize the tarp and cylindrical

hay bumpers [insert details] were placed around the remaining perimeter to catch small debris

and soak liquid from dumpsters. 64-gallon bins lining the outside of the tarp were each labeled

125

with laminated signs in both English and Spanish designating a material type for that bin;

categories included refuse, plastic film, recyclable paper, mixed recyclables, compostable food

scraps, compostable other (bioware), paper towels, cardboard, Styrofoam, and other (E-

waste/reusable). Most categories directly reflect those collected by regular campus

waste/recycling operations. For example, mixed recycling was not separated into glass,

aluminum, or plastics because the campus normally collects these items all together as a single

material type. However, in the case of compostables, we chose to separate food scraps, paper

towels, and compostable other even though the campus usually provides conjoined collection.

This decision was made because it was especially important to directly assess programmatic

changes, such as the complete halt of residential paper towel installations starting in 2013. The

“other” category was included due to an expected small amounts of electronics/donateables/etc.

that would appear. Lastly, a weigh station was set up nearby consisting of a data sheet and an

industrial scale provided by Physical Plant.

Photo of categorized bins.

126

Photo of prepped waste assessment site.

Supplies, Services, and Budget

Appendix A

Items found necessary but not included within the Supplies and Budget Report were

additional shovels, sunscreen, safety glasses in addition to the safety goggles, and dust masks.

Physical Plant and the Sustainability Office roughly split the cost of the waste assessment. For

the Sustainability Office, Darlene Khalafi (Manager/Events Coordinator) was responsible for all

purchase orders (POs) after confirmation from Elida Erickson and Lacey Raak (Sustainability

Director).

Assessment Verifications

Before the assessment, verifications had to be gained from impacted/interested

stakeholders. In reserving the material holding area at 2300 Delaware, notification and

confirmation had to be gained from facility manager Sven Davis (831-459-1844). There were not

127

many qualms or concerns during this verification process due to the unused nature of the holding

area and a commitment to leave the area clean after assessment. A code was given to open the

mechanical gates and workers were allowed to use the building restrooms near work site.

In planning the waste assessment site, facilitators made sure to discuss the location and

layout with the UC Environmental Health and Safety (EH&S) department. After review, EH&S

found minimal difficulties with the layout and mainly stressed the importance of reducing liquid

waste from entering nearby drains, of which is elaborated on in the Discussion section.

The Sustainability Office leader of the waste assessment was Programs Manager, Elida

Erickson. Part of the Waste Assessment Committee, Elida represented the interests of the

Sustainability Office and finalized all agreements with Sustainability Director, Lacey Raak. For

Physical Plant, Roger Edberg as Senior Superintendent and Brad Angell as Maintenance

Coordinator both served on the Waste Assessment Committee and represented the services and

interests of the Grounds department.

Labor and Training

The waste assessment was carried out by 15 Labor Max workers, six Physical Plant staff,

and four Sustainability Office employees. There were no student volunteers, of which the

reasoning and implications are detailed in the discussion section.

Roles designated for sorting consisted of sorters and two bag-openers. These duties were

primarily fulfilled by Labor Max workers, while Physical Plant and Sustainability Office

employees assisted among fulfilling other duties. Data collection was carried out by a

Sustainability Office student employee, recording the weights of full bins. This individual was

also in charge of switching out bins on the pile perimeter when they became full, so as to ensure

that sorting flowed steadily. Once weighed, filled bins were deposited into a University truck

128

compactor by either the data recorder or a Physical Plant employee. However, in the case of

mixed recycling, collections were dumped in a separate roll-off bin to be recycled at the campus

waste facility.

Labor Max workers were led through a brief training facilitated by Sustainability Office

employee Elida Erickson at the beginning of the first sorting day. The training explained to

workers the purpose of the assessment, the different material categories, and what types of

materials belonged in each of these categories. Laborers were instructed to consult either Elida or

Physical Plant employee Roger Edberg if they were unclear about the categorization of a

particular item that they encountered while sorting. The training and labor roles are evaluated in

the Discussion section.

Photo of workers during waste assessment.

Assessment Process

To begin, trucks would dump a dumpster category’s material load directly on the center of

the tarp. From this central pile, two designated bag openers would pull materials, creating a

129

circumference of trash around the perimeter of the pile. The walkway used by bag openers

between the central pile and the circumference pile created a kind of “moat”. Temp workers

sorted materials from the circumference pile, depositing items into the various material-

designated bins lined up around the edge of the tarp. Facilitators found that forming the “moat”

between sorters and bag cutters/emptier was most efficient in having a continuous feed of waste

being categorized. This system of manual sorting was carried out until a “stew” of mixed, wet

materials was left behind and deemed too labor intensive to manually sort through. This “stew”

mixture was visually assessed by estimating the weight percentages (not volume) of the material

types. This visual assessment was calculated by taking the average of categorical estimates made

by three Physical Plant and Sustainability Office employees. Bins were then filled with the

“stew,” weighed, recorded on a separate data sheet section labeled “End Mix Estimates,” and

eventually calculated into the final assessments of dumpster type and material waste. [Insert

statistical assessment of this decision.]

Photo example of “moat” and “stew” during end of waste pile.

130

When bins were filled during the sort process, they were transported to a nearby weigh

station. During the waste assessment, facilitators documented two types of bins, one weighing

34.2 lbs and the other weighing 42.4 lbs. The scale was “zeroed” in relation to the bin type being

weighed so that only the waste inside was documented by the data collector. However, a data

mishap occurred half-way through the first day when our recorder realized bins of the same type

had differences in wheel size. To avoid statistical changes in our methods, we chose to continue

measurements under the strict bin types mentioned earlier. These wheel variations, ranging in a

weight difference of 0.5 – 1.8 lbs, have been recognized has a flaw in our data and will be

recorded within our standard of error for graphed analyses. [Insert information on standard of

error.]

Photo of weigh station.

131

Results

Appendix B: Weight percentages of aggregate dumpster content in bar graph and pie chart form.

132

Appendix D: Weight percentages of dumpster content for Porter A housing.

Appendix C: Weight percentages of dumpster content for Housing.

133

Discussion

Site and Set-up

Regarding 2300 Delaware, we found it a satisfactory site for our assessment needs. The

daily schedule was appropriate in accomplishing sorting all of the sampled material. We did find

that starting earlier on the second day helped the team to avoid wind pick-up in the afternoon, of

which had made sorting more difficult by blowing materials around on the first day. Weekly

planning meetings by the Committee played a large role in the site and project success. Of

particular concern was the amount of materials that ended up in the Delaware site’s drains. We

suggest for future assessments that some sort of barrier such as wired meshing be placed over the

drains to avoid contamination by materials.

In hindsight, two separate, smaller piles of material may have allowed for more efficient

sorting. The “moat” was in a sense a smaller pile, but could have been managed better in relation

to workers overstepping the moat and taking their own initiative to pull from the central pile.

Two smaller piles could allow for regulating this. In addition, having a hazardous waste bucket

from campus labs is essential for materials that were encountered that cannot enter any of the

other streams into which we were sorting.

Assessment Process and Labor

The sorting process was effective in that all of the sampled material was able to be sorted

in the amount of time allotted for each day. Training for temporary workers could have been

clearer and hands on. This could be accomplished by waiting for the arrival of the dumpster

contents at the beginning of the day and physically picking out examples of items for each of the

material categories. This would foster less confusion than simply showing workers the bin signs

for designated material categories. Further, there is need of an arbiter, such as a Physical Plant

134

employee, with the final say on the categorization of a material that is of particular confusion.

Training could also stress sorting out all material items other than trash, making visual volume

estimates of the “stew” much easier and more accurate.

A volunteer sign up for student sorters was sent out to campus organizations and

Sustainability Office employees. However, we received no student volunteers. While an

introductory email about the project was sent out about 6 weeks prior to the assessment, calling

for initial volunteer interest, details and an actual volunteer sheet were only sent out the week

prior the assessment. Had this outreach been organized earlier, we may have received more

student volunteers. In hindsight, the absence of student volunteers, arriving at different times

throughout the day, would have required multiple trainings, and ultimately may have slowed the

sorting process. There may, however, be value in brainstorming other roles for students to play in

these types of projects, such as documenting and reporting on the assessment to peers and

student organizations.

At the end of the second day of sorting, the plastic tarp was rolled up and eventually

discarded as waste, as it was too dirty to be reused. Rolling the tarp up served as a “closing

ceremony” in a sense for all of the Labor Max and campus employees involved. With rolling up

the tarp, one Labor Max employee did experience a minor injury, as his hand was pierced with a

sharp material through his glove. So as to avoid any potential injuries, rolling up the tarp could

have been better monitored and organized, or perhaps another activity could serve as closure to

the sorting process.

The site was able to be cleaned up within roughly 45 minutes, including gathering up

assessing, and weighing the remaining “stew” of material, rolling up the tarp, transporting bins

135

back onto campus trucks, gathering up volunteer supplies, and checking the Delaware site for

any material that may have blown off from the sorting tarp.

Statistics and Logistics

One logistical error was communicating with housing about unusual events happening in

residential areas over the previous weekend which might skew results. It was found that paper

towels (previously uninstalled) were put in the weekend prior to the assessment because of a

high school presence in [insert colleges]. This will skew our housing data comparing paper towel

ratios in trash to before they were banned.

[Summarize concerns raised by Tatianna and how this reflects our conclusion.]

Results

When breaking down the building type data (Appendix C), kitchens had the best

percentage of refuse actually meant for landfill at 42.7% (trash plus plastic film). Compostables

such as food scraps, organic other, and paper towels made up the majority of potentially

divertible waste (38.8%). With kitchens having a direct outlet for handling compostables, these

percentages seem somewhat high.

Labs/offices had the second best percentage of refuse actually meant for landfill at 41.5%

(trash plus plastic film). The highest presence for divertible material types were recyclable paper

(12.3%), paper towels (14.2%), E-waste/other (10.3%), and food scraps (9.9%). The large

amount of paper towels can be explained by the continued presence of paper towel dispensers

within lab/office restrooms. The presence of compostables such as food scraps shows a lack of

compost outlets near building shops like Perk Coffee Bars. In the case of recyclable paper and E-

136

waste/other, the large presence of such materials is to be expected by lab/office buildings,

however better resources could to incorporated to reduce these numbers.

Housing did the worst by having the lowest percentage of refuse actually meant for

landfill at 30.1% (trash plus plastic film). Compostables such as food scraps, organic other, and

paper towels made up the majority of potentially divertible waste (38.7%), with recyclable

containers and paper coming in second (23.1%). While the large presence of compostables can

be explained by a lack of compost resources/outlets within housing, the noticeable presence of

recyclable containers and paper shows a need for better outreach or infrastructure.

When assessing housing dumpster content, facilitators hoped to gauge potential

improvements after the uninstallation of paper towels from residential halls in 2013. Our data

shows that paper towels made up 8.3% of dumpster waste. While specific improvements are hard

to calculate due to the fact that the 2011 Waste Assessment combined food scraps and paper

towels into one percentile, we believe such programmatic changes did have an impact on

housing waste. The 2011 Waste Assessment determined food scraps and paper towels to make

up around 43% (by weight) of residential waste, and our 2014 Waste Assessment determined

both materials as making up 27.6% of residential waste (Appendix I and C). Due to little

improvements for food scrap composting within housing, we conclude that this significant

percentile reduction is due to the elimination of paper towels within residence halls.

Incorporating the fact that paper towel dispensers were reinstalled due to a high school presence

the weekend prior, our overall numbers are most likely even lower.

When assessing Porter A dumpster individually, we hoped to find more insight on the

issue of trash chutes within residential housing and quantify the observation by truck-drivers of

large amounts of material contamination from these chutes. After comparing the Porter A

137

dumpster content to the aggregate housing content excluding Porter A (Appendix D), we found

that Porter A was placing noticeably more mixed recycling (18%) within landfill-bound

dumpsters than its average housing counterpart (14%). While we could not record the amount of

trash being placed within recycling containers, similar trends could be expected showing larger

contamination for buildings with waste chutes.

Overall, 34.6% (trash plus plastic film) of our 2014 Waste Assessment was refuse

indivertible and meant for the landfill. In comparison, the 2011 Waste Assessment determined

there to be 32% (by weight) of refuse meant for the landfill (Appendix B and I). In relation to

2011, the 2014 assessment had percentage reduction in almost all material types except for

recyclable containers, where there was a significant increase. Such results show little change of

overall waste habits. [Possible comparison in aggregate dumpster weight between 2011 and

2014].

However, making direct comparisons between 2011 and 2014 waste assessments is not

completely valid. Both assessments used different forms of data collection, categorization, and

calculation. In 2011, SAIC analyzed dumpster contents by randomly drawing and slicing bags

open, spreading out at least a 2 foot layer of materials, and then visually estimating the

percentage volume of targeted materials present in the sample. Also, the 2011 assessment did not

incorporate or categorized differently around 8 material types in the 2014 assessment. While

SAIC did try converting volume data into weight data, accuracy of such conversions would be

difficult due to completely visual assessments and unknown factors like recyclable containers

being full of liquid and heavier. In addition to direct weight comparisons being questionable in

determining growth, we would argue that the 2014 Waste Assessment more adequately estimated

138

and represents campus dumpster content and material categorization. [Insert previous category

statements and statistical critique of purely visual assessments]

Conclusion

Acknowledgements

Sustainability Office

Physical Plant

Tatiana Xifara

Appendix

A - Budget/services

B – Meta-pivot and pie

C – Sub-pies

D - Porter

E - Total Dumpsters

F - Sample Dumpsters

G - Raw Data Sample

H - Committee Notes

I - 2011 Waste Assessment Data

139

APPENDIX G: FEEDBACK RECEIVED AT 8.4.14

WASTE REDUCTION WORKING GROUP MEETING



140

Name Section Comments Grounds Services Response

Silas Snyder, CHES Facilities General feedback

In Housing, in the areas where users are struggling with

sorting the recycling properly, they have shared that

“single stream” would be much easier and they would be

much more likely to recycle their items rather than throw

them in the trash.

Brad's response at the meeting: Duly noted, something

to consider. Roger's follow‐up via email: mixed recycle

contaminates the paper and fouls the container sorting

and makes sorting for CRV much more difficult. Single

stream would only be viable for us if we either 1.) did not

sort at all or 2.) got a very sophisticated and expensive

sort line housing inside a building to shelter from the

wind.

Chris Attias, CHES Facilities Powerpoint presentation How is the cost of driving factored in? Brad has included this in the analysis.

Evin Guy, Humanities

Powerpoint presentation:

composting Where would the compost go?

It would stay on campus, get used for soil on the grounds

and landscape.

Silas Snyder, CHES Facilities


composting

How are we planning on getting the correct balance of

carbon and food waste in the compost?

Grounds’ analysis of the material feed is about a perfect

50/50 split, including green waste and food waste from

the campus.



composting

Water usage might be impacted, usually water is involved

in composting processes. Grounds will look into this further.



composting

How fresh will the organics feed be? Experience in the

housing cold compost program has shown smell becomes

an issue quickly, considering the “points of collection”

where the users deposit the waste should be evaluated

closely.

Humanities has a test bin right now, there is a carbon

filter on it that should help with smell. Recycle Crew only

does one pickup a week, more frequent would be much

better, maybe student involvement should be

considered for this. Inclusion of paper towels in the

stream will help mitigate smell issues.

Evin Guy, Humanities


composting

Are we talking to people who have done this very well

already, such as the City of San Francisco?

Yes, we have done some research and can continue to

do so.

Silas Snyder, CHES Facilities General question Is there a need for power and sewer hookups?

Yes, they’re being evaluated within the Recycle Yard

study, it’s hard for them to know what we need exactly

before we’ve finalized the new operational model

though.

George Valerga, Custodial Supervisor,

Physical Plant


staffing slide How would students be involved?

More students would be working the recycling sort line.

Could also consider using interested student groups for

educational purposes, such as with classes at the farm,

Student Environmental Center, Zero Waste Team, etc.

Henry Salameh, Director, Physical Plant


staffing slide What is the rationing behind the increased pay raises? It reflects the regular pay increases that are anticipated.

Roger Edberg, Senior Superintendent,

Grounds Services


staffing slide

This analysis doesn’t include Compology time‐saving

analysis yet (which might result in less pickup time for

refuse dumpsters). There are also shifts happening soon

for recycling collection that will also save staff time. Brad will incorporate this into the analysis.

Chris Attias, CHES Facilities

General question: Zero Waste

infrastructure

Many units would need physical infrastructural upgrades

in order to accommodate “zero waste” resource recovery

streams. Would need to work with PPC on this as far as

prioritizing the need for the infrastructure vs. campus

aesthetics. Duly noted, something to consider.

Feedback received at 8.4.14 Waste Reduction Working Group meeting

141

alternatives analysis for resource recovery …...saic recommendations to reach zero waste at ucsc...

Documents