III. NEXT STEPS Based on the context and recommendations provided in this document, each relevant UNH stakeholder should review the recommendations relevant to him/her, assess the feasibility of each action item, and identify any obstacles or barriers that have not been mentioned or accounted for in this report. Before taking action on any recommendations but after stakeholders have reviewed relevant items, the Zero Waste Task Force should schedule a meeting to discuss this report’s recommendations and develop a more specific timeline against which to work towards the following five prioritized action items, which should be discussed in greatest detail:

1. Develop clear and concise values, mission statement, and specific zero-waste goals for the Zero Waste Task Force and for UNH as an institution.

2. Hire an individual to serve as the UNH Zero-Waste Manager. 3. Develop and implement a Green Procurement Plan. 4. Select and pursue an alternative food waste management strategy. 5. Begin inventory of indoor waste bins and infrastructure.

Becoming a zero-waste campus will require significant work. Figure 2.6, borrowed from General Motors’ zero-waste business blueprint, provides a general checklist against which UNH can compare its own progress. The image presents opportunities for comparison. For example:

• Although UNH tracks waste data, collection and data management processes require improvement.

• UNH lacks an institutional definition of “zero waste.” Without specific reduction and diversion goals and timelines, the concept of a zero-waste campus remains nebulous and little progress will be made.

• Campus stakeholders have improved educational and community engagement efforts over the years, but the University still lacks a fully-supported “sustainability culture.”

• Regulatory and policy barriers—like those related to procurement and surplus mentioned in this report—can hinder zero-waste initiatives and require revision if UNH is to reach its waste-reduction goals.

Figure 2.6. A zero-waste checklist blueprint.

As a large academic institution at the forefront of sustainability, UNH carries a responsibility to further develop and make significant progress towards its zero-waste goals. Reducing campus waste can result in financial savings, help the University reduce its carbon footprint, and instill greater sustainable values in the UNH and Durham communities. To achieve these results, the University must prioritize reducing food waste and improving campus food waste management, establishing and installing standardized waste infrastructure, and amending administrative policies and procedures to promote sustainable waste reductions. Pursuing waste-reduction initiatives may require significant financial and physical resources and necessitates consistent and clear communication among stakeholders. Historically, many waste-related decisions and projects at UNH have been made and initiated by independent parties, resulting in confusion and a complex web of disparate initiatives. Future success will depend greatly on sustained cooperation and collaboration among numerous campus departments, academic offices, and non-University stakeholders. By addressing waste issues more comprehensively on an institutional scale and communicating barriers and best practices with the community throughout the process, UNH will undoubtedly make progress towards a zero-waste reality and remain a sustainably-minded collegiate institution worthy of the recognition it receives.

LITERATURE/WORKS CITED Allard, E. (2015, Sept. 18). UNH alumni and Trash 2 Treasure creator lays out business

“PLANS” at colleges nationwide. The New Hampshire. Retrieved from http://tnhdigital.com/3788/news/features/unh-alumni-and-trash-2-treasure-creator-lays-out-business-plans-at-colleges-nationwide/

American Biogas Council. (2017). What is Anaerobic Digestion? Retrieved from

http://www.americanbiogascouncil.org/biogas_what.asp An act relative to regulations for commercial composters, SB251. (2015). Animal proteins prohibited in ruminant feed, 21 CFR § 589.2000 2016. Babin, J. (2017, May 12). New York City Reinstates Styrofoam Ban. WNYC News. Retrieved

from http://www.wnyc.org/story/new-york-city-reinstates-styrofoam-ban/ Biodegradable Products Institute (BPI). (2015). Confused by the terms Biodegradable &

Biobased. Retrieved from http://www.bpiworld.org/Resources/Documents/Confused%20by%20the%20terms%20Biodegradable%20Jan%2015.pdf

California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB). (2002). Mini Trash Bins Help Office

Settings Reduce Waste 50 Percent and More: A Model for Local Government Recycling and Waste Reduction. Retrieved from http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/Publications/Documents/LocalAsst%5C31002007.pdf

Clean River. (2017). Save Money with a Centralized Recycling Program. Retrieved from

http://cleanriver.com/save-money-with-a-centralized-recycling-program/ Clark, N. (2014). Compostable Cutlery Disintegration Trials. BioCycle, 55(11). Retrieved from

http://www.biocycle.net/2014/12/17/compostable-cutlery-disintegration-trials/ Deegan, D. (2013, Apr. 1). Seven New England Colleges and Universities Honored for Food

Waste Recycling Efforts. Retrieved from http://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/0/43E69AA935758F7885257B400064FA10

Domtar Corporation. (2017). What does the EarthChoice product line include? In Frequently

Asked Questions. Retrieved from http://www.domtar.com/en/sustainability/earthchoice/10312.asp

Durham Public Works Department. (2016). No-Sort Curbside Recycling Program. Retrieved

from http://www.ci.durham.nh.us/sites/default/files/fileattachments/public_works/page/18771/no-sort_winternews_2015-2016.pdf

Durham Public Works Department. (2017). Curbside Recycling Pickup Policies. Retrieved from http://www.ci.durham.nh.us/publicworks/curbside-recycling-pickup-policies

European Bioplastics. (2015). Anaerobic Digestion: Fact Sheet. Retrieved from

http://docs.european-bioplastics.org/publications/bp/EUBP_BP_Anaerobic_digestion.pdf Farrell, E., & MacDonald, R. (2009). Practicing Sustainability: Campus Operations. In Aber, J.,

Kelly, T., & Mallory, B. (Eds.), The Sustainable Learning Community: One University’s Journey to the Future (pp. 101-152). Lebanon, NH: University of New Hampshire Press.

Food Recovery Network. (2017). Our Chapters. Retrieved from

http://www.foodrecoverynetwork.org/chapters/ Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH). (2017). EcoOpportunity: Trash the Trash. Retrieved

from http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/ecoopportunity/eco-op-campaigns-trash-the-trash/ Institute for Local Self-Reliance (ILSR). (2014). State of Composting in the US: What, Why,

Where & How. Washington, DC: Platt, B., Goldstein, N., Coker, C., & Brown, S. Retrieved from http://ilsr.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/state-of-composting-in-us.pdf

Jambeck, J.R., Farrell, E.W., & Cleaves, S.M. (2006). Food Scraps To Composting…And Back

To Food. BioCycle, 47(12). Retrieved from http://www.biocycle.net/2006/12/14/food-scraps-to-composting-and-back-to-food/

Krieghoff, A. (2012). University of California, Irvine: Solid Waste Diversion Plan 2012.

Retrieved from http://ucop.edu/sustainability/_files/uci-solid-waste-diversion-plan.pdf McKiernan, C. (2015, Jan. 26). Containing Food Waste Contamination Essential for Anaerobic

Digestion. Retrieved from http://www.waste360.com/organics/containing-food-waste-contamination-essential-anaerobic-digestion

Metropolitan Area Planning Council (MAPC). (2014, April 17). Develop Anaerobic

Digestion/Combined Heat & Power. Retrieved from http://www.mapc.org/system/files/bids/Develop%20Anaerobic%20Digestion.pdf

Michigan State University Recycling Center. (2016). Communication Strategy. Retrieved from

http://msu.edu/~sigourn2/msurc_comm_strategy.pdf Mirenda, J. (2015, Nov. 16). The Dirt on Biodegradable Plastics: Are they compatible with

organic practices? Retrieved from http://rodaleinstitute.org/the-dirt-on-biodegradable-plastics/

Montana State University Extension. (2011). E3A: Anaerobic Digester Applications for the Farm

or Ranch. Retrieved from http://e3a4u.info/wp-content/uploads/Digester-step3.pdf

RecycleMania Tournament. (2017). Diversion – Final 2017 Results. Retrieved from http://recyclemaniacs.org/2017_Diversion_results

Smith, M., & Aber, J. (2014). Heat Recovery From Compost. BioCycle, 55 (2). Retrieved from

http://www.biocycle.net/2014/02/21/heat-recovery-from-compost/ Smith M., & Aber, J. (2017). Heat recovery from composting: A step-by-step guide to building

an aerated static pile heat recovery composting facility. Retrieved from http://www.nswai.com/DataBank/Reports_pdf/reports_mar17/Smith%20and%20Aber%202017%20Heat%20Recovery%20from%20Composting.pdf

Smith, M. (2016, Sept. 29). Composting Options for Handling UNH’s Food Waste.

Smith, M. (2017, Aug. 18). Composting Options for Handling UNH’s Food Waste.

Swine Health Protection Act, 9 CFR § 166 2009.

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (UN FAO). (2003). On-farm composting methods. Retrieved from ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/006/y5104e/y5104e00.pdf

United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (2016a, Feb. 22). Renewable Energy Production Incentives. In Waste Minimization: Renewable Energy. Retrieved from http://archive.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/wastemin/web/html/rpsinc.html

United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (2016b). Volume-to-Weight Conversion Factors. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2016-04/documents/volume_to_weight_conversion_factors_memorandum_04192016_508fnl.pdf

United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (2016c, Aug. 29). Sustainable Management of Food: Types of Composting and Understanding the Process. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/types-composting-and-understanding-process

United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (2017a). Sustainable Management of Food: About the 2015 Food Recovery Challenge Regional Award Winners. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/about-2015-food-recovery-challenge-regional-award-winners

United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (2017b). Sustainable Management of

Food: Food Recovery Hierarchy. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/sustainable-management-food/food-recovery-hierarchy

United States Green Building Council (USGBC). (2017, July 26). Engaging Students in Zero

Waste [Webinar]. Retrieved from http://uszwbc.org/usgbc-zwcutc-engaging-students-in-zero-waste-webinar/

University of California. (2015). Compensation at the University of California: University of

California Employee Pay. Retrieved from http://ucannualwage.ucop.edu/wage/ University of California Davis (UC Davis). (2017). Becoming an Approved Caterer. Retrieved

from http://ces.ucdavis.edu/Public/plan/approved-caterers/ University of Idaho Extension. (2014). Anaerobic Digestion Basics. Moscow, ID: Chen, L., &

Neibling, H. Retrieved from http://www.cals.uidaho.edu/edComm/pdf/CIS/CIS1215.pdf University of Maine System. (2016, Apr. 12). Salaries of Regular Employees. Retrieved from

http://staticweb.maine.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/PUBLICINFO-April-2016-1.pdf?565a1d

University of New Hampshire Center for Social Innovation and Enterprise (UNH CSIE). (2017).

Trash 2 Treasure. Retrieved from http://www.unh.edu/social-innovation/t2t University of New Hampshire Dining Services (UNH Dining). (2017a). AASHE STARS

Reporting Fields: Dining. University of New Hampshire Dining Services (UNH Dining). (2017b). Take Less, Waste Less.

Retrieved from http://www.unh.edu/dining/take-less-waste-less University of New Hampshire Sustainability Institute (UNH SI). (2017a). Sustainability Student

Organizations. Retrieved from http://sustainableunh.unh.edu/studentorgs University of New Hampshire Sustainability Institute (UNH SI). (2017b). UNH Sustainable

Operations: Cogeneration & EcoLine (Landfill Gas). Retrieved from http://sustainableunh.unh.edu/ecoline

University of New Hampshire Sustainability Institute (UNH SI). (2017c). UNH Sustainable

Operations: Purchasing. Retrieved from http://sustainableunh.unh.edu/purchasing University of New Hampshire Sustainability Institute (UNH SI). (2017d). UNH Sustainable

Operations: Student Move Out Recycling. Retrieved from http://sustainableunh.unh.edu/moveout

University of New Hampshire Sustainability Institute (UNH SI). (2017e). UNH Sustainable

Operations: Waste, Recycling & Composting at UNH. Retrieved from http://sustainableunh.unh.edu/waste

University of New Hampshire Energy Task Force (UNH ETF). (2014). WildCAP (Climate

Action Plan) Update. Retrieved from http://sustainableunh.unh.edu/sites/sustainableunh.unh.edu/files/images/WildCAP%20Update%20FINAL.pdf

University of New Hampshire Zero Waste Task Force (UNH ZWTF). (2016). Report to President Mark Huddleston.

University System of New Hampshire (USNH). (n.d.). Vendor Code of Conduct. Retrieved from

http://www.unh.edu/purchasing/USNH%20Vendor%20Code%20of%20Conduct.pdf University System of New Hampshire (USNH). (2012, Nov. 11). Disposal of Surplus Property.

Retrieved from http://finadmin.usnh.edu/pol_proc/chapter_11/pages/pro11-030.aspx University System of New Hampshire (USNH). (2014, Dec. 11). Financial and Administrative

Procedures: Purchasing Policy. Retrieved from http://www.unh.edu/purchasing/policy/purchasing/6-001.htm

University System of New Hampshire (USNH). (2016, June 30). List of Base Pay. Retrieved

from http://www.usnh.edu/hr/pdf/USNH_Salary_Book_as_of_06302016.pdf University System of New Hampshire (USNH) Financial Services. (2015, June 22). Policies and

Procedures: Purchasing, 06-014 NAEB Code of Ethics. Retrieved from http://www.usnh.edu/usnh-financial-services-policies-and-procedures/06-014-naeb-code-ethics

Washington State Department of Ecology. (2014). Focus on “Biobased,” “Biodegradable,” &

“Compostable” Plastics. Retrieved from http://www.bpiworld.org/resources/documents/washington%20state%20biobased%20fact%20sheet%20aug%2014.pdf

Waste Management. (2017). Mixed Curbside Residential Recycling: Myth Busters. Retrieved

from http://recycleoftenrecycleright.com/wp-content/themes/newroor/files/MythBuster%208.5x11_%20hires.pdf

APPENDIX: FOOD WASTE MANAGEMENT AND COMPOSTING ALTERNATIVES Option 1: Cover the Existing Windrow System at Kingman Farm To reduce pest presence and ease waste additions during cold winter months, the windrows at Kingman Farm could be covered with a ClearSpan structure. The structure would be sized to 70 ft. by 56 ft. and cover three existing rows. Fresh organic waste should be added to covered windrows; windrows containing curing compost would be less likely to attract pests and thus do not necessitate cover. Covering the actively-composting windrows would eliminate the seagull issue, as well as the challenge of adding new food waste to frozen or snow covered rows in winter. The solar radiation provided by the ClearSpan fabric would maintain a warmer temperature inside the facility sufficient to keep the piles from freezing. If the structure is appropriately sized to accommodate a tractor lane, existing Kingman machinery (i.e., windrow turner, tractor) could continue to be used. Even if UNH installs a covering structure for existing windrows, improved management is necessary. In order to properly break down, new food waste must be mixed with spent bedding and manure before being covered. Under proper management, the food waste should be adequately mixed with bedding (which may require slightly more labor—about 5-10 additional minutes per waste addition) and covered with a layer of finished compost that acts as a biofilter and to reduce odor. Covering the Kingman windrows would not eliminate existing capacity concerns, nor would winter plowing and road access challenges be ameliorated. Option 2: Relocate and Cover the Windrow System For optimal performance and minimal pest presence while maintaining the windrow composting system, the windrows could be relocated to and constructed in a covered facility. An ideal facility would be built on a concrete floor (variations below), covered with ClearSpan fabric, and house windrows and the tractor and windrow turner. The structure would be sized according to daily quantity of waste generated from campus dining halls and the width of the tractor and compost turner, and would house two or three four-foot-high windrows, one or two center driving lanes, and two rows of waste blocks located between the ClearSpan walls and the outer edge of the windrows. Waste blocks serve to tether the structure in place and protect the fabric from any possible damage from the compost turner. Structures could be built in one of two possible sizes: 120 ft. by 35 ft. or 70 ft. by 56 ft. The larger (120 ft. by 35 ft.) structure would feature one central tractor lane flanked by two 120-foot-long windrows. The smaller structure would contain two tractor lanes—one on each side of a central windrow—and two additional windrows constructed along the waste blocks on the structure’s 56-foot-long edges. Each waste block row would measure two feet wide and be stacked two blocks high for a height of 4 ft. In the larger structure, each windrow would run on a 28-day cycle: food and animal waste would gradually be added to one row over a 14-day period, after which the second windrow would be built in the same manner. The first windrow would cure and compost during the 14 days in

which the second row is constructed, and when the second row has been completed, the first row’s contents would be relocated to an outside windrow for further curing. Thus, 28 days elapse between the initial waste additions to the first windrow and the removal of this material from the covered structure. In the smaller 70 ft. by 56 ft. structure, the windrows would collectively function in a 21-day rotation, with each windrow accommodating seven days worth of organic waste. After curing in the indoor windrows for 21 to 28 days, the compost would be relocated to outside windrows for curing for a few months at minimum. A large enough open area outside of the facility would be needed to create windrows for curing compost and to store bedding material. One outdoor windrow should be designated specifically for non-food waste; this would require no additional management and reserve space in the indoor rows for food waste. Covering the actively-composting windrows would eliminate the seagull issue, as well as the challenge of adding new food waste to frozen or snow covered rows in winter. The solar radiation provided by the ClearSpan fabric would maintain a warmer temperature inside the facility sufficient to keep the piles from freezing. This option would continue to make use of the machinery (i.e., windrow turner, tractor) purchased for managing the Kingman operation. Even with these infrastructural changes, improved management is necessary. In order to properly break down, new food waste must be mixed with spent bedding and manure before being covered. Under proper management, the food waste should be adequately mixed with bedding (which may require slightly more labor—about 5-10 additional minutes per waste addition) and covered with a layer of finished compost that acts as a biofilter and to reduce odor. Depending on the location of the new facility, this labor addition may be completely offset (or more) by reduced transportation time and costs necessary for staff to travel to the Kingman facility. If the structure is located at or near the campus equine facility, transportation will be even further reduced, as the manure and bedding will only require transportation over a very short distance.

UNH’s Woodman Farm (of which an aerial view is shown in Figure A1) is located essentially on campus, just northeast of the equine facility. Constructing a composting facility at this location would reduce the time and labor required to transport waste from the equine facility and campus dining halls.

Figure A1. Aerial image of the UNH Woodman Research Farm (image courtesy of GoogleMaps satellite view).

Option 2a: Concrete floor with gravel driving lane. While any facility built under the specifications of the above option would require construction of the ClearSpan structure, constructing a gravel-floored facility would minimize total construction costs. Option 2b: Concrete floor. Alternatively, the facility could be built upon a pure concrete floor of 4, 6, or 9.5 inches in depth. Option 2c: Concrete aeration floor. The third flooring option for the facility is an aeration floor constructed of concrete with inlaid aeration pipes. The floor would require a depth of 9.5 inches of poured concrete to accommodate the inclusion of wire mesh and aeration piping. Building this floor in initial construction would allow for further development of an active ASP system in the future, if desired. Equipment required for active aeration beyond the aeration piping would cost approximately $15,000 (Smith, 2017). Option 3: Construct an Aerated Static Pile (ASP) System An ASP composting system differs from a windrow system in a few fundamental ways. Whereas windrows are shaped into long piles, an ASP system consists of a single compost pile. (Both windrow and ASP piles that contain food and animal waste can be built up to approximately four feet.) Many ASP systems are built upon aeration floors that contain pipe systems connected to fans and other machinery; this system draws air through the pile, providing valuable oxygen to the active microbes contained therein (US EPA, 2016c). ASP systems also require the addition of bulking agents—such as shredded paper or wood filings—to increase pore space and aeration capacity within the pile. While the compost pile in an ASP system can still benefit from being turned regularly, the primary cause of material breakdown is the active aeration provided by this piping-and-fan system. ASP systems compost food waste and other organic materials faster and more efficiently than windrows composting methods, but costs of establishing a system can be much greater. Shifting to an actively aerated ASP composting system would require more substantial construction and investment than Option 1. The system would require the construction of an aeration floor—ideally made of concrete inlaid with piping—for which labor and materials can be costly; a ClearSpan structure and waste blocks; and investment in aeration machinery, including fans or blowers, pile sensors, and a control system. The system would also require electricity to power this machinery and repeated purchases of woodchips to serve as a base layer between the aeration floor and the compost (Smith, 2016). Like the windrow system described in Option 1, an ASP system would benefit from a covering structure to deter seagulls and other pests, reduce odor, and minimize pile freezing in winter. After approximately 21 days in the ASP pile, organic material is sufficiently broken down and can be relocated to another pile (or windrow) for the “curing” and finishing phase with minimal risk of attracting vermin. This multi-step characteristic of the system would require that additional space—ideally located near the structure in which the ASP system is housed—be made available for curing windrows. Because organic waste breaks down much more efficiently and substantially in an ASP system than in windrows, however, the amount of land required for

the post-ASP curing windrows is smaller than the area currently occupied by composting windrows at Kingman Farm. An ASP system would require a shift in management practice and proper mixing, although the number of turnings required would be fewer. The site operator(s) would need to be trained to some degree, both in turning practices and aeration system technology and management. Depending on the location of the structure and the current amount of labor dedicated to managing the current windrow system, additional labor required for ASP system operations may be somewhat or completely offset by transportation reductions. Option 4: Install an Anaerobic Digester (AD) According to the American Biogas Council (2017), “anaerobic digestion is a series of biological processes in which microorganisms break down biodegradable material in the absence of oxygen.” Anaerobic digesters (ADs) process food waste and other compostable feedstocks more efficiently and rapidly than other composting processes (e.g., windrows) and produce two primary products—methane-rich (60-70 percent) biogas and digestate solids—the first of which can be used for energy, and the latter as a fertilizer-like soil amendment (University of Idaho Extension, 2014). ADs are commonly used to handle sewage sludge in wastewater treatment facilities and manure in livestock operations, but they can also be used as an alternative to composting food waste (American Biogas Council, 2017). The type and quantity of waste feedstock and the amount of energy available for use in the digester will determine the size, type, and cost of the most suitable anaerobic system. Wet fermentation digesters handle waste containing between 7 and 15 percent solid matter; this largely liquid waste is “pumpable” through the digester. Dry digesters handle waste comprised of 20 percent (or more) solids; these materials are generally not “pumpable” and are often stacked in the digester (McKiernan, 2015). Mixing feedstocks (e.g., liquid manure, food waste solids, etc.) to create a desirable consistency for wet fermentation is a common practice. Digesters also differ in their frequency of feeding. Batch digesters are the simplest systems, as they are fed with the initial feedstock and subsequently closed until the digestion process ends. In contrast, continuous systems can be fed at regular intervals during the active digestion process, thus providing more consistent and stable gas production than batch systems (MAPC, 2014). A third defining system characteristic is internal temperature. Mesophilic systems function at lower temperatures (around 95°F) and process waste more slowly, while thermophilic digesters typically run at temperatures around 131°F (MAPC, 2014). The biogas produced by an AD could benefit the University by serving as an additional fuel source for the campus cogeneration (co-gen) plant. The UNH co-gen plant is a combined heat and power system that provides energy to much of the Durham campus. The plant is served by the EcoLine, an HDPE plastic pipeline running from the Rochester, NH Turnkey Landfill to UNH that provides processed landfill gas (PLG) for the plant’s operations. The cogeneration process begins at the landfill, where raw landfill gas is pulled from the landfill, dehydrated, and processed to eliminate various chemicals and volatile organic compounds including hydrogen sulfide, siloxanes, and carbon dioxide (CO2). The complex gas-processing

(or “stripping”) process—which, along with processing plant maintenance, costs UNH approximately $3 million annually—is critical to obtain PLG that contains chemicals at levels the co-gen plant can safely and legally handle. Designed in 2006, the co-gen plant costs the University an additional $3 million each year in management and maintenance, excluding any additional external purchases of natural gas. The plant houses two reciprocating 20-cylinder engines that can operate using natural gas, PLG, or number 2 ultra-low-sulfur diesel fuels. Methane (CH4), a key ingredient in natural gas and PLG, is the primary fuel required by the co-gen plant, and ideal PLG for the plant contains 50 percent CH4. When PLG contains less than 50 percent CH4, which is common, the plant operators have two options: 1) they can mix the PLG with natural gas in an averaging tank to increase overall CH4 content of the fuel, or 2) they can increase the PLG volume and process out more CO2, which concentrates and increases the level of CH4 in the PLG. When the plant was constructed over ten years ago, the Turnkey Landfill produced approximately 13,000 scfm. Current production levels reach only 6,000 scfm, two-thirds of which the UNH co-gen plant receives. This significant reduction in gas production is due in large part to the decrease in municipal solid waste (MSW) generation that accompanied the Great Recession in 2007. Under the country’s depressed economic state, businesses and individuals reduced their purchases—and thus their wastes—of organic materials in particular, which reduced collective MSW and the gas this waste produced in the landfill. The UNH facility was not the only co-gen operation to receive PLG at levels far short of originally-modeled values; at a conference for the US EPA’s Landfill Methane Outreach Program, UNH utility systems manager Dave Bowley discovered that none of the other attendees was receiving the amount of landfill gas s/he had anticipated (personal communication, July 7, 2017). Although it has not been seriously considered in the past, an AD could greatly benefit the University by providing a more consistent source of gas for the co-gen plant—if organics and food waste generation continue at current levels—and a solution to the problems resulting from current composting practices. In this way, anaerobic digestion provides an appealing answer to the conflict clearly described in the WILDCAP report. At 60 to 70 percent CH4, the biogas produced by the digester would naturally be of a higher quality than PLG, and would likely require less processing before use (MAPC, 2014; D. Bowley, personal communication, July 7, 2017). The higher CH4 content of the biogas would also likely necessitate fewer purchases of natural gas to supplement incoming PLG. The digester could be connected to the existing EcoLine used to feed the co-gen plant, thus making use of existing infrastructure. Dartmouth, MA provides an example of such a connection: in 2014, a food-waste-processing AD was successfully adjoined to an existing landfill gas-to-energy facility, and positive results have motivated expansion of the facility (Barad, 2016). A few other educational institutions have successful renewable energy anaerobic digestion systems, namely UC Davis, Michigan State University, and UW Oshkosh. (See Supplemental Materials for information about UC Davis’s digester.) Unlike the existing windrow composting system or an ASP system, an AD requires more expertise and experience for proper management. Oversight and management of the digester

could potentially be incorporated into the responsibilities of co-gen plant personnel, provided the proper training. Consulting for and construction of the digester will likely be expensive, but the payback period for the project could be shorter than anticipated when including supplemental natural gas purchases in a cost-benefit analysis. From July 2016 to June 2017, the University spent $1.4 million on natural gas for the co-gen plant. Although some supplemental natural gas may still be necessary due to requirements outlined in the system manufacturer contract—and although the pricing market for natural gas fluctuates constantly—biogas from an AD could reduce University expenditures for this fuel source. Costs could also be recouped through future expansion of organic waste collection, if the University decides to offer this service to community businesses and other stakeholders for a tipping fee. It is currently unclear whether the existing gas processing infrastructure, located at the Turnkey Landfill, could be utilized for biogas processing. The windrow turner and tractor currently used for composting at Kingman Farm would not be used in this system, but could potentially be used for other purposes at Kingman or the University’s other agricultural facilities. Option 5: Contract Out Composting Services Hiring an external contractor to handle and compost campus food waste is a fourth possible option. Mr. Fox Composting, a composting company located in Portsmouth, NH, is the nearest commercial composting facility to which UNH could send its food waste and compostable serviceware. For commencement in May 2016, the University contracted Mr. Fox’s services, and the Athletics department plans to work with Mr. Fox during the upcoming football season. In July 2017, Rian Bedard (Mr. Fox’s chief composter) provided a cost estimate for handling food waste from the University’s three dining halls. Two main options exist: 1) UNH could collect and haul its organic waste to the composting facility, or 2) Mr. Fox staff could haul the collected waste from campus locations to the facility located in York, ME. Under the second option, Mr. Fox staff would pick up campus food waste once or twice weekly. Both options require the purchase of 32-gallon bins in which to collect the food waste, which can be purchased from Mr. Fox Composting or from another vendor. Note: Composting Compostable-ware For Options 1 and 2: To address the issue of compostable serviceware, the University could invest in a grinder to process these materials, although evidence regarding the successful breakdown of these products—even in shredded form—is mixed. Although very little technology exists for grinding compostable serviceware in particular, some composting operations have considered or tried—with limited success—generic woodchippers or tub grinders to handle this waste stream (J. Maxwell, personal communication, June 15, 2017). Martin’s Farm in Greenfield, MA, however, accepts and successfully grinds compostable serviceware before incorporating this material into the facility’s windrow composting system. Farm operators use a Bandit Beast® Horizontal Grinder to grind 15 tons of incoming material, including compostable-ware, each day. The grinder also shreds pizza boxes and animal bones that require size reduction before composting. Grinding this material to a consistent size increases the efficiency and effectiveness of the composting process, and any large bioplastic particles remaining at the end of the process are filtered out through a screener (A. Donovan, personal communication, July 24, 2017).

Although investing in a Beast® Horizontal Grinder is illogical given the much smaller size of UNH’s organic waste stream, purchasing a smaller alternative grinder could be very beneficial to the University’s composting process. Options include the Bandit Intimidator 12XP Towable Drum Style Hand-Fed Chipper or the Salsco 600 Series Gravity-Fed, Engine-Driven Chipper. Additionally, if UNH plans to sell the finished compost, a screener would need to be purchased to filter out larger pieces of compostable-ware. Screeners can cost up to $60,000, however, so due to this expense, the University could consider investing in these products when new, more affordable technologies appear on the market (M. Smith, personal communication, July 31, 2017). For Option 3: ASP systems can successfully break down compostable-ware, although success depends on product brand, the polymers the items contain, and the internal temperature of the compost pile. Because of mixed evidence, many composting operators do not accept compostable-ware in their ASP systems. The owners of the commercial-scale Green Mountain Compost ASP system in Vermont do accept compostable-ware, however, after a study demonstrated that certified-compostable utensils break down almost completely after 173 days in a 90 to 150°F ASP environment (Clark, 2014). Grinding or shredding the compostable-ware before incorporating this material into the pile would increase the efficiency and effectiveness of item degradation but, as noted above, UNH would also need to purchase a screener for filtering out larger pieces of compostable-ware that haven’t decomposed sufficiently if it plans to sell finished compost (ILSR, 2014). For Option 4: In a 2015 report, European Bioplastics wrote, “So far, little information on anaerobic biodegradation of bioplastics is known, and further research is welcome to assess the potential biogas (energy) production due to bioplastics” (p. 7). Degradation of these products (and other compostable-ware) is possible in many anaerobic digestion systems provided the products are first ground, shredded, or otherwise processed, but some products that require fungi (which are absent in an anaerobic environment) for decomposition are not compatible with these systems (European Bioplastics, 2015). UC Davis’ wet fermentation, thermophilic AD does not accept compostable-ware or bioplastics due to the system’s “sensitivity;” operators could grind and feed these items to the digester, but utilities director Mike Fan doubts the true biodegradability of these products in an AD system (personal communication, July 18, 2017). Because further research and evidence is necessary to determine the degree to which compostable-ware is suitable for anaerobic systems, UNH should search for alternative means of handling compostable-ware. Potential temporary solution: While pursuing one of the composting options above, the University should consider contracting composting services for compostable serviceware. Mr. Fox Composting collects and successfully composts compostable-ware (and other organic waste). Because the Dairy Bar is the campus’s primary generator of compostable-ware waste—and because all Dairy Bar food waste is currently landfilled—Mr. Fox could provide a significant and valuable service by collecting both food waste and compostable-ware from this location until UNH determines how to successfully incorporate compostable-ware into its own composting system. Because organic waste generated from the Dairy Bar is not currently

weighed, it is difficult to estimate the cost of contracting with Mr. Fox Composting, although Bedard may be able to provide a very rough quote. Furthermore, incorporating bioplastics into UNH’s composting system would make finished compost unsuitable for application to certified organic fields. Although compost containing other non-synthetic compostable-ware can legally be used on organic fields under current standards, compost formed with bioplastics cannot, due to the various “prohibited” materials and polymers contained in these items (Mirenda, 2015). Due to this restriction, UNH cannot incorporate bioplastics into its composting system if the finished compost is destined for application on organic fields. Additional alternatives: In addition to the five options listed above, two other alternatives exist, although their respective details have not been fully fleshed out. First, UNH could incorporate composting into the campus waste management contract, which is set to be renegotiated by the end of this fiscal year and will last a minimum of five years. In its request for bids, UNH can require the waste management service provider to collect and haul compost in addition to recycling and landfill waste. Clark University included similar stipulations in its renegotiated contract with Waste Management. The University also negotiated down the tipping fees for compost compactors (so that compost tipping fees fell below landfill tipping fees) and required that Waste Management routinely clean and power wash the composting compactor at no additional cost to the University (J. Isler, personal communication, July 14, 2017). As organic waste handling becomes more popular and lucrative, waste management service providers are apt to accept contracts that incorporate composting into traditional service structures. Casella, one of the two prominent local waste management companies capable of handling UNH’s large waste quantity, already offers compost collection services. Mike Durkin of the UNH Procurement Services department proposed a second composting option based on an exchange of land for composting services. UNH could provide, free of charge, an unused tract of UNH-owned land to a composting entrepreneur (i.e., someone interested in building his/her organic waste business). In return for the free use of land, the composter would be tasked with collecting and hauling campus waste to this site and managing the composting process. S/he would also be permitted to accept organic waste from other businesses and entities if desired and to sell the finished compost if proper permitting is acquired. The tractor and windrow turner currently used at Kingman Farm could be leased to the entrepreneur if they serve no other immediate purpose to UNH. Drs. John Aber and Matt Smith have significant experience and knowledge about composting systems and the alternatives that would best suit UNH; they also possess detailed blueprints for potential windrow and ASP system operations. Before selecting a food waste management strategy, decision makers should convene with Aber and Smith to discuss these alternatives.

Cos

ts a

nd B

enef

its o

f UN

H F

ood

Was

te M

anag

emen

t Stra

tegi

es

Sta

tus

quo:

Con

tinue

com

post

ing

at K

ingm

an F

arm

with

no

chan

ge in

pra

ctic

e O

ptio

n 1:

Cov

er e

xist

ing

win

drow

s at

Kin

gman

Far

m

Opt

ion

2: R

eloc

ate

(and

cov

er) w

indr

ow s

yste

m to

Woo

dman

Far

m

Opt

ion

3: C

onst

ruct

an

AS

P s

yste

m a

t Woo

dman

Far

m

Opt

ion

4: In

stal

l an

anae

robi

c di

gest

er a

t or n

ear t

he T

urnk

ey L

andf

ill

Opt

ion

5: C

ontra

ct o

ut c

ompo

stin

g se

rvic

es to

Mr.

Fox

Com

post

ing

*Ass

umpt

ions

con

sist

ent a

mon

g al

l sce

nario

s:

1.

The

pric

e of

gas

will

rem

ain,

on

aver

age,

$2.

30/g

allo

n. A

ccor

ding

to G

asB

uddy

pric

e hi

stor

y, th

e av

erag

e ga

solin

e pr

ice

in N

ew H

amps

hire

fluc

tuat

ed (a

nd m

ostly

rem

aine

d) b

etw

een

$2.0

8 an

d $2

.30/

gallo

n fro

m A

pril

2016

to J

uly

2017

. The

gas

olin

e ca

lcul

atio

ns in

the

tabl

e ab

ove

assu

me

this

hig

her p

rice

($2.

30/g

allo

n), a

lthou

gh th

is is

unl

ikel

y to

be

a co

mpl

etel

y ac

cura

te e

stim

ate

for f

utur

e pr

ices

. 2.

Th

e ve

hicl

e us

ed to

car

ry fo

od w

aste

and

equ

ine

was

te c

an tr

avel

12

to 2

0 m

iles

on o

ne g

allo

n of

gas

olin

e.

3.

Qua

ntiti

es o

f foo

d w

aste

gen

erat

ed in

cam

pus

dini

ng h

alls

will

rem

ain

cons

tant

(bet

wee

n 20

0 an

d 21

5 to

ns/y

ear)

. O

rgan

ic w

aste

is n

ot c

olle

cted

from

the

UN

H D

airy

Bar

. 4.

D

aily

col

lect

ion

and

trans

port

requ

ires

four

hou

rs o

f lab

or fr

om e

ach

of tw

o st

aff m

embe

rs.

5.

Din

ing

Ser

vice

s st

uden

t em

ploy

ees

are

paid

app

roxi

mat

ely

$12.

16 p

er h

our f

or c

ompo

st c

olle

ctio

n an

d tra

nspo

rt;

this

tota

ls $

18,0

00 p

er y

ear i

n la

bor c

osts

. 6.

D

inin

g S

ervi

ces

sum

mer

sta

ff ar

e pa

id, o

n av

erag

e, $

10.7

7 pe

r hou

r for

com

post

col

lect

ion

and

trans

port;

this

tota

ls

abou

t $15

,940

per

yea

r in

labo

r cos

ts. S

umm

er c

olle

ctio

n co

sts

are

cove

red

unde

r exi

stin

g D

inin

g st

aff w

ages

, so

thes

e co

sts

are

not s

peci

fical

ly a

dded

to th

e ta

ble

tota

ls. A

vera

ge fo

od s

ervi

ce a

ssis

tant

s ea

rn a

n an

nual

sal

ary

of

$22,

396.

80 (U

SN

H, 2

016)

. If t

his

is a

vera

ged

over

52

wee

ks in

a y

ear,

an a

ssis

tant

’s a

vera

ge w

eekl

y sa

lary

is

$430

.71.

Ass

umin

g a

40-h

our w

ork

wee

k, a

ssis

tant

s ar

e pa

id $

10.7

7/ho

ur.

ST

ATU

S Q

UO

: CO

NTI

NU

E C

OM

POST

ING

AT

KIN

GM

AN

*A

dditi

onal

ass

umpt

ions

mad

e fo

r As-

Is S

cena

rio (n

o ch

ange

in p

ract

ice)

1.

Fo

od w

aste

is c

olle

cted

and

tran

spor

ted

to K

ingm

an F

arm

five

day

s pe

r wee

k, 5

2 w

eeks

per

yea

r. (A

ccor

ding

to D

avid

H

ill, t

his

is th

e fre

quen

cy o

f col

lect

ion

that

cur

rent

ly o

ccur

s.)

2.

Dis

tanc

e fro

m U

NH

cam

pus

(usi

ng H

ollo

way

Com

mon

s, 7

5 M

ain

St.,

Dur

ham

as

spec

ific

loca

tion)

to K

ingm

an F

arm

(333

K

nox

Mar

sh R

oad,

Mad

bury

) is

2.8

mile

s. R

ound

trip

trav

el is

5.6

mile

s.

3.

Rou

nd tr

ip tr

avel

tim

e to

Kin

gman

Far

m is

app

roxi

mat

ely

16 m

inut

es.

C

osts

of s

tatu

s qu

o:

• S

eagu

ll an

d ve

rmin

pro

blem

s an

d ca

paci

ty p

robl

ems

rem

ain

• P

ossi

ble

lega

l or o

ther

act

ion

from

Pea

se A

irpor

t •

Rem

ains

cha

lleng

ing

to a

dd fo

od w

aste

dur

ing

win

ter

• Q

uant

ified

cos

ts (T

able

1)

STA

TUS

QU

O, T

AB

LE 1

S

taff

labo

r to

colle

ct a

nd tr

ansp

ort c

ampu

s w

aste

dur

ing

acad

emic

yea

r: Tw

o st

uden

t sta

ff 5

days

/wk,

37

wks

/yr

Labo

r per

day

= 8

hou

rs (4

hou

rs p

er s

tude

nt)

Labo

r per

yea

r = 1

,480

hou

rs

At w

age

rate

of $

12.1

6/ho

ur =

$18

,000

/yea

r

Sta

ff la

bor t

o co

llect

and

tran

spor

t cam

pus

was

te d

urin

g su

mm

er:

Two

staf

f 5 d

ays/

wk,

15

wks

/yr

Labo

r inc

orpo

rate

d in

to e

xist

ing

food

ser

vice

sta

ff w

ages

,

(but

cal

cula

ted

out:

Labo

r per

day

= 8

hou

rs (4

hou

rs p

er s

taff

mem

ber)

La

bor p

er y

ear =

1,4

80 h

ours

A

t wag

e ra

te o

f $10

.77/

hr =

$15

,939

.60/

year

) G

asol

ine

cost

s fo

r tra

nspo

rt:

5.6

mile

s ro

und-

trip

betw

een

UN

H a

nd K

ingm

an F

arm

, fiv

e da

ys/w

eek

for 5

2 w

eeks

eac

h ye

ar

Ass

umin

g a

12-2

0 m

pg v

ehic

le: 0

.28-

0.46

7 ga

llons

/trip

= 7

2.8-

121

.33

gallo

ns/y

ear

At $

2.30

/gal

lon:

$16

7.44

-279

.07/

year

To

tal a

nnua

l cos

ts: $

18,1

67.4

4 - $

18,2

79.7

0

O

PTIO

N 1

: CO

VER

EXI

STIN

G W

IND

RO

W S

YSTE

M A

T K

ING

MA

N F

AR

M

*Add

ition

al a

ssum

ptio

ns m

ade

for O

ptio

n 1:

1.

Fo

od w

aste

is c

olle

cted

and

tran

spor

ted

to K

ingm

an F

arm

five

day

s pe

r wee

k, 5

2 w

eeks

per

yea

r. (A

ccor

ding

to D

avid

H

ill, t

his

is th

e fre

quen

cy o

f col

lect

ion

that

cur

rent

ly o

ccur

s.)

2.

Dis

tanc

e fro

m U

NH

cam

pus

(usi

ng H

ollo

way

Com

mon

s, 7

5 M

ain

St.,

Dur

ham

as

spec

ific

loca

tion)

to K

ingm

an F

arm

(333

K

nox

Mar

sh R

oad,

Mad

bury

) is

2.8

mile

s. R

ound

trip

trav

el is

5.6

mile

s.

Ben

efits

of c

over

ing

exis

ting

win

drow

sys

tem

: •

Elim

inat

es s

eagu

ll an

d ve

rmin

pro

blem

s an

d ch

alle

nge

of a

ddin

g fo

od w

aste

in w

inte

r •

Con

tinue

s us

e of

exi

stin

g m

achi

nery

C

osts

of c

over

ing

exis

ting

win

drow

sys

tem

: •

Cap

acity

and

win

ter p

low

ing

issu

es re

mai

n •

Qua

ntifi

ed c

osts

(Tab

le 1

)

O

PTIO

N 1

, TA

BLE

1

Cle

arS

pan

stru

ctur

e an

d co

nstru

ctio

n co

sts

Bui

ldin

g di

men

sion

s 56

ft. b

y 70

ft. =

$65

,891

S

ide

wal

l blo

cks

(2 b

lock

s hi

gh fo

r a 4

ft. h

igh

side

wal

l) B

uild

ing

dim

ensi

ons

56 ft

. by

70 ft

. = $

3,03

3 S

taff

labo

r to

colle

ct a

nd tr

ansp

ort c

ampu

s w

aste

dur

ing

acad

emic

yea

r: Tw

o st

uden

t sta

ff 5

days

/wk,

37

wks

/yr

Labo

r per

day

= 8

hou

rs (4

hou

rs p

er s

tude

nt)

Labo

r per

yea

r = 1

,480

hou

rs

At w

age

rate

of $

12.1

6/ho

ur =

$18

,000

/yea

r

Sta

ff la

bor t

o co

llect

and

tran

spor

t cam

pus

was

te d

urin

g su

mm

er:

Two

staf

f 5 d

ays/

wk,

15

wks

/yr

Labo

r inc

orpo

rate

d in

to e

xist

ing

food

ser

vice

sta

ff w

ages

, (b

ut c

alcu

late

d ou

t: la

bor p

er d

ay =

8 h

ours

(4 h

ours

per

sta

ff m

embe

r)

Labo

r per

yea

r = 1

,480

hou

rs

At w

age

rate

of $

10.7

7/hr

= $

15,9

39.6

0/ye

ar)

Gas

olin

e co

sts

for t

rans

port:

5.

6 m

iles

roun

d-tri

p be

twee

n U

NH

and

Kin

gman

Far

m, f

ive

days

/wee

k fo

r 52

wee

ks e

ach

year

A

ssum

ing

a 12

-20

mpg

veh

icle

: 0.2

8-0.

467

gallo

ns/tr

ip =

72.

8- 1

21.3

3 ga

llons

/yea

r A

t $2.

30/g

allo

n: $

167.

44-2

79.0

7/ye

ar

Tota

l cos

ts (Y

ear 1

): $8

7,09

1.44

- $8

7,20

3.07

To

tal a

nnua

l cos

ts Y

ear 2

and

onw

ard:

$18

,167

.44

- $18

,279

.07

O

PTIO

N 2

: REL

OC

ATE

(AN

D C

OVE

R) W

IND

RO

W S

YSTE

M T

O W

OO

DM

AN

FA

RM

*A

ssum

ptio

ns m

ade

for O

ptio

n 2:

1.

D

imen

sion

s of

cov

ered

stru

ctur

e ar

e 12

0 ft.

by

35 ft

. or 7

0 ft.

by

50 ft

. 2.

Fl

oorin

g an

d w

aste

blo

ck c

ost e

stim

ates

from

Sm

ith, 2

017.

3.

B

ased

on

cost

s fro

m B

urle

y-D

emer

itt’s

AS

P fa

cilit

y, c

onst

ruct

ion

of th

e co

ncre

te fl

oor w

ill c

ost a

ppro

xim

atel

y $4

0,00

0 an

d ae

ratio

n lin

es a

nd th

e co

mpo

stin

g flo

or w

ill c

ost a

ppro

xim

atel

y $1

3,31

8 (S

mith

& A

ber,

2017

).

4.

Food

was

te is

col

lect

ed a

nd tr

ansp

orte

d to

Woo

dman

Far

m fi

ve d

ays

per w

eek,

52

wee

ks p

er y

ear.

(Acc

ordi

ng to

Dav

id

Hill

, thi

s is

the

frequ

ency

of c

olle

ctio

n th

at c

urre

ntly

occ

urs.

) 5.

D

ista

nce

from

UN

H c

ampu

s (u

sing

Hol

low

ay C

omm

ons,

75

Mai

n S

t., D

urha

m a

s sp

ecifi

c lo

catio

n) to

Woo

dman

Res

earc

h Fa

rm (7

0 S

pinn

ey L

ane,

Dur

ham

) is

2.4

mile

s. R

ound

trip

trav

el is

4.8

mile

s.

6.

Add

ition

al 5

to 1

0 m

inut

es o

f dai

ly la

bor f

or m

ixin

g an

d pr

oper

man

agem

ent f

all w

ithin

wee

kly

sche

dule

and

do

not r

esul

t in

incr

ease

d la

bor c

osts

thro

ugh

over

time

pay.

B

enef

its o

f rel

ocat

ing

and

cove

ring

the

win

drow

sys

tem

incl

ude:

•

Elim

inat

es s

eagu

ll an

d ve

rmin

pro

blem

s •

Elim

inat

es c

halle

nges

of a

ddin

g fo

od w

aste

dur

ing

win

ter

• C

ontin

ues

use

of e

xist

ing

mac

hine

ry

• V

acat

ed K

ingm

an a

rea

coul

d be

use

d fo

r mor

e ag

ricul

tura

l pro

duct

ion

or o

ther

pur

pose

s •

Req

uire

s no

add

ition

al tr

aini

ng o

f man

ager

s (a

fter b

eing

edu

cate

d ab

out p

rope

r mix

ing

tech

niqu

es)

• R

educ

ed la

bor a

nd m

achi

nery

cos

ts to

plo

w K

ingm

an a

cces

s ro

ad in

win

ter

Add

ition

al b

enef

its o

f an

aera

tion

floor

: •

Offe

rs p

oten

tial f

or d

evel

opin

g A

SP

in s

tage

s •

Pro

vide

s be

nefic

ial p

assi

ve a

erat

ion

• O

ffers

opp

ortu

nitie

s fo

r res

earc

h C

osts

of r

eloc

atin

g an

d co

verin

g th

e w

indr

ow s

yste

m in

clud

e:

• O

ccup

ies

spac

e at

Woo

dman

Res

earc

h Fa

rm

• R

equi

res

mor

e sp

ace

for o

utdo

or c

urin

g w

indr

ows

• Q

uant

ified

cos

ts (T

able

1)

Floo

ring

optio

ns d

etai

led

in T

able

2.

O

PTIO

N 2

, TA

BLE

1

Stru

ctur

e di

men

sion

s: 5

6 ft.

by

70 ft

.

St

ruct

ure

dim

ensi

ons:

35

ft. b

y 12

0 ft.

C

lear

Spa

n st

ruct

ure

and

cons

truct

ion

cost

s B

uild

ing

dim

ensi

ons

56 ft

. by

70 ft

. = $

65,8

91

Sid

e w

all b

lock

s (2

blo

cks

high

for a

4 ft

. hig

h si

de w

all)

Bui

ldin

g di

men

sion

s 56

ft. b

y 70

ft. =

$4,

680

Sta

ff la

bor t

o co

llect

and

tran

spor

t cam

pus

was

te d

urin

g ac

adem

ic y

ear:

Two

stud

ent s

taff

5 da

ys/w

k, 3

7 w

ks/y

r La

bor p

er d

ay =

8 h

ours

(4 h

ours

per

stu

dent

) La

bor p

er y

ear =

1,4

80 h

ours

A

t wag

e ra

te o

f $12

.16/

hour

= $

18,0

00/y

ear

S

taff

labo

r to

colle

ct a

nd tr

ansp

ort c

ampu

s w

aste

dur

ing

sum

mer

: Tw

o st

aff 5

day

s/w

k, 1

5 w

ks/y

r La

bor i

ncor

pora

ted

into

exi

stin

g fo

od s

ervi

ce s

taff

wag

es,

(but

cal

cula

ted

out:

labo

r per

day

= 8

hou

rs (4

hou

rs p

er s

taff

mem

ber)

La

bor p

er y

ear =

1,4

80 h

ours

A

t wag

e ra

te o

f $10

.77/

hr =

$15

,939

.60/

year

) 4.

8 m

iles

roun

d-tri

p be

twee

n U

NH

and

Woo

dman

Far

m, 5

da

ys/w

k fo

r 52

wk/

yr

Ass

umin

g a

12-2

0 m

pg v

ehic

le: 0

.24-

0.4

gallo

ns/tr

ip =

62.

4-10

4 ga

l/yea

r A

t $2.

30/g

allo

n: $

143.

52-2

39.2

0/ye

ar

Tota

l cos

ts (Y

ear 1

): $8

8,71

4.52

- $8

8,81

0.20

To

tal a

nnua

l cos

ts Y

ear 2

and

onw

ard:

$18

,143

.52

- $18

,239

.20

Cle

arS

pan

stru

ctur

e an

d co

nstru

ctio

n co

sts

Bui

ldin

g di

men

sion

s 35

ft. x

120

ft. =

$93

,038

S

ide

wal

l blo

cks

(2 b

lock

s hi

gh fo

r a 4

ft. h

igh

side

wal

l) B

uild

ing

dim

ensi

ons

35 ft

. x 1

20 ft

. = $

5,20

0 S

taff

labo

r to

colle

ct a

nd tr

ansp

ort c

ampu

s w

aste

dur

ing

acad

emic

yea

r: Tw

o st

uden

t sta

ff 5

days

/wk,

37

wks

/yr

Labo

r per

day

= 8

hou

rs (4

hou

rs p

er s

tude

nt)

Labo

r per

yea

r = 1

,480

hou

rs

At w

age

rate

of $

12.1

6/ho

ur =

$18

,000

/yea

r

Sta

ff la

bor t

o co

llect

and

tran

spor

t cam

pus

was

te d

urin

g su

mm

er:

Two

staf

f 5 d

ays/

wk,

15

wks

/yr

Labo

r inc

orpo

rate

d in

to e

xist

ing

food

ser

vice

sta

ff w

ages

, (b

ut c

alcu

late

d ou

t: la

bor p

er d

ay =

8 h

ours

(4 h

ours

per

sta

ff m

embe

r)

Labo

r per

yea

r = 1

,480

hou

rs

At w

age

rate

of $

10.7

7/hr

= $

15,9

39.6

0/ye

ar)

4.8

mile

s ro

und-

trip

betw

een

UN

H a

nd W

oodm

an F

arm

, 5

days

/wk

for 5

2 w

k/yr

A

ssum

ing

a 12

-20

mpg

veh

icle

: 0.2

4-0.

4 ga

llons

/trip

= 6

2.4-

104

gal/y

ear

At $

2.30

/gal

lon:

$14

3.52

-239

.20/

year

To

tal c

osts

(Yea

r 1):

$116

,381

.52

- $11

6,47

7.20

To

tal a

nnua

l cos

ts Y

ear 2

and

onw

ard:

$18

,143

.52

- $18

,239

.20

O

PTIO

N 2

, TA

BLE

2

St

ruct

ure

dim

ensi

ons:

56

ft. b

y 70

ft.

Str

uctu

re d

imen

sion

s: 3

5 ft.

by

120

ft.

With

con

cret

e flo

or a

nd

grav

el d

rive

lane

Cos

t of g

rave

l and

con

stru

ctio

n 4”

thic

k co

ncre

te +

labo

r = $

12,4

46

6” th

ick

conc

rete

+ la

bor =

$18

,865

9.

5” th

ick

conc

rete

+ la

bor =

$29

,809

.50

Cos

t of g

rave

l and

con

stru

ctio

n 4”

thic

k co

ncre

te +

labo

r = $

14,8

12

6” th

ick

conc

rete

+ la

bor =

$22

,428

9.

5” th

ick

conc

rete

+ la

bor =

$35

,448

W

ith c

oncr

ete

floor

C

ost o

f con

cret

e an

d co

nstru

ctio

n 4”

thic

k co

ncre

te +

labo

r = $

19,3

62

6” th

ick

conc

rete

+ la

bor =

$29

,347

.50

9.5”

thic

k co

ncre

te +

labo

r = $

46,3

68

Cos

t of c

oncr

ete

and

cons

truct

ion

4” th

ick

conc

rete

+ la

bor =

$20

,737

.50

6” th

ick

conc

rete

+ la

bor =

$31

,409

9.

5” th

ick

conc

rete

+ la

bor =

$49

,640

.50

With

con

cret

e ae

ratio

n flo

or

Cos

t of c

oncr

ete

floor

and

con

stru

ctio

n $1

3,31

8 C

ost o

f aer

atio

n pi

ping

and

mes

h $4

0,00

0

Cos

t of c

oncr

ete

floor

and

con

stru

ctio

n $1

3,31

8 C

ost o

f aer

atio

n pi

ping

and

mes

h $4

0,00

0

O

PTIO

N 3

: CO

NST

RU

CT

AN

ASP

SYS

TEM

AT

WO

OD

MA

N F

AR

M

The

syst

em w

ill re

quire

add

ition

al in

frast

ruct

ure

cost

s (i.

e., f

or L

ED

ligh

ting

fixtu

res)

not

incl

uded

in th

is ta

ble.

Cos

ts o

f an

AS

P

syst

em c

an v

ary

grea

tly, d

epen

ding

on

the

degr

ee o

f sys

tem

aut

omat

ion

and

qual

ity o

f mat

eria

ls. A

n A

SP

sys

tem

’s a

erat

ion

infra

stru

ctur

e (e

xclu

ding

con

cret

e flo

or a

nd c

over

ing

stru

ctur

e) c

an b

e pu

rcha

sed

and

cons

truct

ed fo

r les

s th

an $

5,00

0 (M

. Sm

ith,

pers

onal

com

mun

icat

ion,

Aug

ust 1

8, 2

017)

. *A

dditi

onal

ass

umpt

ions

mad

e fo

r Opt

ion

3:

1.

Dim

ensi

ons

of c

over

ed s

truct

ure

are

120

ft. b

y 35

ft. or 7

0 ft.

by

56 ft

. 2.

B

ased

on

cost

s fro

m B

urle

y-D

emer

itt’s

(B-D

) AS

P fa

cilit

y, c

onst

ruct

ion

of th

e co

ncre

te fl

oor w

ill c

ost a

ppro

xim

atel

y $4

0,00

0 an

d ae

ratio

n lin

es a

nd th

e co

mpo

stin

g flo

or w

ill c

ost a

ppro

xim

atel

y $1

3,31

8 (S

mith

& A

ber,

2017

).

3.

A s

ingl

e-ph

ase

fan

blow

er c

osts

app

roxi

mat

ely

$2,0

00. (

The

1HP

New

Yor

k B

low

er u

sed

at th

e B

-D A

SP

faci

lity

cost

$1

,800

and

has

bee

n in

con

tinuo

us o

pera

tion

for 3

yea

rs.)

4.

Con

trol s

yste

m a

nd tw

o te

mpe

ratu

re p

robe

s ar

e pu

rcha

sed

from

Gre

en M

ount

ain

Tech

nolo

gies

. 5.

E

lect

ricity

is re

quire

d/w

ill b

e ru

nnin

g 24

hou

rs/d

ay.

6.

E

lect

ricity

will

cos

t app

roxi

mat

ely

$0.9

5 pe

r day

. (V

alue

bas

ed o

n th

e el

ectri

city

cos

ts o

f UN

H’s

AS

P s

yste

m a

t B-D

Far

m.)

7.

AS

P s

yste

m is

con

stru

cted

at a

site

that

alre

ady

has

elec

trici

ty a

cces

s (i.

e., W

oodm

an F

arm

). Th

e an

alys

is d

oes

not

incl

ude

cost

s fo

r est

ablis

hing

ele

ctric

ity in

frast

ruct

ure

at K

ingm

an F

arm

or o

ther

site

s.

8.

One

cub

ic y

ard

of b

olew

ood

chip

s fro

m F

ort M

ount

ain

Truc

king

cos

ts $

9.00

US

D. W

ood

chip

s w

ill b

e la

id to

a

thic

knes

s/he

ight

of s

ix in

ches

in o

ne-fo

ot-w

ide

segm

ents

ove

r aer

atio

n pi

pes.

One

cub

ic y

ard

of w

oodc

hips

is re

quire

d fo

r ea

ch 2

1-da

y cy

cle.

9.

A

t 17.

4 ro

tatio

ns o

r cyc

les

per y

ear,

the

AS

P s

yste

m w

ill re

quire

$15

6.43

of w

ood

chip

s if

purc

hase

d fro

m F

ort M

ount

ain

Truc

king

. Alte

rnat

ivel

y, U

NH

can

par

tner

with

a lo

cal t

ree

serv

ice

com

pany

for f

ree

or e

xtre

mel

y lo

w-c

ost w

ood

chip

s of

sl

ight

ly in

ferio

r qua

lity.

10

. Foo

d w

aste

is c

olle

cted

and

tran

spor

ted

to W

oodm

an F

arm

five

day

s pe

r wee

k, 5

2 w

eeks

per

yea

r. (A

ccor

ding

to D

avid

H

ill, t

his

is th

e fre

quen

cy o

f col

lect

ion

that

cur

rent

ly o

ccur

s.)

11. D

ista

nce

from

UN

H c

ampu

s (u

sing

Hol

low

ay C

omm

ons,

75

Mai

n S

t., D

urha

m a

s sp

ecifi

c lo

catio

n) to

Woo

dman

Res

earc

h Fa

rm (7

0 S

pinn

ey L

ane,

Dur

ham

) is

2.4

mile

s. R

ound

trip

trav

el is

4.8

mile

s.

12. T

he a

mou

nt o

f lab

or re

quire

d fo

r tur

ning

the

pile

, man

agin

g th

e co

ntro

l sys

tem

, and

cle

anin

g th

e ae

ratio

n in

frast

ruct

ure

will

be

equi

vale

nt to

the

tota

l am

ount

of l

abor

cur

rent

ly re

quire

d fo

r the

Kin

gman

Far

m s

yste

m (s

tatu

s qu

o sc

enar

io).

Ben

efits

of a

n A

SP

sys

tem

incl

ude:

•

Elim

inat

es s

eagu

ll an

d ve

rmin

pro

blem

s •

Elim

inat

es c

halle

nges

of a

ddin

g fo

od w

aste

dur

ing

win

ter

• C

ompo

stin

g pr

oces

s oc

curs

muc

h fa

ster

, thu

s el

imin

atin

g ca

paci

ty c

once

rns

• R

educ

es o

dor

• P

oten

tial f

or h

eat c

aptu

re a

nd e

xcha

nge

C

osts

of a

n A

SP

sys

tem

incl

ude:

•

Red

uctio

n in

use

of e

xist

ing

mac

hine

ry (l

oss

bein

g id

le)

• Q

uant

ified

cos

ts (T

able

1)

OPT

ION

3, T

AB

LE 1

N

on-q

uant

ified

: R

educ

tion

in u

se o

f exi

stin

g m

achi

nery

(los

s be

ing

idle

) Q

uant

ified

: C

lear

Spa

n st

ruct

ure

and

cons

truct

ion

cost

s B

uild

ing

dim

ensi

ons

56 ft

. by

70 ft

. = $

65,8

91

Bui

ldin

g di

men

sion

s 35

ft. x

120

ft. =

$93

,038

S

ide

wal

l blo

cks

(2 b

lock

s hi

gh fo

r a 4

ft. h

igh

side

wal

l) B

uild

ing

dim

ensi

ons

56 ft

. by

70 ft

. = $

3,03

3 B

uild

ing

dim

ensi

ons

35 ft

. x 1

20 ft

. = $

5,20

0 A

erat

ion

pipi

ng, m

esh

for f

loor

$1

3,31

8 C

oncr

ete

floor

and

con

stru

ctio

n co

sts

$40,

000

Inve

stm

ent i

n fa

ns, p

ipin

g, a

nd in

frast

ruct

ure

Sin

gle

phas

e fa

n bl

ower

: $2,

000

Gre

en M

ount

ain

Tech

nolo

gies

Web

MA

CS

Mod

el 1

Z4W

0 co

ntro

l sys

tem

: $2,

650

Gre

en M

ount

ain

Tech

nolo

gies

Web

MA

CS

Tem

pera

ture

Pro

bes

(2):

$395

/pro

be =

$79

0

Ele

ctric

ity c

osts

A

ppro

xim

atel

y $0

.95/

day

$

0.95

/day

*365

day

s/ye

ar =

$34

6.75

/yea

r R

epea

ted

purc

hase

of w

ood

chip

s fo

r bas

e m

ater

ial

One

cub

ic y

ard

per 2

1-da

y ro

tatio

n, fo

r 17.

4 ro

tatio

ns p

er y

ear

$9.0

0 pe

r cub

ic y

ard

of b

olew

ood

chip

s fro

m F

ort M

ount

ain

Truc

king

= $

156.

43/y

ear

Free

woo

d ch

ips,

if p

artn

er w

ith lo

cal t

ree

serv

ice

com

pany

= $

0/ye

ar

S

taff

labo

r to

colle

ct a

nd tr

ansp

ort c

ampu

s w

aste

dur

ing

acad

emic

yea

r: Tw

o st

uden

t sta

ff 5

days

/wk,

37

wks

/yr

Labo

r per

day

= 8

hou

rs (4

hou

rs p

er s

tude

nt)

Labo

r per

yea

r = 1

,480

hou

rs

At w

age

rate

of $

12.1

6/ho

ur =

$18

,000

/yea

r

Sta

ff la

bor t

o co

llect

and

tran

spor

t cam

pus

was

te d

urin

g su

mm

er:

Two

staf

f 5 d

ays/

wk,

15

wks

/yr

Labo

r inc

orpo

rate

d in

to e

xist

ing

food

ser

vice

sta

ff w

ages

, (b

ut c

alcu

late

d ou

t: la

bor p

er d

ay =

8 h

ours

(4 h

ours

per

sta

ff m

embe

r)

Labo

r per

yea

r = 1

,480

hou

rs

At w

age

rate

of $

10.7

7/hr

= $

15,9

39.6

0/ye

ar)

4.8

mile

s ro

und-

trip

betw

een

UN

H a

nd W

oodm

an F

arm

, fiv

e da

ys/w

eek

for 5

2 w

eeks

eac

h ye

ar

Ass

umin

g a

12-2

0 m

pg v

ehic

le: 0

.24-

0.4

gallo

ns/tr

ip =

62.

4-10

4 ga

l/yea

r A

t $2.

30/g

allo

n: $

143.

52-2

39.2

0/ye

ar

Tota

l cos

ts (Y

ear 1

): $1

46,1

72.2

7 - $

175,

738.

38

Tota

l ann

ual c

osts

Yea

r 2 a

nd o

nwar

d: $

18,4

90.2

7 - $

18,7

42.3

8

O

PTIO

N 4

: IN

STA

LL A

N A

NA

ERO

BIC

DIG

ESTE

R N

EAR

/AT

TUR

NK

EY L

AN

DFI

LL

Som

e fre

e tra

inin

g m

odul

es fo

r ana

erob

ic d

iges

tion

oper

ator

s ar

e av

aila

ble

onlin

e th

roug

h th

e B

ioen

ergy

Tra

inin

g C

ente

r and

oth

er

orga

niza

tions

, and

col

lege

s an

d or

gani

zatio

ns in

Eur

ope

and

othe

r int

erna

tiona

l loc

atio

ns o

ffer i

n-pe

rson

trai

ning

opp

ortu

nitie

s (r

angi

ng in

pric

e be

twee

n $3

85 to

mor

e th

an $

2,00

0 U

SD

). Th

e m

ajor

ity o

f cap

ital c

osts

in a

gric

ultu

ral (

e.g.

, man

ure-

hand

ling)

an

aero

bic

dige

stio

n sy

stem

s ar

e as

soci

ated

with

dig

este

r con

stru

ctio

n an

d ge

nera

tor c

osts

(US

DA

NR

CS

, 200

7). B

ecau

se U

NH

al

read

y ow

ns a

nd m

aint

ains

ele

ctric

al g

ener

atio

n eq

uipm

ent a

nd in

frast

ruct

ure,

thes

e co

sts

are

not i

nclu

ded

abov

e; o

nly

dige

ster

co

nstru

ctio

n co

sts

are

incl

uded

. In

stal

latio

n an

d co

nstru

ctio

n co

sts

are

diffi

cult

to e

stim

ate,

as

cost

s va

ry g

reat

ly w

ith th

e si

ze a

nd ty

pe o

f dig

este

r. S

ewag

e tre

atm

ent

plan

ts h

ave

inst

alle

d an

aero

bic

dige

stio

n sy

stem

s co

stin

g up

war

ds o

f $14

mill

ion

US

D, b

ut s

mal

ler l

ives

tock

ope

ratio

ns h

ave

cons

truct

ed d

iges

ters

for a

few

hun

dred

thou

sand

dol

lars

. Bas

ed o

n in

flatio

n-ad

just

ed 2

011

valu

es, t

he a

vera

ge c

ost o

f an

anae

robi

c di

gest

er u

nit (

in th

e fa

rm c

onte

xt) i

s $1

.2 m

illio

n U

SD

(Mon

tana

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Ext

ensi

on, 2

011)

. Due

to li

mite

d da

ta, t

his

valu

e is

us

ed in

the

abov

e ta

ble.

In

ord

er to

util

ize

the

exis

ting

gas-

proc

essi

ng in

frast

ruct

ure

loca

ted

at th

e Tu

rnke

y La

ndfil

l in

Roc

hest

er, t

he a

naer

obic

dig

este

r wou

ld

also

nee

d to

be

loca

ted

at th

e la

ndfil

l. Th

e sh

orte

st d

rivin

g ro

ute

betw

een

cam

pus

(usi

ng H

ollo

way

Com

mon

s (7

5 M

ain

St.,

Dur

ham

) as

sta

rting

poi

nt) a

nd th

e la

ndfil

l tot

als

9.4

mile

s. If

food

was

te is

col

lect

ed a

nd h

aule

d to

the

land

fill f

ive

times

per

wee

k, v

ehic

le

mile

age

tota

ls 1

8.8

mile

s pe

r day

, or 9

4 m

iles

per w

eek.

*A

dditi

onal

ass

umpt

ions

mad

e fo

r Opt

ion

4:

1.

Food

was

te is

col

lect

ed a

nd tr

ansp

orte

d to

the

land

fill f

ive

days

per

wee

k, 5

2 w

eeks

per

yea

r. (A

ccor

ding

to D

avid

Hill

, thi

s is

the

frequ

ency

of c

olle

ctio

n th

at c

urre

ntly

occ

urs.

) 2.

D

ista

nce

from

UN

H to

the

Turn

key

Land

fill i

s 9.

4 m

iles.

Rou

nd tr

ip tr

avel

is 1

8.8

mile

s.

Ben

efits

of i

nsta

lling

an

anae

robi

c di

gest

er in

clud

e:

• E

limin

ates

sea

gull

and

verm

in p

robl

ems,

cap

acity

con

cern

s, a

nd c

halle

nges

of a

ddin

g fo

od w

aste

in w

inte

r •

Red

uces

odo

r •

Han

dles

goo

d w

aste

, man

ure,

and

(pos

sibl

e) p

lant

mat

ter

• P

rodu

ce d

iges

tate

for u

se a

s co

mpo

st o

r fer

tiliz

er

• P

rodu

ce b

ioga

s fo

r co-

gen

plan

t C

osts

of i

nsta

lling

an

anae

robi

c di

gest

er in

clud

e:

• D

oes

not u

se e

xist

ing

win

drow

turn

er a

nd m

achi

nery

•

Qua

ntifi

ed c

osts

(Tab

le 1

)

O

PTIO

N 4

, TA

BLE

1

Non

-qua

ntifi

ed:

Doe

s no

t use

exi

stin

g w

indr

ow tu

rner

and

mac

hine

ry (i

dle)

Q

uant

ified

: In

crea

sed

spec

ializ

ed la

bor/t

rain

ing

Trai

ning

: Fre

e to

ove

r $2,

000

C

ost o

f ins

talla

tion

and

cons

truct

ion

$1.2

mill

ion

Sta

ff la

bor t

o co

llect

and

tran

spor

t cam

pus

was

te d

urin

g ac

adem

ic y

ear:

Two

stud

ent s

taff

5 da

ys/w

k, 3

7 w

ks/y

r La

bor p

er d

ay =

8 h

ours

(4 h

ours

per

stu

dent

) La

bor p

er y

ear =

1,4

80 h

ours

A

t wag

e ra

te o

f $12

.16/

hour

= $

18,0

00/y

ear

S

taff

labo

r to

colle

ct a

nd tr

ansp

ort c

ampu

s w

aste

dur

ing

sum

mer

: Tw

o st

aff 5

day

s/w

k, 1

5 w

ks/y

r La

bor i

ncor

pora

ted

into

exi

stin

g fo

od s

ervi

ce s

taff

wag

es,

(but

cal

cula

ted

out:

Labo

r per

day

= 8

hou

rs (4

hou

rs p

er s

taff

mem

ber)

La

bor p

er y

ear =

1,4

80 h

ours

A

t wag

e ra

te o

f $10

.77/

hr =

$15

,939

.60/

year

) 18

.8 m

iles

roun

d tri

p be

twee

n U

NH

and

land

fill,

five

days

/wee

k fo

r 52

wee

ks e

ach

year

A

ssum

ing

a 12

-20

mpg

veh

icle

: 0.9

4-1.

567

gal/t

rip =

244

.4-4

07.3

3 ga

l/yr

At $

2.30

/gal

lon:

$56

2.12

-936

.87/

year

To

tal c

osts

(Yea

r 1):

$1,2

18,5

62.1

2 - $

1,22

0,93

6.87

To

tal a

nnua

l cos

ts Y

ear 2

and

onw

ard:

$18

,562

.12

- $18

,936

.87

O

PTIO

N 5

: CO

NTR

AC

T O

UT

CO

MPO

STIN

G S

ERVI

CES

TO

MR

. FO

X C

OM

POST

ING

Th

e es

timat

ed re

quire

men

t of 3

5 bi

ns w

as d

eter

min

ed a

s fo

llow

s: In

201

6, A

pril

and

Sep

tem

ber h

ad th

e hi

ghes

t qua

ntiti

es o

f was

te,

arou

nd 2

8.5

tons

eac

h. A

ssum

ing

that

food

was

te g

ener

atio

n re

mai

ns c

onst

ant o

ver t

he n

ext f

ew y

ears

, I a

ssum

e th

at th

is

appr

oxim

ate

num

ber w

ill re

mai

n th

e m

onth

ly m

axim

um. T

hus,

in m

onth

s w

ith th

is m

uch

was

te, t

he c

ampu

s w

ill g

ener

ate

a w

eekl

y av

erag

e of

6.6

5 to

ns (2

8.5

tons

/30

days

*7 d

ays/

wee

k). A

ssum

ing

Mr.

Fox

staf

f can

col

lect

was

te tw

ice

per w

eek,

the

tota

l was

te

colle

cted

in b

ins

at a

ny o

ne ti

me

wou

ld b

e ab

out 3

.325

tons

. Eac

h bi

n ho

lds

appr

oxim

atel

y 20

0 po

unds

of w

aste

, mea

ning

10

bins

ar

e re

quire

d to

hol

d on

e to

n. W

ith th

ese

valu

es, U

NH

wou

ld n

eed

to p

urch

ase

abou

t 33

(rou

nded

to 3

5) b

ins

(3.3

25 to

ns*1

0 bi

ns/to

n).

Mr.

Fox

Com

post

ing

sells

32-

gallo

n to

ters

for $

70 e

ach,

but

Ria

n B

edar

d be

lieve

s th

e U

nive

rsity

cou

ld p

urch

ase

alte

rnat

ives

for $

30-

40 e

ach.

Exa

mpl

e al

tern

ativ

es in

clud

e: L

owe’

s w

heel

ed 3

2-ga

llon

Tote

rs (a

ppro

x. $

60 e

ach)

; non

-whe

eled

Rub

berm

aid

Bru

te 3

2-ga

llon

bin

(app

rox.

$35

/eac

h); a

nd n

on-w

heel

ed G

enui

ne J

oe 3

2-ga

llon

bin

(app

rox.

$30

/eac

h). I

f the

yel

low

bin

s cu

rren

tly u

sed

for

com

post

col

lect

ion

at U

NH

din

ing

halls

hol

d 32

-gal

lons

, and

if R

ian

Bed

ard

agre

es to

thei

r use

, the

Uni

vers

ity m

ay n

ot n

eed

to

purc

hase

new

bin

s.

*Add

ition

al a

ssum

ptio

ns m

ade

for O

ptio

n 5:

1.

Ti

me

requ

ired

to tr

avel

60.

8 m

iles

(rou

nd tr

ip b

etw

een

UN

H a

nd Y

ork,

ME

faci

lity)

take

s ap

prox

imat

ely

60 m

inut

es, o

r 0.7

5 ho

urs

mor

e th

an ro

und

trip

trave

l to

and

from

Kin

gman

Far

m.

2.

Food

was

te w

ill b

e tra

nspo

rted

to fa

cilit

y fiv

e tim

es p

er w

eek,

for 5

2 w

eeks

of e

ach

year

. B

enef

its o

f con

tract

ing

with

Mr.

Fox

Com

post

ing

incl

ude:

•

Elim

inat

es s

eagu

ll an

d ve

rmin

pro

blem

s (in

the

long

-term

) and

cap

acity

con

cern

s •

Elim

inat

es c

halle

nges

of a

ddin

g fo

od w

aste

in w

inte

r •

Opp

ortu

nitie

s fo

r edu

catio

n to

urs,

stu

dies

, and

pro

ject

s •

Rec

eive

10

yard

s of

free

, fin

ishe

d co

mpo

st a

nnua

lly

Add

ition

al b

enef

its o

f hav

ing

UN

H h

aul w

aste

to fa

cilit

y:

• U

NH

sta

ff co

ntro

ls ti

min

g of

com

post

col

lect

ion

and

trans

porta

tion

Add

ition

al b

enef

its o

f hav

ing

Mr.

Fox

haul

was

te to

faci

lity:

•

Red

uces

cos

ts fo

r stu

dent

/em

ploy

ee la

bor f

or c

olle

ctio

n, v

ehic

le m

aint

enan

ce a

nd fu

el

Cos

ts o

f con

tract

ing

with

Mr.

Fox

Com

post

ing

incl

ude:

•

Doe

s no

t sol

ve im

med

iate

sea

gull

and

verm

in p

robl

ems

at K

ingm

an F

arm

•

Col

lect

ion

and

hand

ling

cost

s (T

able

s 1

and

2)

OPT

ION

5, T

AB

LE 1

: UN

H H

AU

LS W

AST

E S

taff

labo

r to

colle

ct a

nd tr

ansp

ort c

ampu

s w

aste

dur

ing

acad

emic

yea

r: Tw

o st

uden

t sta

ff 5

days

/wk,

37

wks

/yr

Labo

r per

day

= 9

.5 h

ours

(4.7

5 ho

urs

per s

tude

nt)

Labo

r per

yea

r = 1

,757

.50

hour

s A

t wag

e ra

te o

f $12

.16/

hour

= $

21,3

71.2

0/ye

ar

Sta

ff la

bor t

o co

llect

and

tran

spor

t cam

pus

was

te d

urin

g su

mm

er:

Two

staf

f 5 d

ays/

wk,

15

wks

/yr

Labo

r inc

orpo

rate

d in

to e

xist

ing

food

ser

vice

sta

ff w

ages

, (b

ut c

alcu

late

d ou

t: La

bor p

er d

ay =

9.5

hou

rs (4

.75

hour

s pe

r sta

ff m

embe

r)

Labo

r per

yea

r = 1

,757

.50

hour

s A

t wag

e ra

te o

f $10

.77/

hr =

$18

,928

.28/

year

) C

osts

of 3

2-ga

llon

bins

Fr

om M

r. Fo

x: $

70*3

5 bi

ns =

$2,

450

OR

, fro

m a

noth

er v

endo

r: $4

0*35

bin

s =

$1,4

00

30.4

mile

s ro

und

trip

betw

een

UN

H a

nd c

ompo

stin

g fa

cilit

y, tw

ice

wee

kly

Ass

umin

g a

12-2

0 m

pg v

ehic

le: 1

.52-

2.53

gal

lons

/trip

= 3

.04-

5.06

gal

/wk

158.

08-2

63.1

2 ga

l/yea

r, at

$2.

30/g

allo

n: $

363.

58-6

05.1

8/ye

ar

Han

dlin

g co

sts

____

____

____

$55/

ton*

200

or 2

15 to

ns: $

11,0

00-1

1,82

5/ye

ar

Tota

l cos

ts (Y

ear 1

): $3

4,13

4.78

- $3

6,25

1.38

To

tal a

nnua

l cos

ts Y

ear 2

and

onw

ard:

$21

,734

.78

- $21

,976

.38

OPT

ION

5, T

AB

LE 2

: MR

. FO

X H

AU

LS W

AST

E C

osts

of 3

2-ga

llon

bins

Fr

om M

r. Fo

x: $

70*3

5 bi

ns =

$2,

450

OR

, fro

m a

noth

er v

endo

r: $4

0*35

bin

s =

$1,4

00

Col

lect

ion

and

hand

ling

cost

s __

____

____

_$10

0/to

n*20

0 or

215

tons

: $20

,000

-21,

500/

year

To

tal c

osts

(Yea

r 1):

$21,

400

- 23,

950

Tota

l ann

ual c

osts

Yea

r 2 a

nd o

nwar

d: $

20,0

00 -

$21,

500