Recycling & Solid Waste

Transcription

1 Recycling & Solid Waste APPA Institute Scottsdale, AZ 9/14/15 Ed von Bleichert University of Colorado Boulder Contributors: Jessica Bradley Meggan Foster Housekeeping In the right room? Welcome and Thank you! Giveaways Attendance list Break? There are silly questions (Favorable) Session Evaluations (Expected) Have your name, , D.O.B., and SS# Personal Introduction Facilities Operations division of Facilities Management Environmental Operations Manager Manage integrated waste program Recycling Composting Landfill Zero waste events Twenty three years of waste management experience 1

2 Organizational Introduction C.U Recycling (CURE) established in 1976 Student / Administrative partnership est permanent staff (13.5 FTE) ~ 40 student staff 800 volunteer hrs CSW hrs. Strong student support & involvement Facilities Management Labor Breakdown Recycling & Composting 11.2 FTE over 17 positions; 9 students 3 box trucks, 2 rear loaders, 2 front loaders Over 1200 locations Solid Waste / Landfill 2.5 FTE 2 Front loaders 120 dumpsters 2 Front-End Loaders to arrive this October EMEN 5040 study Concluded $1.5 to $2.2 million in cost avoidance Vehicles Rear-End loader out to bid this summer Allows for potential inhouse compost collections 2

3 90% diversion rate by 2020 Currently 42.7% (FY14) Zero Waste events Can parity Indoor organics pilot Procurement reform Re-investing in collection vehicles New facility opened June 15 Current Efforts RFI: Recycling collections Kessler Consulting, Inc. (KCI) Strategies to achieve Zero Waste 2013 RFP s: Landfill & Sale of Recyclables Waste Mgmt. Sustainability Services (WMSS) Waste Composition Analysis Diversion Potential Assessment 2013 Internal Review Cost effectiveness of solid waste collections Who s in the Audience? Robust programs represented Penn St. American University UT Austin Oregon St. Directly responsible for Waste Management? Custodial collections? In-house vs. contracted? What would you like to cover? 3

4 Course Goals Integrating Recycling and Solid Waste View of the Larger Recycling Process Focus on effective handling of basic materials Ideas to Improve Your School s Program Opportunities for Involving Students Access to Additional Resources Course Agenda Overview of Solid Waste Management in U.S. UCB Program Details Waste composition studies Single Stream vs. Source Separation Bin Parity Collection Equipment / Vehicles Zero Waste Events Outreach and Education Lessons Integrated Approach to Disposal 4

5 Number of Landfills in the United States, 1988 to 2009 EPA MSW 2009 Facts and Figures How Waste is Managed in the U.S. EPA MSW 2013 Facts and Figures Diversion Rate Pounds of Diverted Materials (Recycled, Composted, Re-used / Donated) x 100 Pounds of Diversion + Pounds of Landfill (Total Waste Generated) 5

6 FY14 Summary Diversion Rate: 42.7% (-1.0%) Landfill: 3165 tons (+1) Diversion: 2358 tons (-100) Total: 5523 tons (-99 or 1.8%) Municipal Solid Waste Generation in 2013 (254 Million Tons) EPA MSW 2013 Facts and Figures MSW Generation Rates, 1960 to 2013 EPA MSW 2013 Facts and Figures 6

7 MSW Recycling Rates, 1960 to 2013 EPA MSW 2013 Facts and Figures Per day Per week Per month Per year Recycling Rates of Selected Products,

8 Capture Rate The amount of a particular material you were able to divert out of the waste stream If you have 100 lbs of cans & bottles and you divert 25 lbs Capture rate is 25% Robust Campus Audits University of British Columbia 2011 Arizona St C.U. Boulder 2013 Waste Stream Assessment Shows where to best target your efforts Gives information on container capacities, equipment needs, labor requirements Provides feedback to refine trash disposal scheduling Helps measure diversion and recovery rates Ideal opportunity for class project 8

9 UCB Audit Details Contracted Waste Management Sustainability Services Analyzed ~ 10,500 lbs over 77 samples Focus Waste Composition Analysis Diversion Potential Assessment 9

10 10

11 Majority of suggestions are basic collection / infrastructure / logistical items. Resist the shiny objects! Single Stream Collections? Misnomer Cardboard often separate Separate glass collections? (EU) Dozens more materials beyond cans, bottles, papers Automated vs. manual collections Different pros & cons Dual collections Grounds, Custodial, Food service staff SW Cost Per Yard Comparison 11

12 Cardboard Collection Costs vs. BVSD Rates Bin Parity: Outdoor ZW Stations Exposed aggregate trash cans through cans campus wide Subject to vandalism Previous attempts at dual collections or matching w/ recycling bins Conversion to black metal cans in 2001 Bolted to the ground Expanded as part of litter control program in 2001 $250K funded for new trash cans only No $ for recycling Attempts to Catch Up Student funding for recycling cans 04: 16 of 125 (13%) 07: 45 of 205 (22%) Waste sort of outdoor trash & recycling Majority in both recyclable Sustainability funding Parity Color coded lids & labels 12

13 Can Parity Results University of Colorado Boulder - Outdoor Recycling Stations Aug/Sep Aug/Sep * Trash & Recycling Parity Achieved Aug/Sep 2010 Aug/Sep * Outdoor ZW Stations Funded April, Pounds of Commingled Containers Aug/Sep * 45 stations out of 205 trash locations (22%) Aug/Sep * 16 recycling stations : 125 trash locations (13%) Final Results Glass, Plastic, Aluminum FY11: 8,210 lbs. FY13: 25,052 lbs. 205% increase Papers FY11: 1,187 lbs. FY13: 1,931 lbs. 63% increase 13

14 Bin (Collection) Parity Lessons Eliminate stand alone trash cans Reduce total number of locations Repurpose bins Lower collection costs Simple (vertical) signs Color coding Vertical Labels Critical 14

15 Indoor ZW Stations 15

16 Penn State. Boulder Co. Courthouse Newer Approach D.I.A Airports O Hare 16

17 LaGuardia Vancouver Ft. Lauderdale Arenas & Stadiums 17

18 Pittsburgh Expo Ctr. Oh So Close Seattle Tacoma 18

19 Washington National Separate Bins = Mixed Waste 19

20 Promoting the Desired Behavior Penn State - No Can Do Program UC Boulder - deskside recycling collections no trash service Shaver s Creek Environmental Ctr. Collection Methods 20

21 Trash Compactors (Self-Contained or Stationary) Ideal for (food service) Cardboard Side Loaders Generally not suited for campuses Front-End Loaders (FEL) 21

22 Rear-End Loaders (REL) Box Truck / Cube Van Michigan State 22

23 University of Colorado - Boulder New Facility Update Temporary Facilities June 14 - June 15 Grounds & Recycling Operations Center (GROC) to open early June,

24 Roll-off Truck Material Recovery Facility 24

25 Zero Waste Events Zero Waste 101 Defined as 90% diversion rate at a minimum Recycling is reactive Zero Waste is proactive Vendor / Contract / procurement reform Design for recycling & composting Biodegradeable is not Compostable Can Parity Goalies / 1 on 1 outreach Routine training Waste sorts 25

26 USA Pro Cycling Challenge Breckenridge, CO Penn State 100+ acres of Tailgating Zero Waste at Folsom Field 78 26

27 Zero Waste at Folsom Field 79 27

28 Clubs & Suites Zero Waste at Folsom Field 83 Compost Sort 28

29 ROTC Bowl Pick Zero Waste at Folsom Field 2014 GENERATION COMPOST: 29,206 lbs. 56.7% RECYCLING: 16,885 lbs.* 33.6% DIVERSION RATE Season Average: 90.3% Season High: 92.2% Season Low: 86% TRASH: 4,994 lbs. 9.7% * includes fryer grease Ralphie s Green Stampede 29

30 Zero Waste Stadiums CU Boulder 53,000+ attendees Most services in-house Levy is concessionaire No public trash cans Compost is food, fiber, and most plastics (#7 PLA) 90% diversion rate Tailgate recycling Ohio State 103,000+ attendees All services contracted Levy is concessionaire No public trash cans Compost is food, fiber, and some plastics (#7 PLA) > 90% diversion rate Tailgate recycling Student Roles Operations Collections Processing Special event support Waste audits Applied academics Outreach & Education Promotional Face to face ARD Creative dramatics EIR s Operational Posters, stickers, brochures Door hangers, table tents Special event support Goalies Displays Applied academics 30

31 Calculating Recycling s Impact U.S. EPA s WARM model Recycling Organizations of North America Waste Management and Energy Savings: Benefits by the Numbers 31

32 ZW Transition Plan 6 Step process to identify specific waste generation, estimate most effective and cost effective strategies to minimize waste on the front-end while diverting as much as possible on the back-end. Process to restart this summer 2896 Add l Tons Available Fit into Existing Campus Systems: 2266 tons Programs implemented to varying degrees 84% diversion rate Current ZW Initiatives: 79% diversion Easily Divertable : 74% diversion 1972 tons 1716 tons Lessons Aversion vs. Diversion Contract / vendor reform All forms of waste disposal cost $ Bldg. Standards Bin parity Easiest & most cost effective way to raise diversion Don t stop short Handle materials as late in the process as possible 32

33 Lessons Co-collections Maximize equipment / vehicles Breakdown silos w/ custodial, grounds, food service Pilot, pilot, pilot Tell your story All waste is local Ed von Bleichert CU Recycling vonb@colorado.edu 33