Overall Rating | Gold - expired |
---|---|
Overall Score | 70.10 |
Liaison | Francis Mitalo |
Submission Date | March 5, 2021 |
University of California, Riverside
OP-18: Waste Minimization and Diversion
Status | Score | Responsible Party |
---|---|---|
4.68 / 8.00 |
Fortino
Morales Sustainability Officer Office of Sustainability |
"---"
indicates that no data was submitted for this field
Parts 1 and 2. Waste per person
Performance Year | Baseline Year | |
Materials recycled | 889.04 Metric tons | 1,852.47 Metric tons |
Materials composted | 754.78 Metric tons | 0 Metric tons |
Materials donated or re-sold | 557.92 Metric tons | 0 Metric tons |
Materials disposed through post-recycling residual conversion | 0 Metric tons | 0 Metric tons |
Materials disposed in a solid waste landfill or incinerator | 1,638.38 Metric tons | 2,290.64 Metric tons |
Total waste generated | 3,840.11 Metric tons | 4,143.11 Metric tons |
If reporting post-recycling residual conversion, provide:
N/A
Start and end dates of the performance year and baseline year (or three-year periods):
Start Date | End Date | |
Performance Period | Jan. 1, 2018 | Dec. 30, 2018 |
Baseline Period | Jan. 1, 2009 | Dec. 30, 2009 |
If end date of the baseline year/period is 2004 or earlier, provide:
N/A
Figures needed to determine "Weighted Campus Users”:
Performance Year | Baseline Year | |
Number of students resident on-site | 6,404 | 5,905 |
Number of employees resident on-site | 0 | 0 |
Number of other individuals resident on-site | 0 | 0 |
Total full-time equivalent student enrollment | 23,155.40 | 18,655.80 |
Full-time equivalent of employees | 5,875.80 | 4,933 |
Full-time equivalent of students enrolled exclusively in distance education | 82.10 | 0 |
Weighted campus users | 23,312.83 | 19,167.85 |
Total waste generated per weighted campus user:
Performance Year | Baseline Year | |
Total waste generated per weighted campus user | 0.16 Metric tons | 0.22 Metric tons |
Percentage reduction in total waste generated per weighted campus user from baseline:
23.79
Part 3. Waste diverted from the landfill or incinerator
57.34
Percentage of materials diverted from the landfill or incinerator (including up to 10 percent attributable to post-recycling residual conversion):
57.34
In the waste figures reported above, has the institution recycled, composted, donated and/or re-sold the following materials?:
Yes or No | |
Paper, plastics, glass, metals, and other recyclable containers | Yes |
Food | Yes |
Cooking oil | Yes |
Plant materials | Yes |
Animal bedding | No |
White goods (i.e. appliances) | No |
Electronics | Yes |
Laboratory equipment | No |
Furniture | Yes |
Residence hall move-in/move-out waste | Yes |
Scrap metal | Yes |
Pallets | Yes |
Tires | Yes |
Other (please specify below) | Yes |
A brief description of other materials the institution has recycled, composted, donated and/or re-sold:
Nitrile Gloves, ink toner cartridges, Styrofoam and cardboard
Optional Fields
Active Recovery and Reuse
---
Recycling Management
---
Does the institution use dual stream recycling to collect standard recyclables in common areas?:
---
Does the institution use multi-stream recycling to collect standard recyclables in common areas?:
---
Contamination and Discard Rates
---
A brief description of any recycling quality control mechanisms employed:
---
Programs and Initiatives
---
A brief description of the institution's waste audits and other initiatives to assess its materials management efforts and identify areas for improvement:
---
A brief description of the institution's procurement policies designed to prevent waste:
---
A brief description of the institution's surplus department or formal office supplies exchange program that facilitates reuse of materials:
---
A brief description of the institution's platforms to encourage peer-to-peer exchange and reuse:
---
A brief description of the institution's limits on paper and ink consumption:
Computer labs and libraries only offer free printing up to a certain amount. After the students have spent this amount they must pay for the rest of their prints.
A brief description of the institution's initiatives to make materials available online by default rather than printing them:
Instead of printing, UCR displays their catalogue of classes online. Having the courses displayed online also allows for students to see how many seats are still available. In addition, professors often post course materials online on iLearn instead of handing out readings in class, which saves a massive amount of paper. iLearn also provides an opportunity for teachers to review and grade essays online without ever needing a hard copy of the assignment.
A brief description of the institution's program to reduce residence hall move-in/move-out waste:
---
A brief description of the institution's programs or initiatives to recover and reuse other materials intended for disposal:
---
Website URL where information about the institution’s waste minimization and diversion efforts is available:
---
Additional documentation to support the submission:
---
Data source(s) and notes about the submission:
Data provided by the Facilities Services department. The data is from FY2018-2019 as it's the last 'normal' waste year before COVID impacts.
The information presented here is self-reported. While AASHE staff review portions of all STARS reports and institutions are welcome to seek additional forms of review, the data in STARS reports are not verified by AASHE. If you believe any of this information is erroneous or inconsistent with credit criteria, please review the process for inquiring about the information reported by an institution or simply email your inquiry to stars@aashe.org.