Overall Rating Gold
Overall Score 70.10
Liaison Fortino Morales
Submission Date March 5, 2021

STARS v2.2

University of California, Riverside
OP-18: Waste Minimization and Diversion

Status Score Responsible Party
Complete 4.68 / 8.00 Fortino Morales
Sustainability Officer
Office of Sustainability
"---" indicates that no data was submitted for this field

Figures needed to determine total waste generated (and diverted):
Performance Year Baseline Year
Materials recycled 980 Tons 2,042 Tons
Materials composted 832 Tons 0 Tons
Materials donated or re-sold 615 Tons 0 Tons
Materials disposed through post-recycling residual conversion 0 Tons 0 Tons
Materials disposed in a solid waste landfill or incinerator 1,806 Tons 2,525 Tons
Total waste generated 4,233 Tons 4,567 Tons

A brief description of the residual conversion facility:

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

A brief description of when and why the waste generation baseline was adopted:

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 0.18 Tons 0.24 Tons

Percentage reduction in total waste generated per weighted campus user from baseline:
23.79

Percentage of materials diverted from the landfill or incinerator by recycling, composting, donating or re-selling, performance year:
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


Materials intended for disposal but subsequently recovered and reused on campus, performance year:
---

Does the institution use single stream recycling to collect standard recyclables in common areas?:
---

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?:
---

Average contamination rate for the institution’s recycling program:
---

A brief description of any recycling quality control mechanisms employed:
---

A brief description of the institution's waste-related behavior change 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.


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.