Client Contact: Aris Holz, Ph.Ddonna Woudenberg, Ph.D

Pollution Prevention Opportunities

Hardin Hall

Client Contact: Aris Holz, Ph.DDonna Woudenberg, Ph.D

Assistant ProfessorNational Drought Mitigation Center
Coordinator Water Science MajorUniversity of Nebraska
University of NebraskaSchool of Natural Resources
School of Natural Resources804 Hardin Hall
502 Hardin HallLincoln, NE 68583
Lincoln, NE 68583Ph: 402-472-8287
Ph: 402-472-8182

Date: 10/01/2008

Prepared by:Kayleigh Peters

Intern

P3 Partners in Pollution Prevention Program

University of NebraskaWasteCap Nebraska

234 L.W. Chase Hall285 S. 68th St. Place, Suite 540

Lincoln, NE 68583Lincoln, NE 68510

(402)472-2838(402)434-7377

Executive Summary

With the cooperation of faculty and staff, a waste and energy audit was performed on October 1, 2008 by an intern with the Partners in Pollution Prevention (P3) program, in association with WasteCap Nebraska, to assess energy consumption and waste disposal and their associated costs. Assistance from P3 helped target and minimize waste streams and offer suggestions for cost avoidance via reduced utility and material consumption. Areas or processes were identified which may benefit from waste reduction strategies and recycling opportunities.

Measures for effective pollution prevention were determined through examination of the waste types, quantities, and processes unique to each area. An initial meeting was conducted to discuss areas of focus and interest to determine an appropriate course of action. Actual analyses consisted of a guided tour led by Assistant Professor and Sustainability Committee member Aris Holz, to interview and observe individual building areas as well as determine which waste streams may benefit from reduction, reuse or recycling. Each recommendation typically includes the current practice, suggested action, implementation cost and summary of benefits. By implementing the suggested opportunities, Hardin Hall can expect minimum savings of $12, 410 per year. Key pollution prevention (P2) opportunities are compiled into Table 1 to summarize each recommendation and the potential savings if applied. Further information and details regarding individual recommendations can be found in the appendices.

Disclaimer

The contents of this report are offered as guidance. The University of Nebraska and all technical sources referenced in this report do not (a) make any warranty or representation, expressed or implied, with respect to the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of the information contained in this report, or that the use of any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in this report may not infringe on privately owned rights, (b) assume any liabilities with respect to the use of, or for damages resulting from the use of, any information, apparatus, method, or process disclosed in the report. This report does not reflect the official views or policy of the above-mentioned institutions. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or recommendation of use.

Background and Waste Assessment

Business and Project Description

Located on the corner of 33rd and Holdrege Streets, the School of Natural Resources is a nine-story building recently renovated to provide faculty, staff and students with 150,000 square feet of laboratory and office space. With a focus on environmental sustainability, the School of Natural Resources has volunteered to become one of UNL’s first “green” buildings.

At the request of Donna Woudenberg, Kayleigh Peters, an intern with the Partners in Pollution Prevention (P3) program, in conjunction with WasteCap Nebraska, conducted a waste assessment on October 1, 2008. With recycling practices already established, major areas of interest were determined to be energy and water consumption, with some focus on waste disposal as investigated throughout the building. The waste assessment and energy audit were seen as an improvement of that dedication to environmentally-friendly practices.

Waste Assessment

Academic-based buildings such as Hardin Hall generate a significant amount of waste due to student, staff and faculty needs. While several pollution prevention measures already exist within daily operations, some additional practices can be incorporated to improve environmental stewardship.

Process Analysis

Process Description

To determine the best measures for effective pollution prevention, the waste streams and processes unique to each area of Hardin Hall were analyzed and researched. The analysis of the individual floors provides valuable information in determining which waste streams, such as those shown in Figure 1, may benefit from reduction, reuse or recycling.

Figure 1. Flow Diagram of Waste Streams.

Current Practices

Understanding and managing energy consumption and waste disposal have been a priority for the School of Natural Resources. As an active practitioner of pollution prevention (P2), the staff has already implemented several measures in its daily operations. Some of these endeavors include establishing centralized and easily located recycling areas for plastic, paper, newspaper, and aluminum cans throughout the building. Individual offices and classrooms also retain their own separate recycling bins for convenience and as a reminder to recycle as often as possible. In addition to a well-established recycling program, Hardin Hall has posted reminders throughout conference rooms, classrooms, and offices to turn off lights when not in use. The awareness of faculty, students and staff towards environmental issues is commendable and may be further augmented by implementing a few additional measures outlined in the following section.

General Recommendations

The following is a brief list of general recommendations that can be incorporated to increase pollution prevention (P2) effectiveness at Hardin Hall.

• Generate a Pollution Prevention Policy Statement. Organizations successful in waste minimization will typically have a pollution prevention policy statement. The School of Natural Resources has been successful in incorporating this policy within their mission statement, promising to “promote a comprehensive conservation ethic for the effective and appropriate management and sustainable use of natural resources.” This statement can be generated and periodically updated by management to demonstrate commitment to incorporating pollution prevention in the organization’s processes and operations.

• Select Personnel to Lead P2 Efforts. To further implement the pollution prevention policy, one or more “cause champions” should be selected to lead the pollution prevention program and overcome the resistance present when changes are made to existing operations. These “cause champions” may include an environmental coordinator, faculty member, or anyone else dedicated to implementing the pollution prevention policy. The establishment of a sustainability committee is a great asset to the facility and already embodies many of the characteristics inherent to effective “cause champions.”

• Encourage Employee Input. The School of Natural Resources does a commendable job of encouraging faculty, staff and student input at all levels and giving equal consideration to present issues and concerns as evidenced by the presence of a sustainability committee and a continuous drive towards improvement.

• Set P2 Goals. Goals should be established to help implement and track the progress of the organization’s pollution prevention policy. Specific, quantitative goals should be set that are acceptable to those willing to work to achieve them, flexible to changing requirements, and achievable with a practical level of effort. To document the progress of the pollution prevention goals, a waste accounting system should be used.

Individual Pollution Prevention Recommendations

In addition to the general recommendations previously mentioned, there are potential pollution prevention opportunities within individual processes and practices. Each recommendation listed below, will include the suggested action, implementation cost, and summary of benefits.

• Default to double-sided printing and copying. Setting copy machines and printers to default to double-sided copy and printing can reduce an organization's paper costs as well as reduce the volume of paper sent into the waste stream. A 25% reduction in overall paper usage may potentially save $6,000/year as well as divert more than 9,300 lb/year of paper waste from the landfill. Detailed calculations and assumptions located in Appendix A.

• Thermostat management. As energy costs increase, temperature management is becoming a priority amongst small and large businesses. With heating and cooling available year round, Hardin Hall presents a unique challenge to thermostat management. Whereas smaller to medium sized buildings may benefit from a 2 degree temperature setback, at Hardin Hall this practice runs the risk of increasing energy use due to thermostats applying heat to combat the higher temperature setpoint rather than reducing the cooling load.

Familiar with large all-air HVAC systems, Mr.Kirk Conger, UNL Building Systems Maintenance, has been working to solve this same dilemma by making certain parts of UNL buildings cooling-only in the summer and desensitizing the thermostats when rooms are unoccupied (such as floors 3-9 in the tower at Hardin Hall, for example). Mr.Conger plans to consult with an electrical engineer to fix the issue of kVAR charges the facility currently pays extra for.

• Join ENERGY STAR Low Carbon IT Campaign. The Low Carbon IT Campaign is a nationwide effort to assist and recognize organizations for reducing the energy consumed by their computers and monitors. Joining the campaign means the organization pledges to activate power management features on computers and monitors to ultimately reduce their carbon footprint. By joining the program and implementing power management features such as computer “standby” or “hibernate” mode after a period of inactivity, the facility can potentially save $5,300/year by reducing energy consumption over 79,500 kWh. Calculations and assumptions can be found in Appendix B.

• Install low-flow faucet aerators. Replacing faucet aerators is the most affordable component of a water conservation program. Standard faucet aerators are rated at 2.2 gallons per minute (gpm). Older faucets or faucets without aerators can use much more water. Installing an aerator takes less than 5 minutes and the consumer can choose between 0.5 gpm to 2.5 gpm. Simply replacing existing 2.2 gpm aerators with new 1.0 gpm tamperproof aerators can save the facility approximately $810/yr in reduced utility bills with a payback period of less than 3 weeks. Vendor information and calculations located in Appendix C.

Appendices

Appendix A: Double-sided copy/print

Appendix B: Low Carbon IT Campaign

Appendix C: Faucet aerators

Appendix A: Double-sided Copy/Print

The following demonstrates the method used to calculate the volume reduction and savings by implementing double-sided copying and printing into daily operations. Prices may vary depending on location and retailer. Current purchasing values do not reflect actual paper quantities. All calculations are based on the assumption that 7,500 reams of paper are purchased yearly.

Office Depot Values:

$32.00 1 ream

10 reams 5 lbs

Current Purchasing Values:

7,500 reams5 lbs

year ream

37,500 lbs$0.64

year lb

Assume reduction of 25% with double-sided printing and copying.

Potential Savings:

37,500 lbs

year

9,375 lbs $0.64

year lb

Appendix B: Low Carbon IT Campaign

The ENERGY STAR Low Carbon IT Campaign promotes 4 basic types of computer power management, or “sleep" features on Windows PCs. Table 1 contains a listing and description of each type of power management feature.

Table 1. Power Management Features.

Using the ENERGY STAR online savings calculator these assumptions were used:

Estimate number of computers:

Floors 3-9: 24 offices 1 computer

floor office

Computer labs: 3 labs w/ 12 computers each = 36 computers

1 lab w/ 8 computers = 8 computes

Total # Computers = 168 + 36 + 8 = 212 computers

Assume computers operate 8 hr/d, 5 d/wk, turned off 36% of the time, there are 22 non-working days/yr, and cost of electricity for Nebraska is $0.067.

Online savings calculator: www.energystar.gov

Set computers to “hibernate” or “standby” after 15 minutes of inactivity:

Total Savings = $5,600

Electricity Saved = 84,400 kWh

Appendix C: Faucet Aerators

Assumptions:

Faucets run 60 min/day

Occupied 250 days/year

Current flow rating: 2.2 gpm

Hrs. of Operation: 15,000 min/year

30 faucets in building

Current Operating Costs:

2.2 gal $1.5015,000 min

min 1,000 gal year

Proposed Operating Costs:

1.0 gal $1.5015,000 min

min 1,000 gal year

Savings:

Current – Proposed = ($49.50 - $22.50)/year = $27.00/faucet/year

For 30 faucets: $810/year

Water Savings: (2.2 – 1.0)gpm = 1.2 gpm

1.2 gal 15,000 min

min year

Capital Cost: $1.50/aerator = $45.00 (see attached for aerator information)

Payback Period:

Capital cost $45

Current cost – proposed cost ($1,485 – $675)/year

Eartheasy

• Registsered partner of EPA WaterSense Program
• Offers 0.5 and 1.5 gpm faucet aerators
• Dual Standard Thread (male and female)
• 2 for $5.95

------

AM Conservation Group, Inc.

• Offers 0.5, 1.0, and 2.0 gpm faucet aerators
• Dual Standard Thread
• $1.39/aerator
• Offers bulk purchase discounts

------

USA Landlord

• Offers 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 gpm faucet aerators
• 1.5 gpm = up to 32%
• 1.0 gpm = up to 54%
• 0.5 gpm = up to 77%
• 3 flow patterns (Bubble flow (top) & needle spray (bottom))
• $1.65/aerator

1