Waste Audit Report 2010

Transcription

1 Waste Audit Report 2010 Submitted by Kisti Thomas April 21, 2010

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The 2010 waste audit was conducted the third week of March at the University of Winnipeg. The annual audit serves to assess the ongoing success of the recycling and composting programs, to mark trends in the waste steam, as well as identify problems and opportunities for improvements. The audit process followed the procedures created during the 2002 audit and ran smoothly thanks to the recommendations and precedents set by previous audits. The Campus Sustainability Office, Physical Plant Department, Bee Clean janitorial services, and members of the student body were involved in planning for and implementing the waste audit. A total of kg of waste was sorted and weighed from Sunday, March 14 th to Friday March 19 th, This represents approximately 51.9 % of the total waste removed from campus that week. The audit used the same 44 previously established categories from the 2009 report. Of the kg of waste ( kg Recycling kg Compost + estimated 3550 kg Landfill Waste) generated at the university during the audit week, our diversion from landfill is 55%. Compost comprises 19.2 % of this total, and Recycling, 35.9 %. The diversion rate does not include the materials that Phoenix Recycling collects from the U of W. They do not weigh the recyclables they collect from campus so the diversion rate is higher than is stated here. We often receive estimated totals from Johnsons Waste, resulting in inaccuracies in municipal solid waste numbers as well. When measuring our annual totals, between 2009 and 2010, we saw the weight of our organics composted increase from 11.1 tonnes in 2008 to 13.5 tonnes in Some factors that may have contributed to this rise may be better promotion, including signage and publicity in The Uniter, our student paper. Students and staff may be more comfortable with the program now that it s in its third year. We will likely see this figure rise again in 2010, given that there are improvements to both pre- and post-consumer composting programs in the works for the upcoming year. A number of the recommendations from this year s waste audit data build on those made in They include ongoing behaviour change work, promotion and awareness campaigns, as well as finding new ways to encourage uptake of waste reduction policies campus-wide. 2

3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The following people and groups were of great importance to the success of the 2010 University of Winnipeg waste audit. Physical Plant Department Ed DuVal, Shipping and Receiving Rick Sitarz, Shipping and Receiving Bee Clean staff Tom Brown from the University of Winnipeg Student s Association Green Manitoba 3

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction 5 2 Waste Systems Overview 2.1 General Overview Garbage Handling System Recyclables Handling System Beverage Container Recycling Paper Recycling Cardboard Recycling 6 3 Methods 3.1Waste Sort Methodology Duration and Staffing Solutions Garbage and Recyclables Collection Procedure Sorting Procedure Data Analysis Methodology 9 4 Results and Analysis 4.1 Waste Composition Overall Waste Stream Composition Waste Composition by Material 9 Organics 11 Paper 11 Plastics 12 Miscellaneous 13 Glass 13 Poly-coat 14 Steel 14 Aluminum Comparison to Previous Audits Total waste Generated Waste Generated by Category 16 5 Recycling 5.1 Waste Recycled Recyclable Material in Waste Stream Recycling System Catch Rates 19 6 Waste Reduction Opportunities & Recommendations 6.1 Waste Reduction Opportunities by Category Paper Aluminum Glass Organic Waste Disposable Cups Cardboard Other Recommendations 23 7 Appendix 24 4

5 1. INTRODUCTION The Physical Plant Department of the University of Winnipeg is responsible for solid waste management, and the Campus Sustainability Office is responsible for the recycling and composting programs on campus. Until August 2009 the recycling and composting programs were under the Physical Plant Department, at which time they were transferred to the Campus Sustainability Office. Other portions of the waste stream, such as hazardous waste are under the direction of the Safety Office, and bio-hazardous waste from the laboratories, is the responsibility of the Chief Administrative Technologist in the Biology Department. The biohazardous waste that had been rendered inert through the autoclave process was collected with regular solid waste and included in the audit results. For one week the waste stream was sorted into 44 separate categories and weighed to compare results to the previous nine audits. The audit works to assess how well our recycling and composting programs are diverting materials from landfill, and trends in the composition of waste over time. This year is the tenth audit since The audit funding is now provided through Green Manitoba, a branch of the Manitoba Provincial government. The grant is used to pay for the expenses incurred by the campus recycling and composting programs, as well as the annual waste audit staffing, coordination and reporting. The following report covers general information on the campus waste disposal system, the results of the audit, comparisons to previous audit results and further recommendations to advance the recycling system and other possibilities for waste minimization. 2. WASTE SYSTEMS OVERVIEW 2.1 General Overview The waste included in the audit derived from the following buildings of the University of Winnipeg: Lockhart, Manitoba, Centennial, Ashdown, Bryce, Graham, Riddell, the Bulman Student Centre, Wesley Hall, and the SOMA Café in the Duckworth Athletic Centre. This is the same area included in 2005, 2007, 2008 and Previous audits did not include Wesley Hall, and the SOMA Café, a new University of Winnipeg Students Association initiative, in business since January Buildings not included were the rest of the Duckworth Centre complex, MacNamara North and South, the Theatre building, and all other non-core buildings or rented areas. Figure 1 shows the location of the buildings included in the audit. 2.2 Garbage Handling System The University of Winnipeg continues to contract Bee Clean for all janitorial services. Their staff members collect all solid waste on campus throughout the day and late evening. The majority of the waste is brought to the garbage room adjacent to Shipping and Receiving in Centennial Hall. The garage is then processed in a trash compactor, and non-compactable waste is deposited in a dumpster on the loading dock. Waste is then picked up by Johnson Waste Management and driven to Brady landfill. 5

6 The audit examined only a portion of the solid waste generated, at kg it represents 51.9 % of the total waste generated on campus according to estimated total waste weight provided by Johnson Waste Management. 2.3 Recyclables Handling System Versatech Industries collects and transports #1 and #2 plastics, and aluminium beverage containers, mixed paper, boxboard and cardboard for the U of W s core buildings. Confidential shredded paper documents are also recycled, and collected by Phoenix Paper Recycling. Both companies provide recycling weights to the University which are recorded and tracked by the Campus Sustainability Office. Johnson Waste Management collects recyclables from McFeetors Hall student residence and the Daycare buildings. Phoenix Paper Recycling collects recyclables from non-core buildings where there is also confidential paper collection. Johnson Waste Management can give commingled weights, although they have not been able to supply any weights to date due to contamination. Phoenix Paper Recycling does not weigh the recyclables they collect Beverage Container Recycling There are blue bins for collecting both #1 PET and #2 HDPE plastics and aluminum cans throughout the core campus buildings. All bins are labeled as to what recyclables are accepted, and placed in most office and high traffic areas. Versatech staff empties these bins and brings the recyclables to a locked room off the loading dock for storage until they are picked up by Versatech trucks. Plastics which have the recycling triangle on the bottom (regardless of number) and aluminum cans are collected by Phoenix Paper Recycling and Johnson Waste Management from non-core buildings Paper Recycling There are 17 types of office paper recycled on campus, and approximately 145 paper recycling bins emptied by Versatech employees three times per week from the core buildings. Phoenix Paper Shredding collects confidential paper from all areas of the U of W, as well as newspapers and white and coloured office paper from non-core buildings. Johnson Waste Management collects mixed paper from the Daycare and McFeetors student residence. Since 2008 the U of W Library and the student group EcoPIA have worked together to recycle old books and journals which would otherwise have been sent to landfill. Student volunteers gathered in the 5 th floor of the Library over 3 days in November 2009 to separate the covers from the recyclable paper. This initiative likely contributes to the significant increase in paper recycling this year. Both EcoPIA and the Library are committed to continuing their efforts, and we plan to extend the service to all departments, on an as needed basis. 6

7 2.3.3 Cardboard Recycling Bee Clean staff members collect cardboard that is placed next to recycling bins or garbage cans on campus. It is flattened and taken to the recycling room for storage until pick-up by Versatech trucks. Physical Plant staff collects cardboard from Technical Services. Shipping/Receiving also recycles cardboard that comes through their department. Other sources of cardboard are the cafeterias and vending machine suppliers. 7

8 Figure 1 - U of W Campus Map 8

9 3. METHODS 3.1 Waste Sort Methodology Duration The audit dates were set for Sunday, March 14, to Friday, March 19. The weekend garbage was collected and sorted between 1-6 p.m. on Sunday. From Monday to Friday, two shifts were established for the sorting, weighing and recording of waste, between 1 p.m. and 6 p.m., and from 6 p.m. to 11 p.m., staffed by six people. The final report was completed in April Garbage and Recyclables Collection Procedure As in past years, the Bee Clean staff transported garbage to the audit staff during the week. Bee Clean placed the bags in a corner of the garbage room, rather than in the outdoor dumpsters, or directly into the trash compactor. As in previous audits, it was important to provide clear signs on the compactor and metal dumpster to prevent bags from mistakenly being discarded without being sorted and weighed. The waste from the biology labs consisted of animal bedding, containing shredded paper, wood chips, and feces, and was delivered daily by a Physical Plant staff person. This was a separate category, and the bags were not sorted but weighed and recorded as specimen bedding on the data sheets. Autoclaved waste from the laboratories had the bio-hazardous symbol, which indicated to audit staff that they were to remain closed, unsorted, and only bag weights recorded. All recyclable materials found during the audit were not discarded but placed in the recycling bins waiting for pick-up by Versatech Sorting Procedure The waste collected was sorted into 44 sub-categories, arranged under 8 main categories that included organics, paper, plastics, aluminum, steel, poly-coat, glass, and miscellaneous (see Appendix A for a complete listing). Blue recycling bins were used to weigh each sub-category and once a bin was full, or the garbage was completely sorted, it would be weighed on a scale accurate to 0.5 lbs. The weight of the bin and its contents, or the gross weight would then be recorded on data sheets. The bin weights were later subtracted. As in past years, the waste audit staff members were recruited through advertising by approaching various student groups of the UWSA. Our key contacts were the EcoPIA student service group Coordinators, and the GESA co-presidents, who spread the word through their membership. Once shifts were filled, a list of the audit staff names and contact information was provided to the University Security office because they would be leaving the site after 11:00 p.m., when the University is closed. To address staff cancellations, a list of interested parties was created to call upon as shifts became available. 3.2 Data Analysis Methodology All data recorded in the data sheets by waste audit staff was entered into the spreadsheet program Microsoft Excel. Using this information and tools from Excel, the data was analyzed, as explained in the following sections. 9

10 4 RESULTS AND ANALYSIS 4.1 Waste Composition Analysis Overall Waste Stream Composition The composition of the waste stream is shown below in Figure 2. A total of kg of waste was sorted, with the largest component being organic waste at 37%, and the smallest component being Steel 1% Waste Composition by Material The composition of the categories shown in Figure 2 is expanded in the charts following. Figure 2: Waste Stream Composition Plastics 21% Glass 4% Polycoat 2% Aluminum 2% Steel 1% Organics 37% Paper 27% Misc. 6% Table 1 Composition of Organic Waste kg, 37% Sub Category weight (kg) Percentage of Category Percent of Waste Stream Post-consumer organics % 24.8% Non-compostable organics % 2.1% Compostable products % 7.3% 10

11 Liquids % 3.6% Organics The organic waste category is normally the largest part of the waste stream. It is composed mainly of food waste from the cafeterias and meals brought to school by students and staff, and the compostable disposable dinnerware from Diversity Cafeterias and Soma Cafe. Separate categories are used for non-compostable organic matter, and liquids. The total amount of the waste stream comprised of compostable materials was 37% or kg. For the post-consumer organics category, we have seen the weight change from kg to 697.1, a kg or a 91.8% increase. Given that the amount of compost collected in the Brown Bin program has tripled, overall increase could be attributed to the adoption of completely compostable take out containers by our food service provider, Diversity Foods. Given that the total waste stream during the audit week was kg, ( kg Recycling kg Compost + estimated 3550 kg Landfill Waste) our diversion from landfill is estimated at 55%. Compost comprises 19.2 % of this total, and Recycling, 35.9%. The potential exists to capture the further 24.8% found as post-consumer organic waste, and 7.3% of compostable products. This involves the education and behavior modification of all campus community members to adopt composting as a daily habit. A separate category was used for non-compostable organic matter, which includes meat bones, and the soil, sand, coffee grounds and smallest pieces of mixed waste which cannot be efficiently sorted. This totaled 39.1 kg. Liquids are separated as they would affect the weights of the plastics category. Paper Products The second largest component of the waste stream was paper products, representing 27% or kg of the total waste examined. As shown in Table 2, the largest component of the paper sorted was Tissue & Toweling. This subcategory represented 46.1 %, or kg of the paper total and over 12% of total garbage generated. There may be methods to reduce its use with reusable cloth alternatives or handryers. Office Paper was the second biggest subcategory of paper, weighing 67.2 kg. Disposable cups were the third largest category, at 44.9 kg, 8.9% of this category or 2.4% of the entire waste stream. Table 2 Composition of Paper Waste kg, 27% Sub Category weight (kg) Percentage of Category Percent of Waste Stream Tissue & Toweling % 12.6% White Office Paper % 3.6% Other paper (wax, etc.) % 1.7% 11

12 Newsprint % 2.3% Disposable cups % 2.4% Hard Cover % 0.1% Box Board % 1.7% Cardboard % 1.3% Magazines & catalogues % 1.0% Spiral Wound % 0.2% Molded Pulp % 0.3% Telephone Books 0 0% 0% Plastics Of the kg of plastic sorted, Non-Recyclable Plastic Bags accounted for the largest portion of it at 36.8% or kg. The second largest group was Other Plastics, mainly plastic wrap, plastic cutlery and non-recyclable snack containers, at 48.8 kg or 2.6% of the Waste stream. Bottles made of # 5 Polypropylene plastic, which are not recyclable at the university, represented 2.3% of the total waste stream, or 43.3 kg. Table 3 Composition of Plastic Waste kg, 21% Sub Category weight (kg) Percentage of Category Percent of Waste Stream Non Recyclable Bags % 7.6% Other Plastic % 2.6% #1 Plastic Bottles/Other % 2.3% Durable Plastics % 1.7% #2 HDPE 7.7 2% 0.4% #6 Plastic % 0.8% #6 Polystyrene other % 1.5% #5 Polypropylene % 2.3% #6 Polystyrene cups % 0.6% 12

13 #3 Plastic 0 0.0% 0.0% #4 Plastic % 0.7% Miscellaneous This section includes all waste not otherwise categorized. The largest portion of the miscellaneous category was Building Materials at 36.9kg or 2% of the total waste stream, followed by Textiles at 30.6 kg or 1.7% of the total waste stream. Table 4 Composition of Miscellaneous Waste kg, 6% Sub Category weight (kg) Percentage of Category Percent of Waste Stream Autoclave Biology Waste % 0.5% Building materials % 2% Furniture 0 0% 0% Textiles % 1.7% Rubber % 0.6% Specimen Bedding 0 0% 0% Hazardous Household waste % 0.8% Glass Glass containers accounted for the largest weight in the glass category, at 54.7 kg or 1.7% of the total waste stream. Light bulbs, other glass and deposit bottles were recorded at 12 kg or 0.7% of the waste stream. It should be noted that glass pipettes were found in the bags of waste from biology labs, though for the safety of the audit staff, they were not sorted, but weighed as the majority of the contents of the individual bags. Table 5 Composition of Glass Waste 66.7 kg, 4% Sub Category weight (kg) Percentage of Category Percent of Waste Stream Clear & Coloured % 1.7% Other (bulbs) 0 0% 0% Deposit Bottles 12 18% 0.7% 13

14 Poly-coat This category includes aseptic boxes or Tetra-packs (juice boxes), and gable top cartons, which are primarily milk containers. The total weight of poly-coat was 35.5 kg and represented 2% of the total waste stream sorted. Table 6 Composition of Poly-coat Waste 35.5 kg, 2% Sub Category weight (kg) Percentage of Category Percent of Waste Stream Aseptic Boxes % 0.8% Gable Top % 1.2% Steel The steel category weighed 20 kg, composed of 99.5% of cans, at 0.5% of the total weight. There may be an opportunity to pursue recycling for this category with Versatech Industries or another recycling contractor. Table 7 - Composition of Steel Waste 20 kg, 1% Sub Category weight (kg) Percentage of Category Percent of Waste Stream Cans % 1.1% Other % 0% Aluminum Of the waste sorted, aluminum represented 2 % of the waste stream and weighed 36.6 kg. The majority of this was in the form of other aluminum wrapping which weighed 23.8 kg, representing 1.3 % of the total waste stream. Aluminum cans were recorded at 12.8 kg. These figures are lower than in 2009, but are still a cause for concern, as they are the most valuable recyclable in the waste stream, and easily recognizable by all students and staff as a blue box item. Table 8 Composition of Aluminum Waste 36.6 kg, 2% Sub Category weight (kg) Percentage of Category Percentage of Waste Stream Cans % 0.7% Other % 1.3% 14

15 4.2 Comparisons with Previous Audits Total Waste Sorted Specific to this section is that, in order to allow for comparison between past and present audits, the weekend data was removed from the 2008 audit results. The weekend waste was collected March 8 th and 9 th, and sorted completely to keep this data separate. Audits conducted in 1997 and 2001 were scheduled for the five week days, only as of 2002 do audits span a waste generation period of a seven day week. Audit reports from 2002, 2004 and 2005 removed their weekend data to correspond to the five day audits conducted in 1997 and Figure 3 demonstrates the variation in total waste from year to year. Figure 3: Total Waste Sorted during 5 weekdays in 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, and kg Year The week of the waste audit represents a snapshot of the University s waste stream. Every effort is made to conduct the audit at the same time each year for more accurate comparison. As major contributing factor, University enrollment has remained at approximately 6,800 full time equivalents in the last three years. Some of the major discrepancies could possibly be attributed to the fact that in 2005, 2007, and 2010 different Waste Audit Coordinators were hired, while in 2004, 2008 and 2009, the same person conducted the audit. These individuals may have decided on a different timeframe for when to begin and end the audit, and into which category certain more ambiguous materials should be placed. Figure 3 shows that the waste audit has been progressively sorting through smaller quantities of waste over the years. However, this graph should not be mistaken as implying that total waste numbers are decreasing. Since 2001 the University has acquired more buildings and space, which has lead to a more sprawling community. Since the only waste being audited comes from 15

16 the core buildings, it is possible that as the campus population has become less compact, a smaller proportion of waste is produced within the core buildings. The total waste sorted is down 11.3 % or kg. A more complete picture of what categories have seen the most or least reduction is described in the following Tables and Figures Waste Sorted by Category Figure 4: Comparison of 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 Waste Audit Compositions by year kg Organics Misc. Paper Plastics Glass Polycoats Metals Year 5 RECYCLING SYSTEM 5.1 Waste Recycled For the week of the waste audits in 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 the entire campus recycled the amounts shown below in Table 10. All waste audits were completed within the same time of year to reduce fluctuations of student activity; March in 2004, March 28-April 4 in 2005, March in 2007, March 9-15 in 2008, and March in All figures in the following Table 10 were provided by Versatech Industries and in the case of 2005, 2007, and 2008, the data in Table 10 was derived from an average of collected material from the month of March of the corresponding years. The data shows that the amount of cardboard found in the waste stream increased by 215.5% from kg to kg. Also the total amount of recyclable mixed paper has decreased by 0.1% from 2008 values. This indicates the need to reinforce the need for all cardboard to be diverted to the recycling program. 16

17 Table 10 Recyclables Captured During Waste Audit in 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 Recycled Material Percentage Change since 2008 Cardboard % Mixed paper # 1 and #2 Plastics & Aluminum cans % % Total % Recyclable Materials in the Waste Stream As Figure 5 below indicates, of the kg of waste sorted, kg (14.3 %) could have been recycled at the U of W. In comparison, during the 2005 audit, kg of recyclables landed in the waste stream and kg in This year is a reduction from both 2007, where , or 19.0 % and 2008 where 15.8 % was recyclable at U of W. This number can be reduced year over year as collection and promotion are increased. Figure 5 Waste Stream Composition: - U of W recyclable vs. non recyclable Compostables 32% Recyclables 14% Non-Recyclables 54% 17

18 This table shows that 14% of our current waste stream consists of materials that our current recycling program accepts. 32% of our current waste stream could be composted. Of the remaining 54% some of these materials could be recycled, if we had a more encompassing recycling program, as discussed below. Table 11 shows the amount of each type of recyclable found in the waste stream. Table 11 Composition of Recyclable Materials in Waste Stream Recyclable Weight (kg) Percentage of Recyclable Materials Percentage of Waste Stream Mixed paper % 3.6 % #1 and #2 Plastics % 2.7 % Cardboard % 3.1 % Newsprint & flyers % 3.6 % Aluminum cans % 0.7 % Total % 13.8 % Recyclable material currently accepted at the U of W includes only mixed office paper, boxboard, cardboard, #1 and #2 plastics, newsprint, magazines, aluminum cans and telephone books. As previously stated, hard cover books are now being recycled by volunteers. Other recyclable materials such as glass, aseptic boxes, steel cans, gable top containers, and #3, #4, #5, #6, and #7 plastics are accepted in our province. We hope to expand the materials covered by our recycling program in the future, as more resources are available to us. Eligible materials are listed in Table 12 below. With a perfect capture rate, these materials could reduce total waste by a projected kg. Table 12 Listing of MMSM Eligible Materials in Waste Stream MMSM Eligible Materials 2010 (kg) Office Paper 67.2 Newsprint 41.7 Cardboard 24.6 Boxboard 32 18

19 Magazines & Catalogues 18.8 #1 PET Plastic 42.6 #2 HDPE Plastic 7.7 #4 LDPE Plastic 12.3 #5 PP Plastic 43.3 #6 PS Plastic 53.6 #7 O/ABS Plastic unknown Aseptic boxes 14.2 Gable top containers 21.3 Aluminum 36.6 Steel 20 Glass 66.7 Directories (telephone books) 6.2 Total: kg Recycling System Capture Rates For each category recycled at the University, a capture rate has been calculated based on the percentage of the material found in the waste stream, compared with that diverted to the recycling program. Calculations were completed by comparing recyclable material weights found during the audit, with those from Versatech records during the same period. A limitation to these calculations is the fact that Versatech has not, to date, provided data on how much material they reject and send to landfill because of contamination. Inspection of recycling bins throughout campuses suggests that UW recycling is significantly contaminated and might therefore be over-reporting capture rates. We are currently working with Versatech to receive data on contaminate rates and are working on strategies to reduce contamination. Paper This table indicates that for the waste audit week, of the paper that can be recycled on campus, 92.6% of it is being placed in the blue boxes of the recycling program. This is a 1.1% increase over

20 Table 13 - Paper Total Recyclable Paper kg kg kg kg Paper: Waste Stream kg kg 77.7 kg 67.2 kg Paper: Blue Box collection kg kg kg kg Capture Rate 62.6 % 75.3 % 91.5 % 92.6 % Plastics As in 2008 and 2009, the data supplied by Versatech Industries for #1 and #2 Plastics includes aluminum cans as well as the plastic bottles, thus obscuring the plastic weights recorded. Aluminum cans were calculated at a ratio of 7/1 in 2008, 4.3/1 in 2009, and 4/1 in 2010 comparing plastics and aluminum in the waste stream. This would leave 57.2 kg of aluminum cans in recycling, and kg of plastics. Table 14 - Plastics Total Recyclable Plastics kg kg kg kg Plastics: Waste Stream kg kg kg 50.3 kg Plastics: Blue Box collection kg kg kg kg Capture Rate 50.0% 62.5% 62.9% 81.7 % The capture rate has significantly increased according to the weights produced during the audit week. As stated previously, this capture rate can be further improved by encouraging staff and students through behavior change, new signage, and better bin placement. This is the first year of the bottled water sales ban on campus. Although the plastics stream has not decreased by a significant amount, there has been a significant increase in the capture rate. Maybe the ban has increased awareness of the importance of recycling plastic drink bottles, but it has not decreased the number of plastic bottles consumed. Organics In Table 15, the Total Organics represents the compostable material that could be sent to the Samborski Environmental composting facility. Both Liquid waste, at 66.4 kg and Non- 20

21 compostable waste, at 39.1 kg, were subtracted. The Table below shows a marked improvement in our capture rate. Table 15 - Organics Total Organics kg kg 660 kg kg Compostable Organics found in Waste Stream kg kg kg kg Directly Composted Organics kg kg 930 kg Capture Rate 0 % 29.0 % 44.9 % 61.1 % Aluminum The Versatech Industries aluminum weights have been estimated using the procedure described above in Table 14 (Plastics). Of the 70 kg of recyclable aluminum, 12.8 kg were lost in the waste stream during one week, with a catchment rate of only 81.7%. This year has shown that the capture rate for aluminum cans has nearly doubled from last year. Table 16 - Aluminum Total Recyclable Aluminum kg kg 64.7 kg 70 kg Aluminum: Waste Stream kg kg 24.1 kg 12.8 kg Aluminum: Blue Box collection kg kg 40.6 kg 57.2 kg Capture Rate 55% 60% 37-47% 81.7 % 6 WASTE REDUCTION OPPORTUNITIES & RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 Recommendations by Category Paper With new copying equipment installed this year, having double-sided printing as a default option is a major step to reducing paper use before it ends up in the recycling or waste stream. As in previous years, the waste audit staff found bags of recyclables in the black garbage bags destined for landfill. There may not be an easy solution to this matter, as Bee Clean staff can only be encouraged to make the extra effort to bring recyclables outside to the recycling room. Versatech Industries have also informed us that if a bag of mixed paper is contaminated with any food items that for health and safety reasons their employees must throw out the whole bag. Recommendation: The Campus Sustainability Office and the Academic Initiatives Working Group can continue to pursue different programs and committees which use large volumes of paper. Equally important 21

22 is to highlight those successful projects, and especially those projects which staff and faculty have taken on themselves. Thanking and congratulating people who have reduced their use of paper also shows other staff and faculty members how easy it is and how these changes often end up saving everyone money as well Aluminum and #1 & #2 Plastic Beverage Containers The Campus Sustainability Office has made a grant application to fund two student jobs to research ways of improving the recycling program on campus, and could create significant improvements to the existing program by tracking bin locations, improving bin placement, and improving collection. Weights given to us from Versatech include some contaminated bags which are thrown out after they ve been weighed, leading to somewhat inaccurate data which overstates the amount of materials being recycled. Recommendation: Continue to work with UW students, staff, and Versatech staff to determine the best placement for existing bins and attempt to fill all requests for new bins as practically possible. Create a campaign using various media to relay the message that recycling is important, easy, and is important to decrease the amount of waste produced. Continue working with Diversity staff to promote recycling in the cafeteria, at the points where people make the decision to buy a drink, when they purchase the drink, and when they throw out the container or leave the cafeteria Glass Glass cannot be recycled into new glass products in Manitoba, but it is used as a road base material at Brady Landfill, replacing gravel. Recommendation: All students and staff should avoid its use on campus because we do not accept it in the current recycling program Organic Wastes The most challenging element in reducing this category of waste is training and creating behaviour change in all students, staff, and faculty to make use of the composting system for their post-consumer organics. Various methods have been employed since the program began, including person to person information briefings by volunteers from the environmental student groups on campus. Large, graphic posters were also placed in Riddell Cafeteria explaining what to compost, as well as table-top displays, small signage at point of sale, and bright stickers on all bins. The new food service provider, Diversity Foods, is very committed to reducing waste, and immediately eliminated all condiment, sugar, and milk packets. All of their take out containers are also compostable, and they have also initiated a reusable take out container program. Recommendations: Further collaboration with the Manager and Chef at Diversity Food Service will be useful to improve compost capture rates. The Campus Sustainability Office is currently working on adding more compost bins to other high traffic areas of the school, so that more compostable take out containers will be collected. Ensuring regular pick ups to these areas is important (to avoid odours and pests), so the first places being considered are those where Bee Clean staff are already doing daily garbage pick 22

23 ups. Members of the Materials Conservation Working Group are always working on the various problems the compost program encounters Disposable Cups The paper cup category remained low this year, from 46.2 kg (2009) to 44.9 kg (2010). A significant portion of cups disposed of on campus are likely compostable, and would therefore have been diverted into the compostable packaging stream, which came in at kg, and increase from last years weight, which was kg. Diversity Food Services has created a wonderful waste reduction opportunity for students and staff by introducing a fully compostable line of take-out containers, but the nature of take-out products is that they leave the vicinity of our compost bins, located only at the food service locations. Recommendations: We can support Diversity Food Service commitment to increasing use of china and silverware unless it is specifically requested for take-out orders. Unfortunately the majority of reusable china and silverware disappears, making it difficult for Diversity Foods to justify the cost of buying new for every term. The Campus Sustainability Office is working with Diversity Foods to decrease the amount of lost reusable kitchenware. We can also expand the number of compost bins, and the areas where they are located in service. There is a small discount to customers bringing reusable mugs, or who are participating in the reusable take out container program, and this could be more widely promoted and increased Cardboard From direct observation over the course of the previous year on campus, cardboard is not always placed in the recycling room rather it is thrown in the metal dumpster in the garbage room. This may be due to the fact that in inclement weather, it is far easier to forgo the extra steps outdoors. We have also received reports from Versatech Industries that a lot of cardboard is not broken down before it is placed in the collection bins, which causes for bin overflows and inefficiently packed collection bins. As well, we have had to increase the number of pick ups that Versatech Industries does this year, because of the volume of cardboard being collected, which could also show an improvement of the capture rate or an increase in our consumption. Recommendation: Place signage forbidding cardboard or other recyclables in the metal dumpster. Promote the cardboard recycling program to staff and faculty, specifically targeting those areas or departments which would use larger volumes of cardboard (Powerland Computers, for example), and remind people to break down their cardboard Further Recommendations The Campus Sustainability Office will continue to work on researching the perceived barriers and benefits of the users of our recycling and compost programs, and will work toward eliminating barriers and promoting the perceived benefits of the programs. Other changes that will be considered are how the program can be made more efficient in terms of physical changes, staff training, as well as broader education and promotion. 23

24 The transfer of the Materials Conservation Coordinator to the Campus Sustainability Office, and combining the duties of this position into another position which is full time and permanent has increased the amount time that can be devoted to these programs, as well as creating consistency from year to year, and creating greater institutional memory. This helps us to address the various parts of the current waste stream, along with input from volunteers on the various Working Groups of the Campus Sustainability Council. Some current initiatives are: Toner and ink cartridge recycling Cell phone recycling Hazardous Waste safe disposal: Batteries, Light Bulbs, Fluorescent Lights Used furniture donation E-waste recycling (dependent on government funding) New outdoor recycling bins Hardcover book recycling Paper minimization (Academic Initiatives Working Group) These programs are reviewed regularly by the Campus Sustainability Office to assure they are running smoothly and to asses whether students and staff need more information access them. To do this, monthly weights and costs of these programs are tracked, and we maintain regular communication with our recycling contractors to fix problems and improve the program. There are a number of programs we would like to develop over time and as funds become available. These include: Scrap metal diversion, small scale pick-up service Composting and recycling bins located wherever there is a garbage bin. Work to decrease contamination in recycling and composting streams. Work to change our recycling program to mirror the municipal program in other words have single stream collection and collect the same materials. Provide composting and recycling services at all special events, and with all catering services. More Campus Sustainability Office employees or student interns to research how to improve our recycling and compost programs, and do outreach work to students, staff, and faculty. These initiatives can be taken on as time and resources are available. 24

25 7. APPENDIX:-LIST OF WASTE AUDIT CATEGORIES Category Data Sheet: MARCH 14-19, 2010 ORGANICS Record bin weights Bin type (if not blue box) Post-consumer organics Organics found in waste stream Non-compostable organics Dirt, bits, vacuum bags Liquids Compostable Packaging MISCELLANEOUS Autoclaved Biology Waste Do Not Open Building materials Wood, drywall, etc. Furniture Textiles Clothes, shoes, string Rubber Specimen Bedding Do Not Open Hazardous Household Batteries Record bin weights Bin type (if not blue box) 25

26 PAPER Tissue & Toweling Record bin weights Bin type (if not blue box) White and Coloured Office Paper Newsprint Disposable cups Other paper (wax) Box Board Cardboard Magazines & catalogues Spiral Wound Hard Cover Molded Pulp Telephone Books 26

27 PLASTICS Non Recyclable Bags Record bin weights Bin type (if not blue box) #1 PET Bottles and other Other Plastic Plastic wrap, #7, #8, norecycling symbol #2 HDPE Bottles and other #6 Plastics #6 Polystyrene other Durable Plastics Pens, trays, etc. #5 Polypropylene #6 Polystyrene cups #3 Plastic #4 Plastic 27

28 GLASS Clear & Coloured Record bin weights Bin type (if not blue box) Deposit Bottles (Alcohol) Other (bulbs) POLYCOAT Aseptic Boxes Tetra-paks Record bin weights Bin type (if not blue box) Gable Top Milk cartons STEEL Cans Other Record bin weights Bin type (if not blue box) ALUMINIUM Pop cans Record bin weights Bin type (if not blue box) Other Foil, trays, etc. 28