Waste Audit Report 2009

Transcription

1 Waste Audit Report 2009 Submitted by Kate Dykman April 14, 2009

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The 2009 waste audit was conducted the second 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 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 8 th to Friday March 13 th, This represents approximately 73.6% of the total waste removed from campus that week. The audit used 44 of the 46 previously established categories with an additional category representing compostable products used by Chartwell s food services and the student-run, Soma Cafe. Of the 5048 kg of waste ( kg Recycling kg Compost + estimated 3000 kg Landfill Waste) generated at the university during the audit week, our diversion from landfill is 40.5%. Compost comprises 13% of this total, and Recycling, 27.5%. Given that our annual diversion rates have been between over 50%, this may be due to estimated weight totals from Johnson Waste Management, which are accurate within 100 kg. When measuring our annual totals, between 2007 and 2008, we saw the weight of our organics composted increase from 1.5 tonnes in 2007 to 11.1 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. We will likely see this figure rise again in 2009, with both pre- and post-consumer composting programs running smoothly. A number of the recommendations from this year s waste audit data build on those made in They include support for the replacement of disposable food service products with china and cutlery, and ongoing promotion and awareness campaigns, as well as finding new ways to encourage uptake of waste reduction policy campus-wide. 2

3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The following people and groups were of great importance to the success of the 2009 University of Winnipeg waste audit. Physical Plant Department Ed DuVal, 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, recycling, and the composting program on campus. 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 bio-hazardous 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 eight 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 ninth 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, and the Theatre building. Figure 1 shows the location of these buildings. 2.2 Garbage Handing 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 a majority of the solid waste generated, at kg it represents 73.6% 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 plastic and aluminium beverage containers, paper, and some cardboard for the U of W. Confidential shredded paper documents are also recycled, as collected by Phoenix Paper Recycling. Both companies provide recycling weights to the University which are recorded and tracked by the Campus Sustainability Office Beverage Container Recycling There are blue bins for collecting both #1 PET and #2 HDPE plastics and aluminum cans throughout the campus. 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 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. All offices on campus, as well as locations such as the UWSA Info Booth, computer labs, and the library have paper recycling bins. Working with Versatech staff over the past three months, we have been removing and re-assigning recycling bins to where they will be better used. We have also been responding to requests for new bins by either supplying new containers where it is deemed necessary, or directing staff to the nearest receptacles. A new outdoor recycling bin for plastics and cans has been placed on the Portage Commons, to be followed by 3-5 more bins this spring. This will capture recyclables created in high traffic outdoor spaces where students congregate. New in 2008 has been the collaboration between the U of W Library and the student group, EcoPIA, 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 one afternoon per month since December 2008, to separate the covers from the recyclable paper. This resulted in a spike of approximately 2500 kg of additional paper recycled since the initiative began. Both EcoPIA and the Library are committed to continuing their efforts, and we plan to extend the service to all departments once the majority of the books from the Library are processed 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. 6

7 Figure 1 - U of W Campus Map 7

8 3 METHODS 3.1 Waste Sort Methodology Duration The audit dates were set for Sunday, March 8, to Friday, March 13. 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, and the empirical data converted to metric so as to compare with previous audits. As in past years, the waste audit staff members were recruited through advertising by posters and student groups of the UWSA. Our key contacts were the EcoPIA student service group Coordinators, 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. 8

9 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. 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 33.5%, and the smallest component being Aluminum at 1.3% Waste Composition by Material The composition of the categories shown in Figure 2 is expanded in the charts following. Figure 2: Waste Stream Composition Percentage of Total Waste Glass, 2.8% Aluminium, 1.3% Steel, 1.8% Polycoat, 1.6% Miscellaneous, 9.5% Organics, 33.5% Plastics, 21.7% Paper, 27.9% Table 1 Composition of Organic Waste 740 kg, 33.5% Sub Category weight (kg) Percentage of Category Percent of Waste Stream Post-consumer organics % 16.5% Non-compostable organics % 8.7% Compostable products % 4.8% 9

10 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. We measured organics collected through the University s composting program, both pre- and post-consumer. Separate categories are used for non-compostable organic matter, and liquids. The total amount of the waste stream comprised of compostable materials was or 33.5% or kg. For the post-consumer organics category, we have seen the weight change from kg to kg, a kg or a 35% reduction. This indicates that our capture rate has gone up significantly. As well, a new addition to the organics total is the compostable products in the waste stream, which were over 100 kg. These products replaced Styrofoam and plastic containers the majority of which could not be recycled on campus. Given that the total waste stream during the audit week was 5048 kg, ( kg Recycling kg Compost + estimated 3000 kg Landfill Waste) our diversion from landfill is estimated at 40.5%. Compost comprises 13% of this total, and Recycling, 27.5%. The potential exists to capture the further 16.5% found as post-consumer organic waste, and 4.8% 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 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 27.9% 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 36.9 %, or kg of the paper total and over 10% of total garbage generated. There may be methods to reduce its use with reusable cloth alternatives. Office Paper was the second biggest subcategory of paper, weighing 77.7 kg.. Other paper was the third largest category, at 67.9 kg, 11% of this category or 3.1% of the entire waste stream. Table 2 Composition of Paper Waste kg, 27.9% Sub Category weight (kg) Percentage of Category Percent of Waste Stream Tissue & Toweling % 10.3% White Office Paper % 3.5% 10

11 Other paper (wax, brown, etc.) % 3.1% Newsprint % 3.0% Disposable cups % 2.1% Hard Cover % 1.7% Box Board % 1.5% Cardboard % 1.1% Magazines & catalogues % 0.9% Spiral Wound % 0.5% 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 30.1% or kg. The second largest group was Other Plastics, mainly plastic wrap, plastic cutlery and non-recyclable snack containers, at kg or 6.3% of the Waste stream. Bottles made of # 1 PET plastic, which are recyclable at the university, represented 3.3% of the total waste stream, or 72.5 kg. Table 3 Composition of Plastic Waste kg, 21.7% Sub Category weight (kg) Percentage of Category Percent of Waste Stream Non Recyclable Bags % 6.5% Other Plastic % 6.3% #1 Plastic Bottles % 3.3% Durable Plastics % 1.5% #2 HDPE % 0.8% #6 Plastic % 0.8% #6 Polystyrene other % 0.8% 11

12 #1 Other % 0.6% #5 Polypropylene % 0.5% #6 Polystyrene cups % 0.3% #3 Plastic 0 0.0% 0.0% #4 Plastic % 0.3% Miscellaneous This section includes all waste not otherwise categorized. The largest portion of the miscellaneous category was Building Materials at 80.5kg, followed by Autoclaved Biology Waste. This sub-category fluctuates tremendously month to month, depending whether construction is underway. Table 4 Composition of Miscellaneous Waste kg, 9.5% Sub Category weight (kg) Percentage of Category Percent of Waste Stream Autoclave Biology Waste % 1.9% Building materials % 3.7% Furniture % 1.3% Textiles % 1.1% Dust % 0.50% Rubber % 0.63% Specimen Bedding % 0.51% Hazardous Household waste % 0.01% Glass Glass containers accounted for the largest weight in the glass category. Light bulbs and other glass were recorded at 19.1 kg or 0.9% 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. 12

13 Table 5 Composition of Glass Waste 62.6 kg, 2.8% Sub Category weight (kg) Percentage of Category Percent of Waste Stream Clear & Coloured % 1.7% Other (bulbs % 0.9% Deposit Bottles % 0.3% 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 34.8 kg and represented 1.6% of the total waste stream sorted. Table 6 Composition of Poly-coat Waste 34.8 kg, 1.6% Sub Category weight (kg) Percentage of Category Percent of Waste Stream Aseptic Boxes % 0.9% Gable Top % 0.7% Steel The steel category weighed 38.6 kg, composed of 64.5% of cans, at 1.1% of the total weight. There may be an opportunity to pursue recycling for this category with Versatech Industries. Table 7 - Composition of Steel Waste 38.6 kg, 1.7% Sub Category weight (kg) Percentage of Category Percent of Waste Stream Cans % 1.1% Other % 0.6% Aluminum Of the waste sorted, aluminum represented 1.3% of the waste stream and weighed 27.9 kg. The majority of this was in the form of aluminum drink cans which weighed 24.9 kg, representing 1.1 % of the total waste stream. Other aluminum waste was recorded at 13.7 kg. These figures are higher than in 2008, and should be 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. 13

14 Table 8 Composition of Aluminum Waste 27.9 kg, 1.3% Sub Category weight (kg) Percentage of Category Percentage of Waste Stream Cans % 1.09% Other % 0.17% 4.2 Comparisons with Previous Audits Total Waste Generated 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, 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 constant at approximately 9000 full and part-time students in the last three years. Some of the major discrepancies could possibly be attributed to the fact that in 2005 and 2007, 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, if only by a few hours. 14

15 The general trend between 2001 and 2009 has been a progressively decreasing waste production. In 2009, total waste sorted is down 15.6 % 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 Generated by Category Figure 4: Comparison of 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008, and 2009 Waste Audit Compositions by year kg Organics Paper Plastics Glass Misc. Metals Polycoats Year This graph demonstrates that waste generation has decreased in most categories except for Metals, and Miscellaneous. 5 RECYCLING SYSTEM 5.1 Waste Recycled For the week of the waste audits in 2009, 2008, 2007, 2005, 2004 and 2002, 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 4-10 in 2002, March in 2004, March 28-April 4 in 2005, March in 2007, March 9-15 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 increased by 12% from kg to kg. Also the total amount of recyclable mixed paper has decreased by 12% from 2007 values. This indicates the need to reinforce the need for all office paper to be diverted to the recycling program, as the collection means is already highly efficient and a part of campus culture for most students and staff. 15

16 Table 10 Recyclables Captured During Waste Audit 2002, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008, and 2009 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 U of W Recyclables, 14.3% Nonrecyclables, 85.7% 16

17 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 % 3.5% #1 and 2 Plastics % 4.7% Cardboard % 1.1% Newsprint & flyers % 3.9% Aluminum cans % 1.1% Total % 14.3% This table has included #1 Other category, given that Versatech is willing and able take #1 and #2 plastics other than beverage containers. With the cooperation of the Chartwell`s cafeteria staff, clean #1 and #2 plastics could be added to the recycling pickup, thus diverting more of the large, bulky waste such as HPDE pails from the kitchen waste stream. Recyclable material currently accepted at the U of W includes only mixed office paper, 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 plastics with the number 1,2,4,5 and 7 in the recycling triangle are also accepted in our province. Our current program is funded by Green Manitoba, and it may be the case in the future that some of this money may be used to expand the program to include progressively more types of recyclable materials. 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 MPSC Eligible Materials in Waste Stream MPSC Eligible Materials 2009 (kg) Office paper 77.7 Newsprint

18 Cardboard 24.9 Boxboard 32.1 Magazines & Books 57.9 #1 PET 85.3 #2 HDPE plastic 17.7 Aseptic boxes 20.6 Gable top containers 14.3 Aluminum cans 24.1 Steel cans 24.9 Glass 43.5 Telephone books 0 #4 Plastics 7.1 #5 Plastics 11.3 #7 Plastics 0 Total kg Recycling System Capture Rates For each category recycled at the University, a catchment 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. Paper This table indicates that for the waste audit week, of the paper that can be recycled on campus, 91.5% of it is being placed in the blue boxes of the recycling program. This is a 16.2% increase over

19 Table 13 - Paper Total Recyclable Paper kg kg kg Paper: Waste Stream kg kg 77.7 kg Paper: Blue Box collection kg kg kg Capture Rate 62.6% 75.3% 91.5% Plastics As in 2008, 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, and 4.3/1 in 2009, comparing plastics and aluminum in the waste stream. This would leave 40.6 kg cans in recycling, and kg plastics. Table 14 - Plastics Total Recyclable Plastics kg kg kg Plastics: Waste Stream kg kg kg Plastics: Blue Box collection kg kg kg Capture Rate 50.0% 62.5% 62.9% The capture rate has remained static 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 new signage, and better bin placement. Organics In Table 15, the Total Organics represents the compostable material that could be sent to the Rockwood composting facility. Both Liquid waste, at 78.6 kg and Non-compostable waste, at kg, were subtracted. Because we added the organics we sorted from the waste stream to the compost trailer, we had to subtract the weight of these compostable organics from the full trailer weight of 660 kg that was delivered to Rockwood on March 12 th. The Table below shows a marked improvement in our capture rate. 19

20 Table 15 - Organics Total Organics kg kg 660 kg Compostable Organics found in Waste Stream kg kg kg Directly Composted Organics kg kg Capture Rate 0% 29.0% 44.9% Aluminum The Versatech Industries aluminum weights have been estimated using the procedure described above in Table 14 (Plastics). Of the 64.7 kg of recyclable aluminum, 24.1 kg were lost in the waste stream during one week, with a catchment rate of only 37%. If we use the previous ratio of 7/1, we only have 26.8 kg in the recycling stream, and a total of 51 kg. That would create at capture rate of 47.2%. Neither of these figures is an improvement over 2008, and this category merits greater attention and effort to ensure staff and students recycle properly. Table 16 - Aluminum Total Recyclable Aluminum kg kg 64.7 kg Aluminum: Waste Stream kg kg 24.1 kg Aluminum: Blue Box collection kg kg 40.6 kg Capture Rate 55% 60% 37-47% 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. Recommendation: As in the 2008 audit, double-sided assignments can be encouraged through the Academic Working Group of the Campus Sustainability Office. 20

21 As well, the University of Winnipeg Printing Services can be interviewed to determine where they see possible opportunities for reduction in paper use including greater reliance on electronic means of communication such as the new TV monitors located at major entrances Aluminum and #1 PET Beverage Containers Given that the U of W recently supported the UWSA in eliminating the sale of bottled water on campus, it may be reflected this year in decreased use of #1 plastics, and a positive step to reduce total overall usage, rather than increased recycling. Recommendation: Continue to work with Versatech staff to determine 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 the right thing to do 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 all students and staff 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. Recommendations: We can work towards a waste-free cafeteria by further eliminating condiment packaging, replacing them with bulk dispensers at all food services locations. Specifically, cream and milk dispensers can be implemented. Before shipping the compost off site, a staff person could check the bags, and remove any obvious contamination Disposable Cups The paper cup category decreased by over 50%, this year, from 85.5 kg to 46.2 kg. Unfortunately, they were likely incorporated into the compostable container category, which came in at kg. Chartwell s 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 Chartwell s to commit to the use of dish ware and steel cutlery unless it is specifically requested for take-out orders. We can also expand the number of compost bins in service. There is a small discount to customers bringing reusable mugs, and this could be more widely promoted and increased. 21

22 6.1.7 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. Recommendation: Place signage forbidding cardboard or other recyclables in the metal dumpster Further Recommendations In the Physical Plant Department, we continually work to determine how the program can be made more efficient in terms of physical changes, staff training, as well as broader education and promotion. With the hiring of a part-time, Materials Conservation Coordinator in addition to the staff working at the Campus Sustainability Office, we are better able 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 Used furniture donation E-waste recycling (dependant on government funding) New outdoor recycling bins Hardcover book recycling It may be prudent to review these programs monthly to assure they are running smoothly and asses whether students and staff need more information access them. 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 Safe disposal of fluorescent light bulbs Recycling and composting in student housing Composting/recycling at all special events These can be taken on as time and resources are assigned to them. 22

23 7. APPENDIX:-LIST OF WASTE AUDIT CATEGORIES Category Data Sheet: MARCH 8-13, 2009 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 MISCELLANEOUS Autoclaved Biology Waste Do Not Open Building materials Wood, drywall, etc. Furniture Textiles Clothes, shoes, string Dust Rubber Specimen Bedding Do Not Open Hazardous Household Batteries Record bin weights Bin type (if not blue box) 23

24 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 24

25 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 25

26 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. 26