ohsu 2.6.15 final

Oregon Health and

Science University: Kohler

Pavilion and Mackenzie

Hall Materials Assessment™

Prepared for Oregon Health and Science University

Moonrose Doherty Operations Manager

Ashley Donald Materials Assessment Lead

February 6, 2015

Community Environmental Services

Portland State University

PO Box 751 – CES

Portland, OR 97207

Contents Section 1: Background 6

Kohler Pavilion Background 6

Mackenzie Hall Background 8

Section 2: Methods 9

Kohler Pavilion Methods 9

Mackenzie Hall Methods 11

Section 3: Observations 16

Kohler Pavilion Observations 16

Mackenzie Hall Observations 18

Section 4: Findings 19

Kohler Pavilion Findings 19

Mackenzie Hall Findings 21

Section 5: Comparison 25

Section 6: Recommendations 29

Section 7: Materials Assessments Photos 31

Kohler Pavilion 31

Mackenzie Hall 33

Section 8: Glossary of Material Categories 37

Appendix A: Waste Assessment Report – OHSU South Hospital and BioMedical Research Building 2013 40

Figures

Table 4.1: Detailed material composition (by weight in pounds) 19

Figure 4.1: General material composition (by weight in pounds) 20

Table 4.2: OHSU’s MH detailed material composition (by weight in pounds) 21

Figure 4.4: OHSU’s MH general material composition 22

Figure 5.1: MH Readily Recyclable & Compostable Materials 23

Figure 5.2: MH To-go Drink Cups, To-go Food Containers, Food Soiled Fibers as Combined

Categories 23

Figure 5.3: MH Readily Recyclable & Compostable Materials 24

Figure 5.4: MH To-go Drink Cups, To-go Food Containers, Food Soiled Fibers as Combined

Categories 24

Table 6.1: Detailed comparison by year of landfill-bound material composition: 2007, 2010,

2011 and 2014 26

Figure 6.1: Comparison by year of landfill-bound general material composition: SH, BRB,

KP, and MH 27

Community Environmental Services | February 6, 2015 6

Section 1: Background

Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) contacted Community Environmental Services (CES) of

Portland State University, a research and service unit specializing in materials assessments and diver-

sion analysis, in October 2014 to conduct a comprehensive materials assessment and analysis. This as-

sessment included analyses of the landfill-bound materials for the Kohler Pavilion (KP), located at 808

S.W. Campus Dr. Portland, Oregon, and Mackenzie Hall (MH), located at 3181 S.W. Sam Jackson Park

Rd. Portland, Oregon. Both buildings are located on the Marquam Hill campus, which is OHSU’s largest

campus.

The objectives of the current materials assessment are as follows:

1. Determine the composition of the landfill-bound materials stream by conducting a materials as-sessment. The assessment provides a snapshot of the waste material composition and daily ac-tivities of each building, and covers a time period that reflects typical operations.

2. Assess the selected material streams by hand sorting the materials into specific categories, weighing the sorted materials, recording the data, and making quantitative and qualitative ob-servations.

3. Provide an objective, third party assessment of waste diversion practices based on examination of the landfill-bound material stream from the building.

4. Compare the results from the current two (2) material assessments to the prior two (2) materials assessments in 2013.

5. Develop recommendations regarding improving waste materials diversion, enhanced materials capture, and reductions in materials consumption based on the findings from the assessment.

This report solely focuses on the materials generated by OHSU at KP and MH, with a comparison to the

two (2) previous material assessments of OHSU campus buildings. The two (2) previous material as-

sessments of OHSU’s landfill-bound materials were conducted by CES on the Bio-Medical Research

Building (BRB) and the South Hospital (SH) in 2013.

Kohler Pavilion Background

Kohler Pavilion (KP) is a fourteen (14) story ex-

pansion to the hospital and provides OHSU a

home for the Center for Women’s Health; Center

for Hematologic Malignancies; room for nearly

150 medical, surgical, and intensive care beds;

state of the art operating rooms and sterile pro-

cessing areas; as well as a 15,000 square-foot

parking garage allowing for 456 parking spaces

for staff and patients. The thirteenth (13th) and

fourteenth (14th) floors were a second addition

to the building to provide care for a variety of

oncology diagnoses. The building is accessible

Oregon Health and Science University: Kohler Pavilion and Mackenzie Hall : Materials Assessment 7

via traditional roadways, and also connected to

the South Waterfront via the Portland Arial Tram

at the ninth (9th) floor.

Trashco Services Incorporated collects KP’s land-

fill-bound waste three (3) times a week: Mondays,

Wednesdays, and Fridays from a forty (40) yard

trash compactor.

OHSU currently implements a variety of material

diversion practices depending on the building

and its occupants. All buildings currently collect

commingled recycling, as well as glass bottles &

jars. Other materials such as rigid and film plas-

tics are collected where generation areas occur.

Foam packaging (i.e. air-blown/expanded plas-

tic/polystyrene) is also currently being diverted

from the landfill bound waste stream.

The degree of recycling availability and the set-

up of the garbage and recycling system is differ-

ent on every floor and may be dependent on a

floor’s self-initiated sustainability actions (i.e. the

level of personal involvement and interest by

employees of that floor). For example, the 10th

floor has red bio bags in isolation rooms for PPE,

non-isolation patient rooms have two garbage

cans (a large one in the room and a small one in

the bathroom) that are lined with clear garbage

bags. The hallways have pods (stations) where

there are garbage cans and paper shredding con-

tainers, but no recycling. The Nurses Station has

paper shredding, one large garbage can and

three small cans, and no recycling. The Nurses

Lounge has one garbage can and recycling for

commingled materials (corrugated cardboard,

paper, metal, plastic bottles and tubs), and recy-

cling for glass bottles and jars. The 13th floor has

a green team and more access to recycling.

OHSU currently implements a variety of material

diversion practices depending on the building

and its occupants. All buildings currently collect

commingled recycling, as well as glass bottles &

jars. Other materials such as rigid and film plas-

tics are collected where generation areas occur.

Foam packaging (i.e. air-blown/expanded plas-

tic/polystyrene) is also currently being diverted

from the landfill bound waste stream.

OHSU’s Office Reuse Center takes gently used

binders, desk organizers, pens, pencils, paper

clips, accessory computer components (mice,

keyboards, & cords), and other office goods for

reuse among staff and students. The ITG Logis-

tics/Surplus department oversees the reuse of

furniture and equipment that staff is no longer

uses. Much of this material is diverted through a

partnership with SRUT (Student Recycling Uni-

versal Technology) in The Dalles which accepts e-

waste and cleared computers/hard-drives. Lastly,

battery recycling bins are distributed to depart-

ments and units for collection and proper dispos-

al.

Operating rooms have incorporated materials

recycling for preoperative setup and postopera-

tive collection. As part of this program, OHSU is

donating usable medical supplies to vulnerable

populations by working with local non-profit or-

ganizations. Identified units in patient care areas

have also incorporated collection of blue wrap,

medical supply donations, and a reusable instru-

ments program.


The Custodial & Recycling Services department

also provides drop boxes at the Maintenance

Yard for wood, yard debris, and metal collection

for staff. This collection area is utilized by a

number of departments, ranging from mainte-

nance technicians, grounds staff, and contractors.

OHSU has reported since the 2013 assessment,

the findings have been utilized as supporting

documentation when emphasizing potential re-

cycling and waste reductions opportunities on

campus and within operations. Additionally,

OHSU has continued to work closely with Trash-

co to install cardboard compactor on campus as a

means to capture more of this material stream.

In the past year, updates have been made to re-

cycling signage on campus and have been redis-

tributed. This effort has been made to clarify and

educated on recyclable materials by including

detailed information on which items are recycla-

ble, service contact information and visual infor-

mation for collection locations

Mackenzie Hall Background

Mackenzie Hall (MH) is the oldest building on

Marquam Hill. It is connected to the Portland

Veterans Affairs building via a 660-foot sky

bridge. The MH building primarily houses aca-

demic and research units. Food and beverage

locations within MH are the Mac Hall Bistro and

the Mac Hall Espresso on the first floor. The Mac

Hall Bistro offers a full deli, hot entrees, a’la carte

side items, grill station, salad bar, and taco bar.

Mac Hall Bistro and Mac Hall Espresso are only in

operation during weekdays until 2pm for the Bis-

tro and 2:30pm for the Espresso bar.

The MH fifteen (15) yard compacter is picked up

on an “as needed” basis due. This compacter is a

new addition to the facility and is still being eval-

uated for the frequency of use.


Section 2: Methods

Kohler Pavilion Methods

The materials assessment was conducted on Fri-

day, November 21, 2014; by CES staff at the Met-

ro South transfer station, located at 2001 Wash-

ington Street, Oregon City, Oregon. The material

load consisted of landfill-bound materials gener-

ated during one (1) day at OHSU’s KP: Thursday,

November 20, 2014 and was delivered to the site

by OHSU’s commercial hauler, Trashco Services

Incorporated.

The landfill-bound waste materials load weighed

9,540 pounds according to the Metro South scale

house. At the transfer station, CES staff began

the materials assessment by performing a visual

assessment of the load. CES then strategically

extracted approximately 10% of the load by vol-

ume as a representative sample. By weight, CES

extracted 11%.

The materials assessment was divided into six (6)

phases: 1) count the autoclaved (red) bags; 2)

extract the anomalies; 3) extract the 10% by vol-

ume representative sample; 4) pre-sort the bags

by perceived content; 5) hand-sort the contents

of sortable bags that did not contain restroom

waste or patient care procedural waste, or per-

sonal protective equipment (PPE), or other haz-

ardous materials; and 6) weigh the bagged mate-

rials, loose materials, anomalies, and hand-

sorted materials.

The materials assessment was conducted as fol-

lows:

1. Count of autoclaved (red) bags

CES visually assessed the load for composition,

taking note of anomalies and bag colors, types

and contents. The red autoclaved bags were

counted based on what was visible in the load

(see Image2.2). Based on the weight of the auto-

claved red bag bundle obtained from the Metro

South scale house and the bundle count in KP’s

load, a 10% weight calculation was determined

to allow for a representative sample of the KP

load.

2. Extracting anomalies

CES staff pulled from the load 10% of anomalies,

which included expanded foam block, bagged

and loose cardboard, and nested cartons (see

Image 2.3). CES utilized 10% of the weight of

each of the anomaly categories in order to fea-

ture the data alongside the representative sam-

ple data.

3. Extract the 10% by volume representative sample

4. Pre-sorting bags

CES separated bags in the load based on per-

ceived content. CES extracted from the load ten

(10) % by volume of all bags containing Patient

care procedural waste, all bags containing Per-

sonal protection equipment (PPE), and all bags

containing Mixed-use/combined materials waste.

Additionally, ten (1o) % by volume of all other

bags containing mixed contents were pulled


from the load for hand sorting (see Images2.4-6).

Of these bags, restroom waste was not sorted.

5. Hand-sorting the contents of bags

The contents of all mixed content bags; exclud-

ing the bags determined to hold restroom waste

or other hazardous materials, were hand-sorted

into seventeen (17) material categories detailed

in Table 2.1. Restroom waste, PPE, patient care

procedural waste, and other hazardous materials

were not hand-sorted; and were individually

weighed only.

6. Weighing bagged materials, loose materials, anomalies, and hand-sorted materials

CES photographed and weighed all representa-

tive sample materials, including the hand-sorted

materials, anomalies, and bagged materials.

Each material category was weighed individually

utilizing a bench scale independently calibrated

and collecting weights to the nearest hundredth

of a pound.

Image 2.1: Load before sampling

Image 2.2: Autoclaved biohazard (red bags)

Image 2.3: Anomalies

Image 2.4: Hospital/Patient care waste


Mackenzie Hall Methods

The materials assessment was conducted on

Thursday, January 15, 2015, by CES staff at the

Metro Central transfer station, located at 6161

NW 61st Avenue, Portland, Oregon. The material

load consisted of landfill-bound materials gener-

ated during one (1) day at OHSU’s MH: Wednes-

day, January 14, 2015 at OHSU’s Mackenzie Hall

and was delivered to the site by OHSU’s com-

mercial hauler, Trashco Services Incorporated.

The landfill-bound waste load weighed 4,520

pounds according to the Metro South scale

house. At the transfer station, CES staff began

the materials assessment by performing a visual

assessment of the load. CES then strategically

extracted approximately 10% of the load by vol-

ume as a representative sample. By weight, CES

extracted 9%.

The materials assessment was divided into five

(5) phases: 1) extract the anomalies; 2) extract

the 10% by volume representative sample; 3)

pre-sort the bags by perceived content; 4) hand-

sort the contents of sortable bags that did not

contain restroom waste or patient care proce-

dural waste, PPE, or other hazardous materials;

and 5) weigh the bagged materials, loose materi-

als, anomalies, and hand-sorted materials (see

Images 2.7-.8).

The materials assessment was conducted as fol-

lows:

1. Extracting anomalies

CES staff pulled ten (10) % by volume of anoma-

lies, which included a box of broken glass, loose

binders, and blankets (see Images 2.9-10).

2. Extract the 10% by volume representative sample

3. Pre-sorting bags

CES separated bags in the load based on per-

ceived content. CES extracted from the load one

ten (10) % by volume of all bags containing Per-

sonal protective equipment (PPE) and all bags

containing Mixed-use/combined materials waste.

Within the load, no bags of Patient care proce-

dural waste was found. Additionally, ten (1o) %

by volume of all other bags containing mixed

Image 2.5: Personal protection exequipment (PPE)

Image 2.6: Mixed content sortable bags


contents were pulled from the load for hand sort-

ing. Of these bags, restroom waste was not sort-

ed.

4. Hand-sorting the contents of bags

The contents of all mixed content bags; exclud-

ing the bags determined to hold restroom waste

or other hazardous materials, were hand-sorted

into twenty-two (22) material categories detailed

in Table 2.1. Restroom waste, PPE, patient care

procedural waste, and other hazardous materials

were not hand-sorted; and were individually

weighed only.

5. Weighing bagged materials, loose materials, anomalies, and hand-sorted materials

CES photographed and weighed all representa-

tive sample materials, including the hand-sorted

materials, anomalies, and bagged materials.

Each material category was weighed individually

utilizing a bench scale independently calibrated

and collecting weights to the nearest hundredth

of a pound.

Image 2.7: Load before sampling

Image 2.8: Extracted 10% of the load by volume

Image 2.9: Anomalies (loose binders)

Image 2.10: Lab glass


The twenty-five (25) material categories listed in Table 2.1 below were utilized in the landfill-bound ma-

terials assessment for KP and for MH, and are presented visually in Images 8.1 to 8.48. Materials high-

lighted in red are materials found outside of the frequent categories used in material assessments by

CES. Visual representation of all material categories is provided in Section 7: Materials Assessments

Photos and a detailed description of each material category is provided in Section 8: Glossary of Ma-

terial Categories.

Thirteen (13) of the above material categories are in accordance with CES standards and cor-respond with categories commonly used in ma-terials assessments by CES. The category of

Mixed use/combined materials waste was cho-sen to correspond with bags found in the load which contained sortable materials combined with hazardous materials therefore making the

Readily Recyclable Compostable Other Recoverable Non-Recoverable

Corrugated card-board

Mixed paper (in-cludes nested card-board)

Plastic bottles & tubs

Mixed metals

Glass bottles & jars

Compostable food scraps

Plastic film

Rigid plastic

Reuse

Reuse binders

HDPE foam

Textiles

Expanded polystyrene foam block

True waste

Single-use drink cups

Single-use food ser-vice ware

Food-soiled fibers

Restroom waste

Single-use EPS food service ware

Lab glass

Carpet

Mixed use/combined materials waste

Personal protection equipment (PPE)

Patient care proce-dural

Autoclaved biohaz-ard (red bags)

Table 2.1: Material categories overall


bag unsortable; the category of Personal pro-tection equipment (PPE), Patient care proce-dural, and Autoclaved (red) bags were chosen due to the observed presence of the materials in OHSU’s landfill-bound load during the as-sessment process by CES; to correspond with material categories utilized in the 2013 assess-ments for OHSU. Materials that make up a sig-nificant portion of the material waste stream are identified by CES in order to address the di-version options or waste reduction and reduc-tion in consumption opportunities associated with these specific material categories.

The four (4) general material groups used by CES,

(defined below) take into account the existing

diversion opportunities in the region and at

OHSU, and Metro and City of Portland guidelines

for recycling and waste practices:

Readily Recyclable materials category in-cludes both commingled recycling mate-rials (corrugated cardboard, mixed paper, plastic bottles and tubs, and metals) and the glass bottles and jars for recycling. These materials are required to be recy-cled by businesses under the Metro re-gional government’s business recycling requirements (Please note that in the Metro region, glass bottles and jars are recycled separately from the commin-gled recycling and any other readily re-cyclable materials listed. This dual-stream method of recycling glass bottles and jars separately allows for better qual-ity and viability of recyclable materials as products and as commodities.). Readily Recyclable materials are collected by OHSU’s primary commercial hauler, Trashco.

Compostable materials are those that are ac-cepted under Metro regional govern-

ment’s current compostable materials guidelines for businesses. Food scraps fall under this category and were sorted separately by CES. Additionally, intact food was sorted separately and included under the compostable category alt-hough it should be noted that intact food also has potential for diversion through food donation in some cases. Food-soiled fibers and compostable food ser-vice ware were previously categorized as compostable, in OHSU’s 2013 materials assessments, however due to changes in the Metro region’s acceptable com-postable materials guidelines for com-mercial programs, (which no longer in-cludes waxed cardboard, compostable food and beverage service ware, or food-soiled fibers), CES has categorized food-soiled fibers under non-Recoverable ma-terials in this report. Currently, only food scraps and approved BPI-certified com-postable bags comprise the contents of acceptable materials for the Metro re-gion’s commercial composting programs. For more information, visit Metro’s web-site: http://www.oregonmetro.gov.

Other Recoverable materials are those that have the opportunity to be recovered through an expanded diversion program or an existing non-primary hauler diver-sion system. Some of these materials are currently included in OHSU’s diversion program: plastic film and rigid plastic. These materials experience fluctuations in recoverability due to the volatility of global secondary commodity markets. The materials are sometimes less readily recyclable than at other times, such as during times of market downturns. Some materials, like rigid plastics and plastic film, are accepted by multiple material


recovery facilities in the Metro region. Others, like expanded polystyrene block foam are more difficult to recycle but may be acceptable by some material processors. Please note that all other re-coverable materials are unacceptable in the commingled recycling stream.

Non-Recoverable materials are those that cannot be diverted from the landfill through OHSU’s existing collection sys-tems or in the Portland Metro region due to lack of markets and/or processing fa-cilities. For analytical purposes this was divided into the following subcategories: true waste, single-use drink cups, single-use food service ware, food-soiled fibers (formerly categorized under composta-ble), restroom waste, single-use expand-ed polystyrene (EPS) food service ware, lab glass, carpet, mixed-use/combined materials waste, personal protective equipment (PPE), patient care procedur-al, and autoclaved (red) bags.


Section 3: Observations

The following qualitative observations were made in addition to the quantitative data gathered during

the site evaluation walk-through and during the materials assessments. The observations give an un-

derstanding of the materials being generated, their disposal and collection methods, and overall diver-

sion practices. The qualitative observations that follow are valuable in adding to the quantitative data

and comprehensive picture of KEEN’s Factory operational material flows. These observations were tak-

en into consideration and addressed when creating the recommendations listed in Section 6: Recom-

mendations.

Kohler Pavilion Observations

1. Sorted bags contained a lot of food waste, primarily composed of lunch waste, bana-nas, and coffee grounds (Image 3.1).

2. Large amounts of OHSU single use cups were found throughout the hand-sorted bags (Image 3.2).

3. Multiple white fiber/ paper plates and to-go containers found throughout the hand-sorted bags (Images 3.3).

4. One bag contained primarily recyclable aluminum cans and many other bags con-tained recyclable containers (plastic bot-tles and aluminum cans) (Images 3.4).

5. An unopened bag of Isolation Gowns was found in the load (Image 3.5).

6. Twenty-five (25) autoclaved biohazard (red bags) were counted in the load (Image 3.6).

7. The load was primarily comprised of Auto-claved biohazard (red bags), Patient care procedural, and Personal protective equipment (PPE) (Image 3.7).

8. Several loose materials were found within the load, including: corrugated cardboard, polystyrene expanded foam block, and nested cardboard cartons (Image 3.8).

Image 3.1: Sortable bags with mixed content

Image 3.2: OHSU Single-use cups


Image 3.3: Single-use food containers

Image 3.4: Aluminum cans

Image 3.5: Isolation gowns

Image 3.6: Autoclaved biohazard (red bags)

Image 3.7: Entire load, Autoclaved bundles, PPE, and procedural waste are apparent

Image 3.8: Loose materials found in the load


Mackenzie Hall Observations

1. Many of the bags perceived to be “sort-able” with food scraps and recyclables in them, were found to also contain pa-tient care items such as gloves or other materials (Image 3.10)

2. Multiple small bags were often found within a larger clear bag. (Image 3.11)

3. Lab materials were found mixed with recyclable materials. (Image 3.12)

4. A bag containing only mixed paper was found. (Image 3.13)

5. Several large pizza boxes were found.

Image 3.10: Percieved sortable bags

Image 3.11: Smaller bags in a large wastebag

Image 3.12: Lab materials

Image 3.13: Clean plastic film that could have been diverted


Section 4: Findings

Findings and recommendations resulting from the landfill-bound materials assessments are cited in

terms of weight in pounds. Lighter materials such as plastic film and expanded polystyrene foam block

can comprise a large percentage of volume in the load, yet when considered by weight alone, these ma-

terials may not appear as a significant component of the load. By extrapolating the weights obtained

from the representative sample, CES can approximate the composition of the entire landfill-bound load.

Please refer to the photos in Section 7: Materials Assessment Photos for visual representation.

Kohler Pavilion Findings

Figure 4.1 and Table 4.1 present the weight ac-

cording to the four general material groups out-

lined in Section 2: Methods for Kohler Pavilion.

Figure 4.1 shows that 1% by weight of the land-

fill-bound materials could have been diverted

through OHSU’s existing recovery systems for

commingled recycling (corrugated cardboard,

mixed paper, plastic bottles and tubs, metals)

and for glass bottle and jar recycling. Of these

readily recyclable materials, corrugated card-

board comprised the largest portion with 46%

of the weight of readily recyclable materials

and 0.5% of the entire load (see Table 4.1, Fig-

ure 4.2).

Figure 4.1 shows that other recoverable mate-

rials are at zero percent, however Table 4.1 de-

tails the weights of rigid plastic, plastic film, and

expanded polystyrene foam block, which were

present in amounts registering below one per-

cent. Materials such as clean plastic film and

rigid plastic, have the potential to be diverted

from the landfill if OHSU continues to close the

gaps in its existing materials collection system.

Table 4.1: Detailed material composition (by weight in pounds)

Material LBS %

Corrugated cardboard 5.6 0.5%

Mixed metals 2.8 0.3%

Mixed paper 1.6 0.2%

Plastic bottles & tubs 1.1 0.1%

Glass bottles & jars 1.0 0.1%

Co

mp

ost

ab

le

Compostable food scraps 10.6 1.0%

Rigid plastic 0.4 0.0%

Plastic film 0.1 0.0%

Styrofoam 0.8 0.1%

Autoclaved bundles 660.3 64.3%

Patient Care Procedural 168.0 16.4%

Personal Protective Equipment

(PPE)106.6 10.4%

Mixed-use/Combined Materials

Waste31.5 3.1%

Food-soiled fibers 10.5 1.0%

True waste 7.5 0.7%

Restroom waste 7.3 0.7%

Single-use food service ware 6.6 0.6%

Single-use drink cups 5.0 0.5%

GRAND TOTAL 1027.4 100.0%

Re

ad

ily r

ecy

cla

ble

Oth

er

Re

cove

rab

les

No

n-r

eco

vera

ble


Figure 4.1 and Table 4.1 show that 1% by weight of the landfill-bound materials could have been divert-

ed through OHSU’s existing recovery system for compost.

Finally, 98% of the load by weight consisted of materials without current recovery markets and materi-

als that were unable to be hand-sorted. It should be noted that within the 32% of Mixed-use/combined

materials waste are materials that would ordinarily be placed into the readily recyclable, compostable,

and other recoverables categories. These materials were unable to be hand-sorted due to the bags con-

taining hazardous materials Therefore, these divertible materials were measured under the non-

recoverable category. Divertible materials contributing to non-recoverable category indicates that the

98% is actually lower and the 1% for readily recyclables and the 1% for compostable is actually higher.

Table 4.1 demonstrates that the largest category within the non-recoverable materials was the auto-

claved bundles, comprising 64.3% of the total load. If Autoclaved biohazard (red bags), Mixed-

use/combined materials waste, PPE, and Patient care procedural were removed, single use items (cups

and food containers), food-soiled fibers, and true waste would comprise the greatest portions of non-

recoverable materials at 19%, 18.2%, and 12.3% of the load respectively.

Readily recyclable and compostable materials are broken down in Table 4.1 as a means of assessing

areas within this category, which can be a prioritized.

1% readily recyclable

0% other recoverable

1% compostable

98% non-recoverable

Figure 4.1: General material composition (by weight in pounds)


Mackenzie Hall Findings

Figure 4.1 shows that some other recoverable

materials, such as clean plastic film, rigid plastic

and various reuse materials including office items

and binders, have the potential to be diverted

from the landfill if OHSU pursues closing the

gaps in its existing materials collection system.

Additionally, Figure 4.1 shows that readily recy-

clable materials composed the greatest

portion of the load (14%) which could be

diverted from the landfill-bound waste

stream.

Finally, 71% of the load consisted of mate-

rials without current recovery markets.

This number/percentage is somewhat de-

ceiving however due in large to the Mixed-

use/combined materials waste. Within the

40% of Mixed-use/combined materials

waste are materials that would ordinarily

be placed into the readily recyclable,

compostable, and other recoverables cat-

egories. These materials were unable to be

hand-sorted due to these bags containing

hazardous materials. The divertible mate-

rials were measured under the non-

recoverable category thus increas-

ing/inflating the non-recoverable percent-

age.

The largest category within these non-

recoverable materials was the mixed

use/combined materials waste, comprising

40% of the total load. If this material cate-

gory was removed however, true waste

would be the largest material category in the

non-recoverable materials category with 22% or

13% with mixed use/combined materials waste

included.

Figure 5.1 gives a detail of the KP readily recycla-

ble and compostable materials. While the total

weight of these materials in the load seems neg-

ligible (see Figure 4.1), materials such as corru-

Table 4.2: OHSU’s MH detailed material composition (by weight in pounds)

Material LBS %

Mixed paper 14.8 3.8%

Metals 3.0 0.8%

Plastic bottles & tubs 2.8 0.7%

Corrugated cardboard 1.7 0.4%

Glass bottles & jars 0.9 0.2%

Compost-

ableCompostable food scraps 27.0 7.0%

Reuse 13.4 3.5%

Reuse binders 9.1 2.3%

HDPE foam 3.9 1.0%

Textiles 3.4 0.9%

Rigid plastic 2.8 0.7%

Plastic film 1.8 0.5%

Expanded polystyrene foam block 0.7 0.2%

Mixed use/combined materials waste 153.9 39.7%

True waste 51.2 13.2%

Lab glass 31.9 8.2%

Food-soiled fibers 22.2 5.7%

Single-use food service ware 20.8 5.4%

Single-use drink cups 10.3 2.7%

Restroom waste 8.9 2.3%

Liquid 1.8 0.5%

Carpet 1.3 0.3%

Single-use EPS food service ware 0.1 0.0%

GRAND TOTAL 387.7 100.0%

Rea

dily

rec

ycla

ble

Non

-rec

over

able

Oth

er r

ecov

erab

le


gated cardboard and mixed metals can be an ar-

ea for addressing and improving diversion. Such

a focus would have a significant impact on reduc-

ing landfill-bound waste. This can be further con-

trasted to Mackenzie Hall in Figure 5.3.

Figure 5.1 gives a detail of the KP readily recycla-

ble and compostable materials. While the total

weight of these materials in the load seems neg-

ligible (see Figure 4.1), materials such as corru-

gated cardboard and mixed metals can be an ar-

ea for addressing and improving diversion. Such

a focus would have a significant impact on reduc-

ing landfill-bound waste. This can be further con-

trasted to Mackenzie Hall in Figure 5.3.

6% readily recyclable

9% other recoverable

7% compostable

78% non-recoverable

Figure 4.4: OHSU’s MH general material composition


Section 5: Detailed Findings

This section is featured for comparison purposes to the OHSU material assessment report 2013 (see

Appendix A: Waste Assessment Report - Oregon Health and Science University Solid Waste As-

sessment Report, 2013). The previous report featured a breakdown of the Readily Recyclable and

Compostable materials. For comparison purposes Figures 5.1 and 5.3 have been provided. To highlight

of the single use food service ware and single use drink cups usage as provided previous, comparison

breakouts are shown in Figures 5.2 and 5.4.

The OHSU materials assessments in 2013 included Compostable food service ware, Compostable food-

soiled fibers, and Compostable drink cups within the compost general group. However, due to the

changes in Metro’s compostable guidelines, these materials are not included in the compostable cate-

gory for KP and MH in this report.

Figure 5.1 gives a detail of the KP readily recyclable and compostable materials. While the total weight

of these materials in the load seems negligible (see Figure 4.1), materials such as corrugated cardboard

and mixed metals can be an area for addressing and improving diversion. Such a focus would have a

significant impact on reducing landfill-bound waste. This can be further contrasted to Mackenzie Hall in

Figure 5.3.

Figure 5.1: MH Readily Recyclable & Compostable Materials Figure 5.2: MH To-go Drink Cups, To-go Food Containers, Food Soiled Fibers as Combined Categories


Figure 5.2 depicts the generalized material composition of the landfill-bound load, with a specific em-

phasis on Single-use drink cups, Single-use food service ware, and Food-soiled fibers. While the percent

by weight composition of Single use drink cups and Single use food service ware is a very small per-

centage, three (3) %, the weight of these materials combined is more than Restroom waste, True waste,

and Food-soiled Fibers (see Table 4.1). This indicates a significantly important material area for reduc-

tion by KP.

Food-soiled fibers is emphasized in figure 5.2, as this material was previously combined with Com-

postable Food in the 2013 materials assessments report for OHSU (see Appendix A: Waste Assess-

ment Report - Oregon Health and Science University Solid Waste Assessment Report, 2013).

Therefore figure 4.3 allows for comparison of KP to SH and to BRB in terms of food-soiled fibers and

true reductions of materials categorized as compostable which are no longer accepted in this materials

stream.

Figure 5.4, just as in Figure 5.2, depicts the generalized material composition of the landfill-bound load,

with a specific emphasis on Single-use drink cups, Single-use food service ware, and Food soiled fibers.

While the percent by weight composition of To-Go Drink Cups and To-go Food Containers is a very

small percentage, eight (8) %, the weight of these materials combined would make it the third largest

category within the non-recoverable materials (see Table 4.2). This indicates a significantly important

material area for reduction by MH.

Figure 5.3: MH Readily Recyclable & Compostable Materials Figure 5.4: MH To-go Drink Cups, To-go Food Containers, Food Soiled Fibers as Combined Categories


Section 6: Comparison

Table 6.1 and figure 6.1 compare the material composition of the landfill-bound waste streams of South

Hospital (SH), Bio-Medical Research Building (BRB), Kohler Pavilion (KP), and Mackenzie Hall (MH). The

South Hospital and the Bio-Medical Research Building were assessed in 2013, Kohler Pavilion in 2014,

and Mackenzie Hall in 2016. Data from SH and BRB is derived from the landfill-bound materials as-

sessment that CES completed in May and June of 2013, respectively (Appendix A: Waste Assessment

Report - Oregon Health and Science University Solid Waste Assessment Report, 2013).

Table 6.1 provides a comparison of the detailed findings for each building (SH, BRB, KP, and MH). Fig-

ure 6.1 presents a comparison across the four (4) assessment buildings (SH, BRB, KP, and MH) material

composition of the landfill-bound loads, based on the four (4) material classifications discussed in Sec-

tion 2: Methods. This presentation method suggests an inconsistent use of methodologies and incon-

sistencies in material diversion methods across the four buildings, which alludes to a perpetration to the

greater extent of the OHSU campus.

It should also be noted that in order to give an accurate comparison between the building’s data, CES

had to move around and combine some of the detailed material categories from each of the previous

years’ assessments into the general categories. For original placement of categories please see Appen-

dix A. The following list provides reference for the comparison categories’ composition:

SH: The materials found within compost bags have been placed within their appropriate material category, marked by an asterisk (*). Hot and Cold drink cups have been combined to Single-use drink cups. Non-recoverable to-go food containers has been renamed Single-use food service ware.

BRB Hot and Cold drink cups have been combined to Single-use drink cups. Non-recoverable to-go food containers has been renamed Single-use food service ware. Plastic cold drink cups has also been combined with Single-use drink cups.

KP: Compostable service ware, Compostable drink cups, and Compostable fibers are no longer listed in compostable materials due to Metro’s changes. Materials within all categories reflect Section 2: Methods.

MH: Compostable service ware, Compostable drink cups, and Compostable fibers are no longer listed in compostable materials due to Metro’s changes. Materials within all categories reflect Section 2: Methods.


Table 6.1: Detailed comparison by year of landfill-bound material composition: 2007, 2010, 2011 and 2014

LB % LB % LB % LB %

Corrugated cardboard 213.97 22% 11.16 3% 5.63 1% 1.73 0.4%

Mixed paper 34.89 4% * 32.56 8% 1.63 0% 14.84 4%

Plastic bottles & tubs 4.49 0% * 5.21 1% 1.13 0% 2.84 1%

Mixed metals 1.34 0% 0.97 0% 2.81 0% 2.99 1%

Glass bottles & jars 0.51 0% 3.68 1% 1.02 0.1% 0.93 0%

Total Readily Recyclable 255.20 26% 53.58 14% 12.21 1% 23.33 6%

Compostable food - - - - 10.61 1% 26.95 7%

Compostable service ware 10.08 1% 10.78 3% - - - -

Compostable drink cups 6.12 1% 2.28 1% - - - -

Compostable food & fibers 84.97 9% * 53.28 14% - - - -

Total Compostable Food & Fibers 101.17 10% 66.34 17% 10.61 1% 26.95 7%

Plastic to-go food containers (clam shells) 1.39 0% * 1.61 0% - - - -

Flatware 2.34 0% * - - - - - -

Rigid plastics 1.18 0% - - 0.41 0% 2.82 1%

Plastic cold drink cups - - 1.10 0% - - - -

Lab rigid plastics - - 20.52 5% - - - -

Plastic film 5.76 1% 8.46 2% 0.07 0% 1.82 0%

Other lab film - - 2.89 1% - - - -

Waxed cardboard 19.01 2% - - - - - -

Polystyrene expanded foam block 1.62 0% 2.39 1% 0.78 0% 0.69 0%

HDPE foam - - - - - - 3.92 1%

Textiles - - - - - - 3.41 1%

Batteries - - 0.22 0% - - - -

CDs - - 0.71 0% - - - -

Reuse binders - - - - - - 9.10 2%

Reuse - - - - - - 13.41 3%

Electronics - - 6.78 2% - - - -

Total Other Recoverable 31.30 3% 44.68 12% 1.26 0% 35.17 9%

Restroom waste 11.54 1% 32.72 8% 7.34 1% 8.94 2%

3.5" floppy disks - - 2.05 1% - - - -

Ceiling tiles - - 8.93 2% - - - -

Aquarium rocks - - 19.87 5% - - - -

Animal project materials - - 43.43 11% - - - -

Carpet - - - - - - 1.27 0%

Personal protection equipment (PPE) 40.19 4% 25.55 7% 106.56 10% - -

Super sacks - - 7.14 2% - - - -

(Non-recyclables) True waste 30.75 3% * 77.73 20% 7.52 1% 51.17 13%

Hospital/patient care waste 126.40 13% - - 168.00 16% - -

Mixed use/combined care waste 112.28 11% - - 31.52 3% 153.88 40%

Autoclaved Biohazed (red bags) 264.00 27% - - 660.25 64% - -

Lab glass - - - - 31.89 8%

Unused toilet paper rolls - - - - - - - -

Single-use drink cups 3.43 0% 4.06 1% 5.00 0% 10.29 3%

Single-use food service ware 4.80 0% * - - 6.60 1% 20.78 5%

Single-use EPS food service ware - - - - - - 0.07 0%

Food-soiled fibers - - - - 10.48 1% 22.16 6%

Liquid 3.10 0% 0.32 0% - - 1.79 0%

Total Non-Recoverable 596.49 61% 221.80 57% 1003.27 98% 302.24 78%

GRAND TOTAL 984.16 100% 386.40 100% 1027.35 100% 387.69 100%

MATERIAL SH BRB KP MH

* Category conta ins contents of Compost bags from origina l report


The overall proportion of recoverable materials in the landfill-bound load was larger at BRB as com-

pared to all other buildings (Figure 6.1). Within this category, readily recyclable materials most signifi-

cantly impacted the landfill-bound load at SH and BRB with 26% and 14% respectively. In both circum-

stances, corrugated cardboard and mixed paper were the largest contributors to this material category.

While there is a general decline in readily recyclable materials, and more specifically corrugated card-

board and mixed paper at KP and MH these locations, these materials continued to be the largest con-

tributors to the readily recyclable materials. This overtly suggests a need for emphasis on these specific

materials within for increased diversion methods and practices.

Other recoverable materials has fluctuated greatly between the buildings from nearly insignificant by

weight by volume of KP’s to 11% of BRB’s the landfill-bound load. The materials within this category

have varied as well, with the only consistent material across all buildings being Polystyrene expanded

foam block. In all buildings, this material consisted of no more than 1% of the total landfill-bound load.

The largest contributor to other re-

coverable materials at each building is

as follows: SH, Waxed cardboard (2%);

BRB, Lab rigid plastics (1%); KP, Poly-

styrene expanded foam block (0%),

and MH, Reuse (3%). The wide varia-

tion of materials found that are appli-

cable for other recoverable methods

suggests a need to increase and ex-

pand existing programs at OHSU.

Due to the changes made by Metro in

regards to compostable materials,

there is a somewhat deceiving decline

in compostable materials found in KP

and MH. If Food soiled fibers were to

be combined with compostable food

for comparison, within KP, this mate-

rial would comprise 2% of the landfill-

bound load. It should be noted this has

been deflated by the presence of Au-

toclaved biohazard (red bags), Patient

care procedural waste, Personal pro-

Figure 6.1: Comparison by year of landfill-bound general material compo-sition: SH, BRB, KP, and MH


tection equipment (PPE), and Mixed-use/combined materials waste. If these materials were not present

in the load, Compostable food and fibers, if combined would constitute 35% of the landfill-bound load.

In comparison, if these materials were to be combined at MH, Compostable food and fibers would

comprise 13% of the load. While this too is deflated by the abundance of unsortable Mixed-

use/combined materials waste, this percentage would only increase to 21% with the removal of the

Mixed-use material category. As CES is unable to determine the percentage of food to fiber percent-

ages for SH and BRB, it is difficult to ascertain if Compostable food as remained constant in all buildings

assessed. Regardless, the material category remains a prominent area for diversion practices through

increased programs and education.

Non-recoverable materials composition vary greatly amongst the four buildings. The consistent mate-

rial categories are Restroom waste, Non-recyclables (True waste), and most notable Single-use drink

cups. It should be noted if Metro’s current compost practices were in place when the BRB assessment

was conducted, Single-use service ware would also be considered consistent across the four buildings.

Single-use service ware had the greatest composition within MH’s landfill-bound waste (5%).


Section 7: Recommendations

After analysis of the data, CES recommends the following:

Provide each floor with assistance, education, and resources to start a green team, conduct green team work, and follow basic structural guidelines for green teams at OHSU. (If there are no green team basics and guidelines at OHSU consider developing these standards). This will al-low OHSU to have consistency across floors and for employees to recognize and understand the diversion process at OHSU, waste reduction goals at OHSU, and become comfortable with OHSU’s systems.

Reduce the amount of paper being used. Recyclable mixed paper made up 0.02% of KP and 3.8% of MH’s landfill-bound load. Reducing paper use can cut costs.

» Mandate that all the printer settings be set to print on two sides (double sided printing).

» Encourage staff to send files electronically versus printing them out.

» Make sure that signage and containers to recycle paper are clear and visible in areas where paper is generated frequently (and/or directs employees to paper shredding bins)

» Distribute Recycle at Work boxes to put next to desk-side garbage bins to ensure a higher diversion rate of recyclable paper. Consider working with Sustainability Liaisons to ensure recycling bins are properly paired with garbage cans and signs are in place in each work unit.

» For more information about paper recycling information visit, EPA- Paper Basics

Consider implementing innovative waste reduction strategies by promoting the use of durable drink cups and food service ware. These measures will reduce the amount of single-use drink cups and food service ware in the landfill-bound load (see Images 8.13-.14 and 8.39-.44.).

» Provide durable dishes in break-rooms for employee use to reduce the use of disposable dishes for everyday use, not just special events or large group meetings.

» Consider making reusable take-out containers available to employees. Examples of reusa-ble take-out containers include Eco-Takeouts (http://ecotakeouts.com/).

» Consider exploring hosting a Go Box drop box and partnering with Mac Hall Bistro so that Mac Hall Bistro offers the option of Go Box. https://www.goboxpdx.com/

» Partner with Mac Hall Espresso to initiate a reusable mug campaign that offers incentives for using a reusable mug. Examples may include: a punch card system for employees and students that utilize reusable mugs with a free drink at the completion of the punch card.

Explore expanding the compost collection for kitchen food scraps Utilize strategic signage in the kitchens/breakrooms at the buddied disposal area and at the coffee machine in order to direct staff to the compost bucket (usually kept on the counter top next to the sink). This will encourage capture of compostable coffee grounds and food scraps from lunches for diversion as compost.

http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/materials/paper/basics/

http://ecotakeouts.com/

https://www.goboxpdx.com/


» Put in place a plan of action for responsibility of emptying the compost pail into the com-post roll cart supplied by the hauler. Consider listing this action under the green team guidelines.

» Provide periodic food waste diversion education to employees and custodial staff.

» Provide outreach to floors that have not yet elected to host a compost collection system under OHSU’s goals toward sustainability.

Create a buddy system for break rooms. Create a buddy system that consists of: one (1) landfill-bound container, one (1) commingled recycling container, one (1) compost container, and one (1) glass bottles and jars container. By doing so, this allows employees to divert their waste to the proper stream.

» Get proper signage for each container with pictures that show what goes in and what stays out of each container (see Images 7.1-7.2).

» For additional resources pertaining to stickers and posters that can be downloaded for free visit, America Recycles Day- Toolkits & Posters .

Image 7.1: Example of signage for a compost brute in the break room

Image 7.2: Example of commingled recycling sign that could go over all commingled recycling containers

http://americarecyclesday.org/toolkit


Section 8: Materials Assessments Photos

Kohler Pavilion Photos

Image 8.1 Mixed paper

Image 8.2: Corrugated cardboard


Image 8. 4: Mixed metals

Image 8.5: Mixed metals

Image 8.6: Plastic bottles & tubs

Image 8.7: Glass bottles

Image 8.8: Compostable food

Image 8.9: Rigid plastic


Image 8.10: Plastic film

Image 8.11: Autoclaved biohazard

(red bags)

Image 8.12: Patient care procedural

Image 8.13: Mixed-use/Combined

materials waste

Image 8.14: Food soiled fibers

Image 8.15: True waste

Image 8.16: Single-use food service

ware

Image 8.17: Single-use drink cups


Mackenzie Hall Photos

Image 8.18 Mixed paper

Image 8.19: Mixed paper



Image 8.22: Plastic bottles & tubs

Image 8.23: Glass bottles


Image 8.25: Reuse

Image 8.26: Reuse binders


Image 8. 27: HDPE foam

Image 8.28: Textiles

Image 8.29: Rigid plastics

Image 8. 30: Plastic film

Image 8.31: Expanded polystyrene

foam block

Image 8.32: Mixed-use/combined

materials waste





Image 8.36: Lab glass




ware


ware


ware

Image 8..42: Single-use drink cups




Image 8.45: Restroom waste

Image 8.46: Carpet

Image 8.47: Single-use EPS food

service ware


Section 9: Glossary of Material Categories

Autoclaved Biohazards (red bags) – Red biohazard bags containing autoclaved biohazards in large

melded bundles.

Carpet – Floor or stair covering made from woven fabric.

Compostable food scraps – Vegetable, fruit, grain-based food scraps, meat, fish, fat, bones, eggshells,

tea bags, and coffee grinds. This category excludes compostable and non-compostable hot and cold

drink cups, gable-top or square shaped aseptic cartons, waxed cardboard, and utensils, straws, lids, or

bags made of plastic, biodegradable plastic, or compostable plastic.

Corrugated cardboard – A material made from fiber, and contains a wavy corrugated layer enclosed by

a layer of kraft board. Corrugated cardboard boxes and sheets are commonly used to package, ship and

move materials.

Expanded polystyrene foam block – Light expanded polystyrene plastic used for product packaging.

Food-soiled fibers – Fibers such as paper towels, napkins, paper plates, and paper linings, which have

come in contact with food scraps and liquids.

Glass bottles – Containers made of glass. This category excludes light bulbs, flat glass, flower vases,

drinking glasses, and tempered glass such as baking dishes.

HDPE foam – High-density polyethylene foam that is commonly used as a packing material.

Lab glass – Glass containers, such as beakers, that were clearly identified as having been used in a la-

boratory.

Mixed metals – Containers made of aluminum, steel or tin, including containers for beverages, food,

and other materials. Empty aerosol cans and scrap metal are included in this category.

Mixed paper – Includes office paper, newspaper, magazines, phonebooks, paper board/soft cardboard,

folders, scrap paper, sticky notes, shredded paper, paper bags, egg cartons, cereal boxes, and all other

non-corrugated cardboards. This category also includes aseptic such as gable-top milk and juice cartons

and square-shaped cartons often used for soups or soymilk. This category does not include tissue paper,

freezer boxes, or receipts.

Mixed use/combined care waste – bags found in the load which contained sortable materials com-

bined with hazardous materials.


Patient care procedural waste – Bags containing various patient care materials, i.e. latex gloves, paper

towels, bed pans, PPE, patient tubes, baby bottles, syringes, disposable drapes/sheets, equipment

packaging, and recyclable paper catheter packages.

Personal protection equipment (PPE) – Equipment used for protecting eyes, ears, mouth, hands; and

gowns and booties.

Plastic bottles and tubs – Plastic containers with a neck, including containers for beverages, other flu-

ids; plastic tubs of primarily food grade plastic often used for yogurt, margarine, and other food or non-

food materials, rigid plant pots larger than four inches, and plastic buckets smaller than five gallons.

This category includes bioplastics bottles that are made from plant-based resins (plant based PET), but

excludes bioplastics that are biodegradable plastic. This category excludes all plastic containers labeled

as “biodegradable.”

Plastic film – All clean plastic film bags including grocery and sandwich bags. Also includes shrink wrap,

pallet wrap, bubble wrap, and plastic films.

Plastic to-go food containers (clam shells) – Food containers made of plastic and intended for single

use (non-durable).

Reuse- Items that may be re-used through donation to a program or by in-house programs such as for

office supplies or furniture.

Reuse binders - Lightly used binders that could have been reused through a donation or in-house pro-

gram.

Rigid plastic – Non-bottle and non-tub shaped plastics that are not accepted through the regional

commingled recycling programs, but are acceptable at various plastics recycling facilities in the region.

Includes plastic pallets and spools.

Single-use drink cups – Non-durable, non-recyclable single-use cups for either hot or cold beverages.

These cups may be made of plastic, plastic-lined paper, plastic-embedded paper, expanded polystyrene

foam, or compostable plastics.

Single-use expanded polystyrene (EPS) food service ware – Non-durable containers, plates, and

dishes designed for single-use and used to serve and transport food that are made out of expanded pol-

ystyrene foam.


Single-use food service ware – Non-durable containers, plates, dishes and flatware designed for single

use and used to serve and transport food. These may be made of plastic, plastic-lined paper, plastic-

embedded paper, expanded polystyrene foam, or compostable plastics.

Textiles – Fabric used as either clothes or rags.

True waste – Materials that cannot currently be diverted. These materials are known as “true waste”

because there are currently no recycling markets for these materials, and the materials are not com-

postable at local composting facilities, or the materials are not readily reused or fit for donation. Com-

mon materials include candy wrappers, chip bags, freezer boxes, soiled textiles unfit for donation or

recycling, polyvinyl chloride items such as gift cards, credit cards, or pipe, foil and paper wrappers, and

other non-recyclable mixed material items without current recycling markets.


Appendix A: Waste Assessment Report – OHSU South Hospital and BioMedical Research Building 2013

Prepared for Oregon Health and Science University

Community Environmental Services

Eric T. Crum, Director

Moonrose Doherty, Solid Waste Assessment Services Manager

Mark Kenseth, Solid Waste Assessments Project Lead

PO Box 751 – CES Portland, Oregon 97207

July 12th, 2013

Oregon Health and Science University

Solid Waste Assessments Report

Community Environmental Services July 12, 2013

OHSU Solid Waste Assessments 2

Table of Contents

SECTION 1: BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................... 2

SECTION 2: METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................... 5

BRB METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................... 5 SH METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................................... 6 MATERIAL CATEGORIES FOR BRB & SH ................................................................................... 7

SECTION 3: FINDINGS .................................................................................................................. 9

BRB FINDINGS .............................................................................................................................. 9 SH FINDINGS ............................................................................................................................... 13

SECTION 4: OBSERVATIONS ................................................................................................... 17

BRB OBSERVATIONS ................................................................................................................... 17 SH OBSERVATIONS ..................................................................................................................... 19

SECTION 5: RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................... 21

WASTE REDUCTION .................................................................................................................... 25

SECTION 6: PHOTOS OF MATERIAL CATEGORIES AND OBSERVATIONS ........ 26

BRB PHOTOS................................................................................................................................ 26 SH PHOTOS .................................................................................................................................. 28

SECTION 7: GLOSSARY OF MATERIAL CATEGORIES .................................................. 30



Section 1: Background

In March of 2013, Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) contacted Community Environmental

Services (CES) with the request to conduct two landfill-bound waste assessments for two selected buildings on

the Marquam Hill campus, located in Portland, Oregon. CES is a research and service unit within the Center for

Urban Studies at Portland State University. OHSU is a public university with a main campus in Portland that

includes two hospitals and a smaller campus in Hillsboro, Oregon.

OHSU currently implements a variety of material diversion practices depending on the building and its

occupants. All buildings currently collect commingled recycling and glass bottles and jars. Pre-consumer

compost is collected in various locations across the campus such as the kitchens and other food preparation

areas as well as some of the coffee shops. The Starbucks coffee shop does not collect compost. Post-consumer

compost is collected in select locations for the public; and employee locations depend on the willingness and

interest of the floor supervisors and staff. Where employee post-consumer compost collection is in place, a do-

it-yourself (DIY) system is utilized, wherein responsible parties either empty their own internal compost bins

into the external compost containers provided by the commercial hauler or utilize the external container in one

location on the floor or in the department.

The Bio-Medical Research Building (BRB) and the South Hospital (SH) collect commingled recycling and glass

bottle and jar recycling on all floors and they also offer battery recycling through specialized pick up. Compost is

collected in small (under 2 gallons) compost buckets that are distributed to work groups that want to participate

in the OHSU composting program. These work groups are responsible for taking the compost bucket down to

the dock and emptying them into a 64 gallon compost cart. The compost cart on the dock is emptied by

Trashco on a weekly basis and switched out when needed. Some floors/participants choose to use compostable

bio-liners for ease of use, but it is by choice and not part of policy at OHSU.

Other materials such as rigid and film plastics are collected where generation areas occur. Foam packaging (i.e.

air-blown/expanded plastic) is not currently diverted because it is not accepted by any of OHSU’s hauling

vendors. Logistics oversees the handling of e-waste, clearing computers/hard-drives of all information and

donating them to a student program in The Dalles, called SRUT (Student Recycling Universal Technology).

OHSU’s Office Reuse Center takes gently used binders, desk organizers, pens, pencils, paper clips, some

computer components (mice, keyboards, & cords), and other office goods for repurposing; the Logistics/Surplus

department oversees the reuse of furniture and equipment that staff is no longer in need of.



The objectives of the waste assessment were as follows:

1. Determine the composition of the landfill-bound waste stream by conducting a solid waste assessment

on the landfill-bound materials generated from two selected buildings on the OHSU campus (Bio-

Medical Research Building and South Hospital).

2. Assess the landfill-bound waste to better understand the composition in relation to daily activities and

gain a general idea of waste composition on the OHSU campus. The waste assessment included hand

sorting the waste from the two buildings into material categories, weighing the sorted materials,

recording the data, and making quantitative and qualitative observations.

3. Develop recommendations regarding material waste that could be diverted or reduced based on the

findings from the solid waste assessment.

4. Provide evidence of waste minimization and targeted diversion opportunities.

For the purposes of this report, the term “waste sort” refers to the physical hand sorting of materials into

defined categories. The term “waste assessment” refers to the entire process of sorting, observing, and analyzing

the materials.

Figure 1.1. The 25-yard landfill-bound waste compactor from the BRB



Section 2: Methodology

The waste assessment for the Bio-Medical Research Building (BRB) was conducted by CES employees at the

Metro Central Transfer Station, located at 6161 NW 61st Avenue, Portland, Oregon on May 22nd, 2013, and the

waste assessment for the South Hospital (SH) was conducted by CES employees at the Metro South Transfer

Station, located at 2001 Washington Street in Oregon City, Oregon on June 19th, 2013.

BRB Methodology

The landfill-bound waste load originating from the BRB’s 25-yard compactor, contained materials collected from

six days of operations at the BRB (fig. 2.1). The landfill-bound waste load weighed 1,980 pounds (.99 ton)

according to the Metro Central scale house. The hand-sorted sample weighed a total of 386.40 pounds,

comprising nearly 20% by weight of the entire load, and comprising approximately 15% by volume of the entire

load (fig. 2.2).

Figure 2.1. BRB Landfill-bound Material Prior to Sampling and Sorting

Figure 2.2. BRB Sample, 15% by volume and 20% by weight



SH Methodology

The landfill-bound waste load originating from the SH’s 25-yard compactor, contained materials collected from

one day of operation at the SH (fig. 2.3). The landfill-bound waste load weighed 7,300 pounds (3.65 tons)

according to the Metro South scale house. The hand-sorted sample weighed a total of 984.16 pounds comprising

13.5% by weight of the entire load, and comprising approximately 15% by volume of the entire load (fig. 2.4).

Figure 2.3 SH Landfill-bound Material Prior to Sampling and Sorting

Figure 2.4 SH Sample, 15% by volume (photo does not show one red biohazard bundle included in sample)



Material Categories for both BRB & SH

For the BRB and the SH, the representative landfill-bound waste

samples were hand-sorted into 35 material categories (Table 2.1).

The majority of the material categories were chosen by CES and

OHSU to best understand the waste composition of the OHSU

campus in accordance with the current campus diversion systems.

Additional material categories were added after identification at the

respective waste sort. Some of the material categories were only

found in the waste load from the BRB and some were only found

in the waste load from SH, therefore not all material categories are

present in both of the data presentations.

The material categories grouped under “Readily Recyclable and

Recoverable” are recyclables or compostables that are manageable

with the current diversion infrastructure with the primary waste

hauler for OHSU. The categories under “Other Recoverables”

include materials that are divertible through current systems at

OHSU, and materials that could be diverted if a system were

implemented. The category of “Non-Recoverable Waste” includes

materials that are avoidable and could possibly be diverted through

unique diversion programs, or could be targeted for reduction in

use. See “Appendix A: Glossary of Material Categories” for

detailed descriptions of each material.

Figures 2.5 and 2.6 display CES staff in the process of conducting

the waste sort for BRB and SH respectively, in which materials are

separated and categorized into yellow 14-gallon bins. Figures 2.7

and 2.8 provide a post-sort view of all the material categories prior

to weighing for BRB and SH respectively. The weights provide the

quantitative data for the findings in “Section 3: Findings.” Figures

2.9 through 2.12 are images of the landfill-bound waste load as the

sample was extracted and detailed observations were logged.

Table 2.1. Material Categories

Readily Recyclable and Recoverable

o Mixed Paper

o Corrugated Cardboard

o Metal Containers

o Plastic Bottles and Tubs

o Glass Bottles and Jars

o Compostable Food and Fibers

o Compostable Service Ware

o Compostable Cold Drink Cups

o Compostable Hot Drink Cups

Other Recoverables

o Flatware

o Rigid Plastics

o Plastic Films

o Waxed Cardboard

o Lab Rigid Plastics

o Plastic To-Go Food Containers

(Clamshells)

o Expanded Foam (Polystyrene)

o Reusable Office Supplies

o Electronics (e-waste)

o Batteries

o Compact Discs

Non-Recoverable Waste

o Poly-coated Hot Drink Cups

o Poly-coated Cold Drink Cups

o Non Recoverable To-Go Food

Containers (Soup Bowls)

o Restroom Waste

o Liquids

o True Waste

o Ceiling Tiles

o 3.5” floppy disks

o Aquarium Rocks

o Super Sacks

o Animal Project Related Waste

o PPE (Personal Protection Equip.)

o Hospital/Patient Care Waste

o Mixed-Use/Combined Materials

Waste

o Autoclaved Biohazards (Red Bags)



Figure 2.5. BRB Waste Sort in Progress

Figure 2.6. SH Waste Sort in Progress

Figure 2.7. BRB Organized Material Categories

Figure 2.8. SH Organized Material Categories

(Not Pictured: Hospital/Patient Care Waste Sample,

Cardboard Sample, One Autoclaved Biohazard Red Bag)

Figure 2.9. BRB Glass in a Recyclable Box

Figure 2.11. BRB Animal Project Related Waste

Figure 2.10. SH Cardboard in the Waste Stream

Figure 2.12. SH Autoclaved Biohazard Bag Weighed



Table 3.1. BRB Waste Audit Data with Specific Landfill-Bound Waste Categories

Section 3: Findings

Findings and recommendations resulting from the waste sort are cited in terms of weight in pounds. Lighter

materials such as plastic film, expanded foam, hot drink cups, and plastic drink cups can represent a large

percentage of volume in the waste stream, however, when considered by weight alone these materials may not

appear as a significant component of the load. All tables and figures present the data as a comprehensive waste

stream that is representative of the BRB and SH respectively. Any percent variances are due to rounding. Please

refer to the photos in Section 6 for visual examples of materials.

BRB Findings

Table 3.1 provides the weight and percentage of

each material category in relation to the total

landfill-bound waste sample for the BRB. There

are three general types of material:

(1) Readily Recyclable & Recoverable

(2) Other Recoverable Materials

(3) Non-Recoverable Materials

Readily Recyclable and Recoverable Materials in Table

3.1 consist of recyclable and compostable

materials, including mixed paper, cardboard,

metal, plastic bottles and tubs, glass bottles and

jars, compostable food and fibers, compostable

service ware, and compostable drink cups,

totaling 31% of the landfill-bound waste.

The recyclable and compostable materials of

Readily Recyclable and Recoverable Materials are

diverted by two separate streams at the BRB.

Figure 3.1 provides data for each diversion

stream: 14% (53.58 pounds) consisted of

recyclable materials and 17% (66.34 pounds)



Figure 3.1. BRB General Waste Composition

consisted of compostable materials; when combined equals 31% (119.92 pounds) of the total landfill-bound

waste sample. These materials could be recycled and recovered through BRB’s standard recycling and

composting practices currently being implemented on the Marquam campus.

Other Recoverable Materials in Table 3.1 consist of

plastic film, expanded foam, e-waste, batteries,

plastic to-go food containers (clamshells),

plastic cold drink cups, lab rigid plastics, other

lab plastics, and CDs, making up 12% of the

total landfill-bound waste (fig. 3.1). These

materials could be targeted more effectively by

improving a user-friendly collection system and

the promotion of building-specific practices to

capture materials across the entire OHSU

campus. Further elaboration of these strategies

can be found in Section 5: Recommendations.

Combining the Readily Recyclable and

Recoverable Materials (31%) with the Other

Recoverable Materials (12%) makes up 43% of

the landfill-bound waste sample and illustrates

the potential to reassess and improve the

current OHSU diversion program currently

being implemented at BRB.

Non-Recoverable Materials in Table 3.1 consist of poly-coated hot drink cups (0.9%), poly-coated cold drink cups

(0.2%), restroom waste (8.5%), liquids (0.1%), 3.5” floppy disks (0.5%), non-recyclables (true waste) (20.1%),

super sacks (1.8%), ceiling tiles (2.3%), aquarium rocks (5.1%), animal project related materials (11.2%), and

personal protection equipment (PPE) (6.6%); totaling 57% of the landfill-bound waste (fig. 3.1). “Section 5:

Recommendations,” provides recommendations and suggestions on how to begin reducing these materials.



Figure 3.2. BRB Readily Recyclable & Recoverable

Figure 3.3. BRB Other Recoverables

BRB Detailed View of Two Categories

Readily Recyclable and Recoverable Materials

and Other Recoverable Materials are broken

down further in Figure 3.2 and Figure 3.3

respectively to provide a means for assessing

which materials in each category can be

addressed that would have the greatest impact

on reducing landfill-bound waste.

This detailed view of the Readily Recyclable and

Recoverable Materials in the landfill-bound waste

sample shows compostable food and fibers,

mixed paper, and cardboard providing the

largest opportunities for improvement in

material recovery practices (fig. 3.2).

The detailed view of the Other Recoverable

Materials in the landfill-bound waste sample,

shows lab rigid plastics, plastic film, and e-

waste providing the largest opportunity to

improve current landfill-bound waste recovery

practices around these types of recoverable

materials (fig. 3.3).



Figure 3.4. BRB Categories of To-Go Drink Cups (Hot & Cold) and To-Go Food Containers

BRB Combined To-Go Categories

Figure 3.4 presents the generalized material composition with a specific break-out of the combined “To-Go

Food Containers” and “To-Go Drink Cups”. It should be noted that each of the six types of food containers

and drink cups, belong to the general

categories of either Compostables,

Other Recoverables, or Non-

Recoverables (see Table 3.1) elsewhere

in this report; for this reason the

percentages for Compostables, Other

Recoverables, and Non-Recoverables

are affected in Figure 3.4 versus Figure

3.1.

The two material categories that are

grouped as To-Go Food Containers

include:

(1) Compostable Service Ware

(2) Plastic To-Go Food Containers

(Clamshells)

The four material categories that are grouped together as To-Go Drink Cups include:

(1) Compostable Drink Cups

(2) Plastic Cold Drink Cups

(3) Poly-coated Hot Drink Cups

(4) Poly-coated Cold Drink Cups

Together, the To-Go Food Containers and the To-Go Drink Cups total 19.83 pounds, which is 5% of the entire

waste sample, exhibiting a significant potential for reduction at the BRB. The potential is more substantial when

the materials are considered in terms of volume, since their percentage as a volume component would be

considerably higher.



Table 3.2. SH Waste Audit Data with Specific Landfill-Bound Waste Categories

Table 3.5. SH General Waste Composition by Weight

SH Findings

Table 3.2 provides the weight and percentage of

each material category in relation to the total

landfill-bound waste for the SH. There are three

general types of material:

(1) Readily Recyclable & Recoverable

(2) Other Recoverable Materials

(3) Non-Recoverable Materials

Readily Recyclable and Recoverable Materials in Table

3.2 consist of recyclable and compostable

materials, including mixed paper, cardboard,

metal, plastic bottles and tubs, glass bottles and

jars, compostable food and fibers, compostable

plates and to-go containers, compostable hot

and cold drink cups, and bags of compost,

totaling 36% of the total landfill-bound waste

sample (see fig. 3.5).

The recyclable and compostable materials

included in the Readily Recyclable and Recoverable

Materials are diverted by two separate collection

streams at the SH. Figure 3.5 provides data for

each diversion stream: 26% of the sample

(254.35 pounds) consisted of readily recyclable

materials; and 10% (103.35 pounds) consisted

of compostable materials. Combined, these

materials represented 36% (357.7 pounds) of

the total landfill-bound waste sample, and are

readily recyclable and recoverable through SH’s

standard recycling and composting practices

currently being implemented.



Figure 3.6. SH Compostable Bags of Compost: Composition by Weight

Other Recoverable Materials in Table 3.2 consisted of plastic to-go food containers (clamshells), flatware, rigid

plastics, plastic films, waxed cardboard, and expanded foam (polystyrene), making up 3% of the total landfill-

bound waste (fig. 3.5). These materials could be targeted more effectively by improving the collection system and

by promotion of building-specific practices to capture materials across the entire OHSU campus. Further

elaboration of this strategy is found in the “Section 5: Recommendations.”

Combining Readily Recyclable and Recoverable Materials (36%) with Other Recoverable Materials (3%), equals 39% of the

landfill-bound waste and illustrates the potential to reassess and improve the current SH diversion program.

Non-Recoverable Materials in Table 3.2 consist of poly-coated hot drink cups (0.2%), poly-coated cold drink cups

(0.1%), non-recoverable to-go food containers (i.e. soup bowls) (0.5%), restroom waste (1.2%), liquids (0.3%),

non-recyclables (true waste) (3.1%), personal protection equipment (PPE) (4.1%), hospital/patient care waste

(12.8%), mixed-use/combined materials waste (11.4%), and autoclaved biohazard (red bags) (26.8%), totaling

61% of the landfill-bound waste (fig. 3.1). Recommendations in Section 5 provide means for reducing this waste.

SH Compostable Bags Findings

Figure 3.6 shows the composition of the

compostable bags found in the landfill-bound

load and which were possibly deposited in the

landfill-bound compactor in error. The bags

were filled with compost (food scraps,

compostable service ware and fibers) and were

sorted and categorized separately to determine

contaminants. Figure 3.6 displays the 32.3

pounds of sorted materials in these bags.

Recyclable paper and aseptics (i.e. milk

cartons) (2.4%) and plastic bottles (0.2%) made

up almost 3% of the materials in the bags;

non-recyclable poly-coated to-go food

containers (0.5%), plastic to-go food

containers (clamshells) (0.7%), flatware (1.6%),

and true waste (1.3%) made up over 4% of the



Figure 3.7. SH Readily Recyclable and Recoverable

Figure 3.8. SH Other Recoverable Materials

materials: and compost made up just over 93% of the materials in the bags. The relatively low amount of

contaminants in the bags of compost is encouraging and could indicate only a slight need for improved signage,

but the targeted improvements in directing bags intended for compost to the external compost collection

container is a highly recommended priority as this represents wasted resource.

SH Detailed View of Two

Categories

Readily Recyclable and Recoverable Materials and

Other Recoverable Materials are broken down

further in Figures 3.7 and 3.8 respectively to

provide a means for assessing which materials in

each category can be addressed to have the

greatest impact on reducing landfill-bound

waste.

Of the Readily Recoverable Materials in the landfill-

bound waste stream (fig. 3.7), compostable food

and fibers, mixed paper, and cardboard provide

SH the largest opportunities to improve current

landfill-bound waste recovery practices.

Of the Other Recoverable Materials in the landfill-

bound waste stream (fig. 3.8) lab rigid plastics,

plastic film, and e-waste provide the largest

opportunity to improve current landfill-bound

waste recovery practices.



Figure 3.9. SH To-Go Drink Cups (Hot & Cold) and To-Go Food Containers as Combined Categories

SH Combined To-Go Categories

Figure 3.9 presents the generalized material composition of the entire landfill-bound waste load sample with a

specific break-out of the combined “To-Go Food Containers” and “To-Go Drink Cups (Hot and Cold)” found

in the SH landfill-bound waste load. It should be noted that each of the seven types of food containers and drink

cups belong to the categories of Compostables, Other Recoverables, and Non-Recoverables (see Table 3.2)

elsewhere in this report; for this reason these categories are affected in their percentages in Figure 3.9 versus

Figure 3.5.

The three material categories that are

grouped as To-Go Food Containers

include:

(1) Compostable Plates & Fiber To-

Go Food Containers

(2) Plastic To-Go Food Containers

(Clamshells)

(3) Non-Recoverable To-Go Food

Containers (Soup Bowls)

The four material categories that are

grouped together as To-Go Drink

Cups include:

(1) Compostable Cold Drink Cups

(2) Compostable Hot Drink Cups

(3) Poly-coated Hot Drink Cups

(4) Poly-coated Cold Drink Cups

Together, the To-Go Food Containers and the To-Go Drink Cups total 25.44 pounds, 2% of the entire waste

sample, exhibiting potential for reduction at the SH. This potential is more substantial when the materials are

considered in terms of volume, since their percentage as a volume component would be considerably higher.



Figure 4.1. Compostables

Figure 4.2. Recyclable Paper

Section 4: Observations

BRB Observations

In addition to the quantitative data from the waste sort, the

following qualitative observations were made:

1. A noticeable amount of compostable materials appearing

to originate from employee lunches was observed in the

waste stream (fig. 4.1).

2. Desk-side garbage bags containing considerable amounts

of recyclable paper suggest a need for targeted

improvement to specific areas in need (fig. 4.2).

3. A substantial amount of compostable food containers,

plates, and some flatware were in the landfill-bound waste

load, even though there is compost collection available at

OHSU; indicates an area for improvement (fig. 4.3).

4. Animal project related materials, such as animal bedding,

food bags, and plastic housing boxes were noted (fig. 4.4).

5. Multiple plastic bags filled with eggs were found in the

load (fig. 4.5).

6. Testing materials such as plastic pipettes, plates, and tubes

were prevalent in the load (fig. 4.6).

7. Recyclable clean plastic film packaging from brand-new

testing materials was noticed in the load (fig. 4.7).

8. Flattened loose cardboard that appeared to be intended for

the recycling container was found throughout the load and

represents lost revenue (fig. 4.8).

9. Large quantities of disposable drink cups were found in

the load, exhibiting potential for reduction efforts (fig. 4.9).

10. Disposable plastic clamshell food containers were

throughout the load (fig. 4.10).

11. A number of bags containing only PPE were observed (fig.

4.11).



Figure 4.3. Compostables

Figure 4.4. Animal Project

Related Materials

Figure 4.5. Eggs

Figure 4.6. Testing Materials

(Other Lab Plastic)

Figure 4.7. Clean Plastic

Packaging

Figure 4.8. Cardboard

Figure 4.9. Disposable Drink

Cups (Hot & Cold)

Figure 4.10. Clamshells

Figure 4.11. PPE



Figure 4.12. Cardboard in the Landfill-bound Waste Stream

Figure 4.13. Waxed Cardboard

SH Observations

1. An abundance of flattened loose non-waxed cardboard that

appeared to be intended for the recycling container was found

in the sample (fig. 4.12), totaling 213.97 pounds and

representing 21.7% of sorted material (see Table 3.2). Over the

last six months cardboard has been priced at $90-$130/ton on

the secondary commodities markets according to the Oregon

Board Markets (OBM). This would mean a potential revenue

stream of $674.1-$973.7/week for SH if this cardboard were to

be directed to the recycling. The cardboard consisted of both

non-waxed food and produce boxes in addition to non-waxed

boxes from hospital equipment/items.

2. Waxed cardboard was also prevalent in the load and measured

separately from non-waxed cardboard (fig. 4.13).

3. Autoclaved Biohazards (red bags) numbered 13 in the load and

can weigh over 200 pounds each (fig. 4.14).

4. Bags appearing to originate from staff lunch/break rooms

contained recyclables, compostables, and non-compostables

many of which could have been diverted. Recyclables consisted

of aluminum cans, plastic yogurt tubs, and mixed papers (fig.

4.15). Compostable items consisted of coffee grounds,

compostable service ware, compostable fiber plates and

napkins, and food scraps (fig. 4.16). Non-compostable items

consisted of mini coffee creamer packages, plastic utensils, and

chip bags (fig. 4.17).

5. Bags appearing to originate from post-consumer cafeteria areas,

contained items that could also be diverted or reduced in use,

namely food packaging, food scraps, hot drink cups,

compostable fiber plates and napkins, aseptics, and Starbucks

plastic cold drink cups (fig. 4.18).

6. Hospital/Patient Care bags consisted of items such as bed

pans, PPE, patient tubes, baby bottles, syringes, disposable



drapes/sheets, equipment packaging, and recyclable paper catheter packages (figs. 4.19 & 4.20).

7. Considerable amounts of recyclable paper suggest a need for targeted improvement for staff (fig. 4.21).

8. Compostable Bags filled with compostable service ware, fibers, and food scraps were discovered in the

landfill-bound load (fig. 4.22).

Figure 4.14. Autoclaved Biohazards

Figure 4.15. Recyclables in Break

Room or Unit/Floor Bag

Figure 4.16. Compostables with Non-

Compostable Flatware

Figure 4.17. K-cups & Creamers with

Compostable Stirrers & Napkins

Figure 4.18. Cafeteria or Public Area

Bag

Figure 4.19. Hospital/Patient Care Bags

Figure 4.20. Catheter Packages

Figure 4.21. Mixed Paper

Figure 4.22. Bags of Compost



Figure 5.1. Durable Container Options

Section 5: Recommendations

The findings from this waste sort suggest opportunities for substantial improvement in diverting and minimizing

landfill-bound waste. After analysis of the data, CES recommends the following:

1. Encourage the use of durables for food and drinks. Disposable and compostable drink cups and to-go food

containers comprised 5% of the waste stream for BRB (fig. 3.4) and 2% for SH (fig. 3.9):

Incentivize bringing one’s own reusable cup to

coffee vending locations on campus, which can

be implemented by a variety of mechanisms,

such as raffle-style tickets that lead up to a prize

or gift certificate, a direct discount given at the

time of purchase, and/or floors/departments

compete and win prizes on a quarterly basis.

Stage a “mug drive” and give out OHSU mugs

to encourage use of durables, while providing

information on the benefits and impacts of

going durable as opposed to single use (fig.

6.30).

Encourage bringing one’s own durable lunch

containers (fig. 5.1) and explore phasing out pre-

packaged foods from food vending areas on

campus.

Consider partnering with Go Box

(http://www.goboxpdx.com/) to provide

employees on campus with the option of taking

their lunch to go in a durable container that can

be dropped into a collection box on campus for washing; and/or consider developing a similar option

utilizing a collection system and durable/reusable containers picked up and washed on campus (fig. 5.1).

Ensure that cafeterias use durable dishes and silverware, while break rooms are stocked with durable

dishes, and promote scenarios on “how to stock your break room” to give ideas on what works.

http://www.goboxpdx.com/



2. Develop a blog under Sustainable Operations with information on waste reduction strategies, waste

reduction benefits for employees, new campaigns, campus or building waste diversion rates, how to recycle

“Other Recyclables,” FAQ on standard recycling, compost collection basics, how to participate in

composting and fun facts and links:

Feature a link to get set up with Go Box or other partnering programs such as the durable coffee mug

incentive program.

Include information about materials that can and cannot be placed in recycling station containers, the

locations of each recycling station, and the same for compost collection.

Information on specific buildings’ improvements in waste reduction and diversion since initiating certain

programs as well as accomplishments in other areas such as GHG reductions.

Feature info on the Office Reuse Center in order to collect more lightly used office supplies and other

acceptable materials. If the reuse center finds that they are overwhelmed with supplies, SCRAP, a

Portland non-profit, has a “Fill Minds not Landfills” program for lightly used office equipment

http://scrappdx.org/programs/fill-minds-not-landfills/.

Develop and promote a campaign of OHSU sustainability efforts and goals.

3. Expand the compost collection systems to more areas by providing targeted/strategic outreach and

specialized systems that include janitorial pick up of the compost buckets. Compostable materials

constituted 17% for BRB (fig. 3.1) and 10% for SH (fig. 3.5) of the sample waste load by weight.

To avoid contamination of post-consumer compost, consider focusing on food scraps-only collection for

OHSU’s compost systems (fibers such as napkins are okay to include).

Provide periodic recycling and food waste diversion education and in-service training to custodial staff,

all Room Service Attendants, and to current and new employees that handle food scraps or compost.

This will help move towards a contaminant-free compost stream.

Provide outreach to floors that have not yet elected to host a compost collection system framed under

OHSU’s goals toward sustainability.

Distribute compost collection bins with an educational poster and signage and a brief training to floors

newly participating in composting (fig. 5.2).

Make compost retrieval and disposal part of janitorial responsibilities, to encourage participation on

floors with staffing concerns and floors that do not participate due to this barrier.

Apply “Compost Only” stickers on all post-consumer compost collection point of disposal holes for a

last, pre-disposal effort to avoid contamination in the compost stream.

http://scrappdx.org/programs/fill-minds-not-landfills/



Figure 5.2. Compost Education Poster above a compost collection container

Explain the compost program/system on the OHSU blog and website, at locations of food and drink

purchases, in the cafeteria, in employee break rooms, to all room service attendants, and janitorial staff.

Make a link available where compost posters can be obtained and/or printed off; for more information

and free resources, visit the Portland Composts! program at

http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/index.cfm?c=41682

If compostable service ware remains part of

OHSU’s compost system, consider the following:

o Partnering with or encouraging all coffee

vendors on campus to only use compostable

cups (ASTM, BPI, and/or Cedar Grove

approved brands only).

o Include compostable service ware guidelines

on food service contracts to phase out use

of non-compostable food service ware items

on campus (fig. 6.15), and indicate that only

ASTM tested and BPI certified compostable

products are to be used.

o Developing an outreach and education

campaign targeting compost contaminants

(non-compostables). Of the 32.30 pounds of

compostable bags of compost in SH’s

landfill-bound waste, 6.7% were

contaminants (i.e. paper and aseptics, plastic

bottles, plastic to-go food containers,

flatware, true waste such as chip bags, and

poly-coated to-go food containers such as

soup bowls (fig. 3.6).

o Provide posters and signage about

compostable and recyclable materials in

break rooms, kitchens, and central collection

areas. Ensure that consistent signage and

messaging accompanies all areas of compost collection (fig. 4.2).

http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/index.cfm?c=41682



4. Continue to improve reduction in use and recycling of materials such as cardboard, mixed paper, plastic

bottles and tubs, metal containers, and glass bottles and jars (see section 6: Waste Sort Photos for examples).

Readily Recyclable and Recoverable materials comprised 14% of the total sampled waste for BRB (fig. 3.1)

and 26% for SH (fig. 3.5).

Target cardboard for reaching its recycling destination. Cardboard made up 2.9% of the landfill-bound

waste stream for BRB (Table 3.1) and a surprising 21.7% for SH (Table 3.2).

o Work with each department to clarify which container is for cardboard.

o Post large pictographic signage on the cardboard compactor that can be seen from a distance.

o Consider posting signage in multiple languages on each side of the container so that all approach

directions are covered.

Target paper for reduction in use, recycled content purchasing, and increased recycling. Mixed paper

contributed to 8.4% of the landfill-bound waste sample for BRB (Table 3.1) and 3.5% for SH (Table 3.2)

o Consider a purchasing mandate for minimum 30% post-consumer content.

o Ensure that each employee has access to desk-side recycling bins to further encourage recycling

of paper and other readily recyclable items (figs. 6.1, 6.18, & 6.19).

Promote recycling at all nurses’ stations and central stations to ensure campus-wide access to standard

recycling collection.

5. The combined category of Other Recoverables accounted for 12% of the landfill-bound waste for BRB (fig.

3.1) and 3% for SH (fig. 3.5). To reduce the presence of these materials in the landfill-stream, CES suggests

the following:

Promote and expand the current plastics collection system, and increase campus educational outreach for

collection of rigid plastics, lab plastics, clean plastic film, and e-waste. Offer a more user-friendly system

across the entire OHSU campus by providing noticeable drop-off sites; develop online, easily accessible

resources for potential users. Overall, work with relevant custodial and purchasing staff to reduce

OHSU’s use and indirect purchase of expanded/packaging foam (Figure 6.9 & 6.19). Styrofoam is

difficult and expensive to recycle, is a material that should be avoided for environmental purposes, and it

takes up a large amount of volume in the landfill-bound waste.

Establish and promote an annual e-waste recycling event to prevent employees from throwing away

electronic materials and work with OHSU Logistics to track e-waste donated annually to SRUT.

Promote building-specific practices across campus for capturing office materials, i.e. each

unit/department has a collection area that is transported to the Office Reuse Center on a periodic basis.



Ensure visits to the Office Reuse Center on campus tours and for new staff or new student orientations.

Explore further promotion of the Office Reuse Center.

Encourage contractors and facilities to provide data on building maintenance materials recycled and

those landfilled for a comprehensive view of materials management at OHSU (fig. 6.13).

6. Restroom Waste comprised 8.5% of the waste stream for BRB (Table 3.1) and 1.2% for SH (Table 3.2).

Explore the option of providing high-efficiency hand dryers to supplement paper towel usage in

restrooms. Restroom waste makes up approximately 10% of the campus’ landfill-bound waste stream.

Post stickers or specially designed permanent signage on paper towel dispensers that read “Please

Conserve” or “These Come from Trees,” which cost $19 for a pack of 100 stickers, can save up to 100

pounds of paper every year and reduce the amount of janitorial effort required for restrooms. More

information on how to purchase the stickers can be found at http://thesecomefromtrees.blogspot.com/.

Waste Reduction:

In addition to the above recommendations, CES suggests the following strategies for overall material waste

reduction:

Create a Green Scene

An interactive dashboard that allows visitors to see real-time water and energy use for the building, and

features each building’s waste and diversion data to promote sustainability awareness and resource

stewardship.

Hydration Stations

Establish and promote Hydration Stations for refilling reusable water bottles in order to reduce plastic

waste from disposable water bottles and wasted water from disposable water bottles (see Portland State

University’s successful project for more information: http://www.pdx.edu/healthycampus/campus-

hydration-stations and http://www.portlandoregon.gov/water/article/371719 .

At the time of inception of OHSU Hydration Stations ( or at any time), offer a discount to all OHSU

employees on the stainless steel water bottles for sale in the OHSU Bookstore to encourage use of the

stations.

http://thesecomefromtrees.blogspot.com/

http://www.pdx.edu/healthycampus/campus-hydration-stations

http://www.pdx.edu/healthycampus/campus-hydration-stations

http://www.portlandoregon.gov/water/article/371719



Section 6: Photos of Material Categories and Observations

BRB Photos


Figure 6.2. Metals

Figure 6.3. Plastic Bottles & Tubs

Figure 6.4. Sorted Glass

Figure 6.5. Compostable Drink

Cups

Figure 6.6. Lab Rigid Plastics

Figure 6.7. Plastic Film

Figure 6.8. Other Lab Plastic



Figure 6.9. Expanded/Packaging

Foam

Figure 6.10. E-Waste, CDs, & 3.5”

Floppy Disks

Figure 6.11. Restroom Waste

Figure 6.12. Super Sacks

Figure 6.13. Ceiling Tiles

Figure 6.14. Aquarium Rocks

Figure 6.15. Non-compostable Drink

Cup

Figure 6.16. Unused Garbage Bags

Figure 6.17. Various Lab Waste



SH Photos


Figure 6.19. Paper in Bags

Figure 6.20. Cardboard

Figure 6.21. Metals

Figure 6.22. Plastic Bottles & Tubs

Figure 6.23. Compostable Food &

Fibers

Figure 6.24. Compostable Service

Ware

Figure 6.25. Compostable Drink

Cups (Hot & Cold)

Figure 6.26. Clamshells & Rigid

Plastics



Figure 6.27. Plastic Flatware

Figure 6.28. Plastic Films

Figure 6.29. Expanded Polystyrene

Figure 6.30. Poly-coated & Plastic

Drink Cups (Hot & Cold)

Figure 6.30. Restroom Waste

Figure 6.32. True Waste

Figure 6.33. PPE

Figure 6.34. Mixed-

Use/Combined Materials Waste

Figure 6.35. Underutilized Bags



Section 7: Glossary of Material Categories

3.5” floppy disks – A disk storage medium made of a plastic case protecting a magnetic medium; not recyclable.

Aluminum, Steel, and Tin Cans and Scrap Metal – Containers made of aluminum, steel or tin, including containers for drinks, food, and other materials. Empty aerosol cans, scrap metals in a commingled recycling acceptable small size, and clean aluminum foil are included in this category.

Animal Project Related Waste – Bedding materials, food bags, plastic housing containers, and other lab animal materials.

Aquarium Rocks – Small rocks for aquariums.

Autoclaved Biohazards (red bags)– Red biohazard bags containing autoclaved biohazards in large melded bundles.

Batteries – Alkaline, button cell, lead acid, lithium ion, magnesium, nickel cadmium, nickel metal hydride, nickel iron, silver oxide, zinc air, and zinc carbon.

Ceiling Tiles – Dropped ceiling components made of mineral fiber or fiberglass panels. (some are recyclable)

Compact Discs – Media Plastics: CDs, DVDs, tape cases, jewel cases, VHS tapes, and cassette tapes are no longer accepted at Far West locations or the Pride Depot as of 4/8/13.

Compostable Cold Drink Cups – Cups made of compostable materials such as PLA and intended for cold beverages.

Compostable Food Scraps – Vegetable, fruit, grain-based food scraps, meat, fish, fat, bones, bread, eggshells, coffee grinds, tea bags, and flowers. This category excludes non-compostable hot drink cups, gable-top or square-shape aseptic cartons, utensils, straws, lids, or bags made of plastic. For a complete list of accepted materials go to Portland Composts! Website: (http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/index.cfm?c=41788&a=111044)

Compostable Food-soiled Fibers – Paper fibers contaminated with food including coffee filters, soiled napkins, soiled paper bags, pizza boxes, waxed corrugated cardboard, wood toothpicks without frills, chopsticks, coffee stir-sticks, wood boxes from cheese rounds and approved compostable food service-ware products that meet the guidelines set by Cedar Grove Composting (www.cedar-grove.com/acceptable/acceptedlist.asp, ASTM, and BPI. This category excludes non-compostable hot drink cups, gable-top or square-shape aseptic cartons, utensils, straws, lids, or bags made of plastic. For a complete list of accepted materials go to Portland Composts! Website: (http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/index.cfm?c=41788&a=111044)

Compostable Hot Drink Cups – Cups made of compostable materials such as a PLA-lined fiber cup; and intended for hot beverages.

Compostable Plates and To-Go Food Containers – Containers made of fibrous materials that are compostable.

Corrugated Cardboard – Corrugated cardboard boxes or sheets used for shipping and packaging materials.

Electronics (e-waste) – Discarded electronics such as central processing units (CPUs), monitors, televisions, cell phones, microwaves, radios, printers, fax machines, cords, and related electronic office equipment.

Expanded Foam (Polystyrene) – Expanded polystyrene plastic block, sheets, and peanuts. Also known as “Styrofoam,” these materials in block form are accepted at Pacific Land Clearing, Far West Fibers, or Total Reclaim; and in peanut and sheet form are accepted at many local mailing facilities. This category excludes expanded foam trays such as used for meat packaging.

Flatware – Plastic spoons, knives, and forks.

Glass Bottles and Jars – Containers made of glass; shaped in bottles or jars. This category excludes light bulbs, flat glass, flower vases, drinking glasses, and tempered glass such as baking dishes.

Hospital/Patient Care Waste – Bags containing various patient care materials, i.e. latex gloves, paper towels, bed pans, PPE, patient tubes, baby bottles, syringes, disposable drapes/sheets, equipment packaging, and recyclable paper catheter packages.

Lighting – Light bulbs and tubes that are straight fluorescent, UTube/compact/Biax/Par, HID/mercury, metal halide, low/high pressure sodium, coated or shatter shield, ultraviolet/germicidal or incandescent.

Liquids – Any liquids found in the waste, generally water and other drinks from bottles, jars, and cups.

Metals (Large) – Large size metal scrap and metals items, such as file cabinets that cannot be accepted in the commingled recycling system due to size.

Mixed Paper – Paper products including office paper, newspaper, magazines, phonebooks, paper board/soft cardboard, folders, scrap paper, sticky notes, shredded paper, paper bags, paper towel egg cartons, cereal boxes, and all

http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/index.cfm?c=41788&a=111044

http://www.cedar-grove.com/acceptable/acceptedlist.asp

http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/index.cfm?c=41788&a=111044



other non-corrugated cardboards. This category also includes aseptics such as gable-top milk and juice cartons and square-shaped cartons often used for soups or soymilk and sometimes branded as Tetra-pak.

Mixed-Use/Combined Materials Waste – Bags containing a combination of two types of waste: break room materials (coffee grinds, recyclable containers, recyclable papers, single use food containers, and food waste) and patient care materials (latex gloves, paper towels, bed pans, PPE, patient tubes, baby bottles, syringes, disposable drapes/sheets, equipment packaging, and recyclable paper catheter packages).

Non-Recoverables – Materials that cannot currently be recycled through most commercial haulers, local recycling facilities, or a partnership system; and materials that cannot be composted through local composting facilities. Products that are a paper-plastic embedded combination such as frozen food boxes, drink bottle holders for six to 24 packs, ice cream containers, paper coffee cups; and products that are plastic lined such as the paper coffee cups and other food service ware that are used as “to-go” containers. Receipts printed on thermal paper, any plastic film or rigid plastics that are heavily contaminated with food or non-food residues, waste related to restroom activities, any durable goods that are broken and irreparable, liquids, soiled fabrics that are unfit for donation. Stickers and sticker backing, candy wrappers, chip bags, gloves (poly and vinyl gloves), rubber mats/sheets, rubber fruit protectors, broken dishware, ceramics, Styrofoam that is not recyclable such as meat trays, PVC gift & scrip cards, “Compostable” or “biodegradable” bioplastic not approved for composting in local facilities, and PVC fruit tray packs. These materials are also known as “true waste” because there are currently no recycling markets for the materials or they are not readily recycled.

Plastic Bottles and Tubs – Plastic containers with a neck, including containers for drinks, other fluids; plastic tubs of primarily food grade plastic often used for yogurt, margarine, and other food or non-food materials, that are 6 ounces or larger. Plant pots larger than four inches, and plastic buckets smaller than five gallons are also included. This category includes bioplastics that are made from plant-based resins (plant based PET), such as the “Plant bottle”. This category excludes bioplastics that are biodegradable and all other plastic products labeled as “biodegradable.”

Plastic Film – Plastic film and plastic film bags including shopping, grocery, and sandwich bags; also includes shrink wrap, pallet wrap, bubble wrap, air packaging pillows, and plastic films. Additional items included in this category are six-pack plastic rings and plastic Onion/potato mesh bags. Excluded from this category are bioplastics, soft/stretchy film such as Saran wrap, and any soiled or contaminated film. ***(Plastic film no longer accepted at Far West Fibers, RockTenn, Pride Recycling, or Metro transfer stations as of 6/10/13.)

Poly-coated Drink Cups – Non-durable drink cups of mixed materials, generally paper-plastic embedded combination and often plastic-lined. Non-recyclable and non-compostable; and used to serve coffee, water, tea, soda, juice or other cold drinks. Generally labeled as disposable and intended for “single use.”

Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) – Equipment used for protecting eyes, ears, mouth, hands; and gowns and booties.

Restroom Waste – Bathroom paper towels, and other restroom related items.

Reusable Office Supplies – Lightly used office supplies and equipment such as furniture, tools and durables that can be reused through donation or by in-house programs.

Rigid Plastic To-Go Food Containers (Clamshells) –Food containers made of rigid plastic and intended for single use (non-durable).

Rigid Plastics – Plastic tub lids, plastic drink bottle lids, plastic caps, coffee cup lids, plastic green berry/tomato boxes and asparagus boxes, plastic freight strapping, clean plastic straws, plastic register tape rolls, rigid mini four-pack beer tops, lamination scrap, and other plastic consumer durables. ***(Non-necked, non-bottle shaped plastics #1-#7 such as nursery pots, tubs, buckets, trays, toys, and sheets no longer accepted at Far West Fibers as of 4/8/13.)

Rigid Lab Plastics – Plastics used in a lab setting.

Super Sacks – Large woven polypropylene flexible intermediate bulk container (FIBC) for shipping, handling and storing dry products; recyclable.

Textiles – Fabric, materials, made from organic and non-organic sources (cotton, nylon, wool, rayon, etc.)

To-Go Food Containers (Soup Cups)– Non-compostable and non-plastic clamshell containers used to hold food, most likely plastic-paper embedded and/or paper with plastic lining.

True Waste – Landfill bound waste that cannot be recycled or reused.

Waxed Cardboard – A corrugated cardboard lined with polyethylene to minimize moisture absorption, used mainly for shipping produce; compostable where accepted.

***Due to market shifts in 2013 some recyclable materials are currently not accepted at certain locations.



© 2013 Portland State University, all rights reserved. If any portion of the information contained herein is used, copied, displayed, distributed or referenced, attribution of such information shall be made to Portland State University and the College of Urban & Public Affairs: Community Environmental Services. This information may only be used, reproduced, published or re-published, or otherwise disseminated by Oregon Health and Science University in accordance with the Service Contract Letter of Agreement, effective April 2013. The use of this information is intended for informational and educational purposes only, and selling this report, information, or any portion thereof is strictly prohibited.]


© 2014 Portland State University, all rights reserved. If any portion of the information contained herein is

used, copied, displayed, distributed or referenced, attribution of such information shall be made to Port-

land State University and the College of Urban & Public Affairs: Community Environmental Services. This

information may only be used, reproduced, published or re-published, or otherwise disseminated by

Washington County in accordance with the Personal Services Contract, effective August of 2014. The use

of this information is intended for informational and educational purposes only, and selling this report,

information, or any portion thereof is strictly prohibited.

ohsu 2.6.15 final

Documents