The SCE created eight workgroups composed of various official and guest members of the SCE meetings. The workgroups met outside of formal SCE meetings to develop recommendations on their subject matter. The groups were to provide groundwork as preparation for policies or priorities onto which McGill units could potentially sign on to. WORKGOUPS Recycling (Gestion des matieres residuelles - GMR) workgroup Members : Elena Bennett, McGill School of Environment Academic Staff; Marc Dozois, Building Services; Rachel Laurin, Environment, Health and Safety; Kathleen Ng, Environment, Health and Safety; Bill Pageau, Food Services; Gabriela Pinto, Building Services; Saima Sidik, Greening McGill Mission: To develop an action for the overhaul of the recycling facilities on campus. The scope of the overhaul is limited to glass, metal and plastic (GMP) since the building services department indicated that the amenities for paper recycling were already well established. Actions: Based on recommendations from the Environmental Office and the gardens and grounds department, priority locations were determined for outdoor recycling stations. Approximately 15 stations for outdoor use were purchased and are to be installed in the summer 2007. Building Services supervisors and an Environment, Health and Safety worker had been assigned to building walkthroughs with CAD blueprints to identify the locations of current recycling stations (pro-bins) as well as identify potential locations with appropriate degree of priority. The information was entered into a database by Anne for development of a cost analysis. After discussion with stakeholders it was determined that the new stations would not be multi-compartment stations, but individual bins for GMP – preferably green since blue bins are already associated with paper recycling and black bins with garbage. It was agreed that the University could align its new campus signage to RecycQuebec’s provincial standard - customized to suit McGill. The final cost projections for the recycling overhaul would include not only the bins themselves, but the additional operating and human resource costs as well as a budget request for the annual clean and green project. Waste Management (Consumption/Procurement) workgroup Members: Trevor Fraser, SSMU Environment Commissioner ; Normand Laguë, Purchasing Services; Saima Sidik, Greening McGill; Wayne Wood, EHS (Vice-Chair) Mission: To develop a list of priority actions to reduce McGill’s waste and consumption by looking at the beginning of the procurement cycle rather than at the end (which will be looked at by the Working Group on Recycling – GMR workgroup). 1 Actions: - - Given that the University does not have a formal purchasing policy on which to base its operations, Purchasing Services has drafted a Purchasing Policy that is being reviewed by higher management (see appendix). Purchasing Services has drafted a Socially Responsible Purchasing Practices that is to be included in the Purchasing Policy. Recommendations: - - - - - Having a limited number of catering service providers since this could facilitate the adoption of sustainable practices (for example using reusable dishes, glass wears, cutlery, etc…). Consult with various faculties to reduce or bypass consumption of bottled water Consult with Building Service to install toilet paper dispensers that limit the abuse of paper consumption, as well as new hand paper dispensers or air dryers, again, to limit the over-consumption of paper Consult internal mail services to communications to promote the use of MOARDS – the online system that was created to allow redistribution of used assets within the McGill community Promote the Returned of Used Toner Cartridges and the Use of Remanufactured Toner Cartridges Send departments who are still ordering non-recycled paper a package containing 1 stack of Eco-Logo paper and I stack of 100%PC paper with ordering and pricing information and a letter from the chair of the SCE. If 1000 units are considered as potential candidate for this campaign and each package is estimated to cost $10.00, the estimated Budget for SCE is $10,000.00 Consult with the Provost office to communicate to all academics and staff the paper use policy Communication and Education workgoup Members: Kyle Bailey, MSE student; Elena Bennett, McGill School of Environment Academic staff; Helene Richard, Office of the Provost; Saeed Mirza, SCE chair; Kathleen Ng, Environment, Health and Safety office; Finn Upham, SSMU vice principle Mission: To develop recommendations on how sustainability could be better integrated with respect to three aspects: curriculum development, campus life and marketing. Some recommendations: - Implement one compulsory course on sustainability. Compulsory viewing of the documentary “An Inconvenient Truth.” - Build/establish an environmental center to foster education and awareness 2 - Promote sustainable teaching methods such as virtual lectures, COOL McGill lectures, or non-printed course notes Link to McGill GreenWeb from homepage Instate a student “green fee” for sustainability projects Introduce Building Directors to the Sustainable Lifestyle Guide and the Administration Handbook Develop an online discussion forum (like a wikipedia) where discussions related to sustainability could be held (this was accomplished in winter 2007) Advertising in the Zoom Media format would raise awareness (this was accomplished in winter 2007) Energy/Water Use workgroup Members: John Henning, Madonald campus academic staff; Caitin Macleod, Campus Climate Coalition; Sarah Pike, Environmental Residences Council; Chris Wrobel, PGSS environmental committee Mission: To provide recommendations and priority actions to reduce energy and water use on campus. See appendix for detailed report. Water - Recommendations: - - - Install water meters in the remaining buildings at both campuses with priority being given to those with high traffic and/or high usage. Note that Macdonald campus bears meters in only 2 of 82 buildings. Meters should be tracked to enable to gauge the success of any implemented conservation measures and to motivate consumers to alter their habits. Fix leaking pipes across campus. These can be identified by doing pressure testing – which is currently not being done at Macdonald campus. Students and other users should be made aware of the existence of the Facilities Call Centre at McGill for reporting leaks in the system and the importance of doing it immediately. Notices could be posted in all bathrooms and kitchens. Install low-flow showerheads in all residences and gyms in the University. Installing other high-efficiency fixtures such as low volume toilets, low flow faucets, and automatic flush sensors. Establish guidelines to ensure that the lawn is cared for to minimize its water requirements Energy – Recommendations: - Install energy meters in all buildings at McGill and Macdonald Campus. Install more thermostats with the ability to individually adjust those that may be in place in order to allow more control of temperature in individual rooms. Install motion detector sensor systems in target areas to reduce light and heat energy used in unoccupied rooms. Energy Star equipment should be prioritized in purchasing decisions. Install VendingMiserTM on all vending machines on campus. Replace all incandescent bulbs with compact fluorescent ones. Repair heating and pipe insulation where possible. Install energy management software on all McGill computers. Communicate the importance of conserving energy to the community through posters and other communications. 3 - Perform an energy audit on one of McGill’s buildings, ideally in collaboration with Hydro-Quebec. Replace old and under-insulated windows and frames with newer ones. Sustainability Policy/Planning workgroup Members: Martin Lechowicz, at-large member of SCE and professor in Biology department; Elena Bennett, McGill School of Environment Academic Staff; Saeed Mirza, SCE chair. Mission: Research ways and provide recommendations as to how the University could re-affirm its commitment to the environmental policy. As such, the workgroup should review existing University policies that may have implications with sustainability, all the promised actions that the University has committed to, and other universities’ policies (via AASHE website). Discussion: Most of the items discussed under this umbrella are listed in “other items discussed” since they were not addressed by the workgroup in question. This group has yet to meet and develop its recommendations. - It was proposed that the University set up an opt-in staff fund, or a matching fund for the students’ contribution (effective this fall) of $1.25 per term per SSMU student: while this would be an opt-out system, it was anticipated that this would result in approximately $50 000 annually (versus the $7.50 per student at Concordia). The idea of matching funds was raised, for the central administration to pay subsidies (up to 50%) to “reward” departments who were legitimately serious about implementing environmental projects, similar to capital alteration funds already available for assistance with regards to health and safety, fire safety, accessibility and other projects. Evaluation System workgroup Members: Radu Juster, Planning office; Saima Sidik, Greening McGill; Jessica Ward, Biology graduate student. Mission: To develop evaluation system for identifying and setting priority projects. Projects would be evaluated based (1) environmental benefits, (2) social benefits, and (3) economic benefits. Recommendations: All projects will be evaluated on conformity to the University Master Plan and the relevant policies, mission statements, or code of ethics pertaining to the three aforementioned benefits. See appendix for detailed report. Projects will be evaluated based on: Environmental Benefits (i) whether they are completely beneficial to the environment, or have tradeoffs in different environmental categories (e.g. noise, water, energy, waste, etc), 4 (ii) the magnitude of the environmental benefits in each category (e.g. positive, negative, or neutral), (iii) the projected reduction in the University’s ecological footprint. Social Benefits (i) the level of project visibility (e.g. to the community, the city, etc), (ii) the level of participation within the University community (e.g. how many people will participate? be affected by? benefit from?) (iii) whether the project benefits the physical or mental health of its participants, and of the university community in general (iv) whether the project improves relations with University partners, neighbours, social groups, community groups, other universities, and the city of Montreal. Economic Benefits (i) cost and resources required (e.g. people, space, etc), on a life-cycle basis (ii) whether the project has the potential to be self-sustaining (e.g. does it require volunteers, training, or special knowledge or skills?), (iii) whether the project will result in long-term financial savings or is revenuegenerating, (iv) whether the project will improve University operations. Green Buildings workgroup Members: Radu Juster, Planning Office; Anthi Mimidakis, Macdonald campus Sustainable Project; Saeed Mirza, SCE chair. Mission: To evaluate and recommend provisions or amendments to green building guidelines. Discussion: - It was noted that little action had taken place since the policy was changed since the fact that a building was certified to be “green.” - It was noted that the first phase of the University master plan – where sustainability, not only green building practices, was at the fore - was nearing completion, and would be made public after the approval of the Board of Governors. - It was suggested that that the SCE budget include provision (approximately $10,000) for a feasibility study from an external engineering/architectural firm for the conversion of one existing building (to be determined in house) to have a green roof. - It was mentioned that SSMU was interested in having a greenroof on their building. - In April, it was confirmed that the Santropol organization would use the rooftop of McGill’s Burnside Hall building to set up a garden. There would be signage indicating that this was a community garden to better educate passersby, bolstering support from the community. There would be both flowers and vegetables grown on the site. Environmental Center workgroup 5 Members: Elena Bennett, McGill School of Environment; Trevor Fraser, SSMU environmental Commissioner; Graeme Lamb, Gorilla Composting; Adela Macieiewski, Sustainable McGill Project; Nadya Wilkinson, Sustainable McGill Project. Mission: Provide a report on the feasibility of creating an Environmental Center for the University with accompanying recommendations on the nature and structure of the center. Discussion: Four different models were proposed for the establishment of a center - Student-driven - Administration led - Coordination focused model - Research-based model The EC report included the following: - Its mission is to enable McGill to strive towards leadership in sustainability, promoting and coordinating environmental research, integrating university operations and involving all members of the McGill community. - Its organizational structure would entail members reporting directly to AVP Services (Jim Nicell). Strong links to Facilities, Ancillary, Rethink office, and the SCE. Sustainability coordinators (FT) are needed for planning and implementing research results into operations, collection and organization of information, monitoring, guide aspects of curriculum development, and maintain contact with sustainability coordinators at different universities. - A faculty/staff opt-in fund, student opt-out fund, administration operating budget, and external grants would be sources of funding. - The EC would include offices, a library, a conference room, and space for all to come in and work. Members would collaborate with the student diversity office. OTHER ITEMS DISCUSSED Governance. G. Lamb had submitted a report to S. Mirza about issues with regard to the existing governance structure – for example, that the SCE reported to Senate (via the SCPD) instead of the Board of Governors. After discussion on the various amendments proposed, the consensus was that there would not be a request to move the SCE to be a Senate committee at this stage. Green Fund. Chris Wrobel submitted a proposal (see appendix) to Ron Henry, Macdonald Campus’ development officer, for a green fund at Macdonald campus. This fund would provide money for environmental projects that will (a) reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of the campus and (b) stimulate further research. The projects proposed for the fund were: (1) A McGill designed bioreactor in-vessel composter (2) A solar panel installed on one of the houses on campus (3) A sub-surface flow constructed wetland The first two projects were approved for funding in May and the last one was still being discussed with various stakeholders. Website overhaul. ?? 6 Sustainability Officer for Macdonald Campus. While the funds for the position were already included in the budget request for the 2007-2008 fiscal year, there was some discussion about the ideal reporting structure for any incumbent. Letter of support for SYC Y. Louvel‟s request for a letter of support from the SCE for the SYC‟s grant funding request was considered, and it was agreed to proceed, for signature by Mirza. Recycling & Cleaning Operations. Pinto stated that cleaning classrooms of litter took one hour, instead of just 10 minutes if everyone had only used the facilities available for proper waste disposal. The effectiveness of workflow redesign could be examined; for example, the Université Laval model where cleaners were picking up waste only from corridors instead of individual offices, so that occupants would empty their waste and recyclables in the appropriate containers in the hallways. Pinto stated that the Ferrier building would undergo this new operating procedure in the summer 2007 as a pilot project. Ville de Montréal Plan de développement durable (PDD). The University was once again asked to be a partner in the municipal sustainable development plan: each partner would be requested to undertake at least five (5) of the actions proposed, of which one should be an “action vedette”. WHAT DID WE CHOOSE? National Waste Reduction Week. Two waste audits were performed: one in Burnside Hall and one in the Shatner building. The results of waste audits showed that 50% of waste produced by both buildings could have been recycled or composted. The environmental office plans on continuing monthly audits in various buildings throughout the fall and winter terms. See report submitted to RecycQuebec for more information on the events of this week. Energy Week of Action. The Environmental office enlisted McGill University in the Energy Action Coalition’s Week of Action, and thus providing a public screening license for the documentary “An Inconvenient Truth”. Showings were held January 29 – February 2 on both campuses. Sustainability Pledge. As part of Week of Action on Climate Change (January 2529, 2007), McGill’s environmental officer announced the launch of the Rethink sustainability pledge, this was later customized so that staff members can register on behalf of their departments. We had 769 signatures as of May 25, 2007, without including the commitments of entire departments such as University Safety (39) or the School of Architecture (300)! GHG Reductions Strategy. The SCE formed a workgroup with the mission to actively investigate measures by which the University could reduce its greenhouse gas emissions. Measures proposed were: - Alumni Green Fund. The student members of the group had approached Ron Henry of Development and Alumni Relations to assess the feasibility of 7 - - including environmental projects in the capital campaign. As Henry was amenable to the idea, work is now focused on identifying potential projects of interest. GHG reduction projects were later approved in May – a bioreactor invessel composter and a solar panel installed on one of the houses on campus Million Monitor Project. This project, originally proposed in 2004, was revived to address unnecessary energy consumption in what appears to be increasing numbers of computer labs on campus. The free software was developed by the EPA to facilitate computer power management. Macdonald Campus Computer Centre staff have expressed an interest, but this may be something for consideration by the Senate Committee on IST. Methane digester. Professor Robert Kok (Chair, Bioresource Engineering) showed interest in working on a methane digester project so that the manure tank could potentially be used to generate energy. VendingMisers. Installed on vending machines, the apparatus would reduce energy consumption when there was nobody present, without reducing temperature. Bill Pageau, Manager of Food Services, has expressed interest in this project; however, the cost of fitting campus vending machines with these devices has yet to be determined. Transportation (E-bus). A group of relevant McGill responsables met with André Lefebvre, the President Directeur of the Oka Express. The company is in the process of manufacturing hybrid electric buses which would be suitable for McGill’s intercampus shuttle service. Lefebvre proposed that the University could be useful for testing two of these new buses when they are completed in 2008 – the Oka Express would handle maintenance and engineering, while McGill would be expected to be responsible for finding a driver. Ancillary services would be investigating operating and human resource costs in the mean time. Rethink Conference. This year the focus was on sustainability and student life/learning. The half-day event included the usual annual reports from the SCE and student groups, as well as a panel discussion with speakers as Provost Anthony Masi and Morton Mendelson, Associate Provost of Student Life and Learning. Please see the conference report for more details on this event. Sustainability Policy. At the Rethink conference Provost Anthony C. Masi committed to bringing forth a sustainability policy for the University by the same time of the following year (i.e. March 2008). University sustainability policy, as the objectives of the institution should be inherent therein. Salient points included: - The existing environmental policy was but an extension to a broader sustainability policy. - The obstacles lay not only in communicating the current policy, but more importantly in the development of a sustainability plan – this would be more feasible if there was financial support that made the University’s commitment more tangible. 8 APPENDICIES Proposal for Green Fund at Macdonald College Re: This is an official request for a green fund at Macdonald College Mission Statement: To create a green fund to provide money for environmental projects that will (a) reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of the campus and (b) stimulate further research. Background: Many colleges and universities across North America have begun to address the climate change issue. For example, undergraduate students at the University of Guelph recently accepted a $10 per semester fee increase for the next twelve years to go to energy conservation measures on campus. Faculty and staff at Guelph have also been invited to contribute to this fund, all of which will be matched by the University. This account will be monitored by a Senate Committee on University Planning, with representatives from faculty, staff and the student body. Macdonald College has also begun a move toward a more sustainable campus. There are alumni within and outside our college community that would be interested in helping to attain this goal by contributing to a green fund. Such an entity would fund particular projects that would lower the College’s greenhouse gas emissions, attract research funding and demonstrate the College’s commitment to the environment to the community at large. A sustainability fee could be added to a student’s tuition that would offset each student’s carbon imprint (amount to be determined). Faculty and staff could also be invited to contribute to this fund. As at Guelph, this fund could be monitored by a committee comprised of students, staff and faculty. Furthermore, any money raised could be matched by the University. Possible projects: (1) A McGill designed bioreactor in-vessel composter (2) A solar panel installed on one of the houses on campus (3) A sub-surface flow constructed wetland The following pages describe each project. A Bioreactor In-Vessel Composter Background: Greenhouse gases generated by landfills account for 6% of the total CO2 generated gases in Quebec, with organic waste comprising a significant component of this.1 The year 2008 will be the deadline for municipalities under the jurisdiction of the Quebec government to compost a minimum of 60% of their organic waste loads. The Environmental Protection Agency has estimated that composting food waste diverted from a landfill can decrease carbon dioxide release by 0.82 metric tons per ton of food waste.2 Methane generation (a gas 23 times more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas) is zero. Description: A bioreactor in-vessel composter is a long drum that rotates organic waste, reducing it in volume by 50-70% through decomposition. It can absorb a 9 considerable amount of food waste each day – approximately 200 kilograms. With expert attention it can digest every type of food waste. A prototype was built by McGill University for the Eco-Cartier Jeanne-Mance Mile End. During an eight month period, 30 tons of food waste could generate 30 cubic meters of fertilizer, worth about $6000, and save several thousand dollars in landfill disposal costs. An industrial composter would be required to efficiently deal with the introduction of biodegradable cutlery and dishware in cafeterias across the University. Cost: With a mixer/shredder unit and an automated loading service, the price would be approximately $52,200.3 Currently a proposal has been prepared by Dr. Sotocinal of the Bioresource Engineering Department to have the city of Ste. Anne de Bellevue join in a composting project with McGill University. This would allow the two entities to share in the cost of the project. Dr. Sotocinal has offered to provide free training to the personnel that would operate the in-vessel composter. Research opportunities: These would be generated in a number of Faculties, as outlined in the Gorilla Compost Report to McGill in 2005 1: Biology: Natural pest and odor control, micro and macro life present during composting. Mechanical Engineering: Containers, chipping, processing, loading and unloading devices. Chemistry: Analysis of ingredients added, decomposition process, finished product. Management: Advertising, system logistics, cost-benefit and investment analysis. School of Environment: Environmental and social impact in the local and global context. 1 Spitzberg, D. and Gell, K. 2005. Gorilla Composting – Organic Waste Recycling at McGill University. 48 pp. US Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Lifecycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks, second edition. 160 pp. 2 Santocinal, S. 2007. Composting of Ste. Anne de Bellevue Restaurant Waste. 11 pp. 3 An Installed Solar Panel Background: Buildings in Canada account for 31% (17% residential) of energy consumption, along with approximately 50% of electrical consumption.4 This results in 28% of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions. A typical Canadian home consumes 23,367 kWh. Solar energy incident on 40 square meters of roof area would generate 50,000 kWh annually. On most houses a roof area of about 40 square meters could easily be found to enable the installation of a 3-5 kW PV system. About 10% of solar radiation can be converted to electricity, while 40-70% can be recovered as thermal energy. The more thermal energy recovered, the lower is the cost of solar electricity, which is currently at 16.6 cents per kWh (electricity from a public utility is approximately 8 cents per kWh). Every kWh of photovoltaic generated energy would offset 1.58 metric tonnes of CO 2 if replacing coal, 1.3 if replacing oil and 0.73 if replacing natural gas. 10 Description: A 40 square meter solar energy panel could be installed on one of the houses (e.g. Rowles House, Harrison House, etc…) on the lower campus. Cost: The cost of a 40 square meter solar panel system would be approximately $40,0005. Research opportunities: The cost of photovoltaic modules has been cut by five times in the last twenty years. The cost of energy generated by these will be cost-effective for Canada by 2020. However, the goal may be achieved sooner with research. Installing a solar panel on campus would attract research funds as well as provide a research facility for members of the surrounding community to tour and examine. Athienites, A. 2005. The Zero Energy Solar Building. In: “The Food for Thought” lecture series at Macdonald College of McGill University, Ste. Anne de Bellevue, Quebec, Canada. November 1, 2005. 4 5 personal communication, Dr. Andreas Athienitis, (Building, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Concordia University). A Sub-Surface Flow Constructed Wetland Background: Constructed wetlands are artificial wastewater treatment systems made of shallow (usually less than 1 m deep) ponds or channels which have been planted with aquatic plants, and which rely upon natural microbial, biological, physical and chemical processes to treat wastewater. They are often less expensive to build than traditional wastewater and storm water treatment options, have low operating and maintenance expenses and can handle fluctuating water levels. Nutrients from fertilizer application, manure, leaking septic tanks, and municipal sewage that are dissolved in the water are often absorbed by plant roots and microorganisms in the soil. Other pollutants stick to soil particles. In many cases, this filtration process removes much of the water’s nutrient and pollutant load by the time it leaves a wetland. Wetland functions also include floodwater storage, fish and wildlife habitat, aesthetics, and biological productivity. According to one assessment of natural ecosystems, the dollar value of wetlands worldwide has been estimated to be $14.9 trillion.6 The number of constructed wetland projects filtering wastewater from municipal and industrial treatment sources has increased in the United States to more than 600 active projects.7 Description: Storm drainage water flows unfiltered from Macdonald College campus into Lake Ste. Louis. A subsurface flow wetland would be constructed to filter out nutrients and pollutants from the drainage water flow before it enters the lake. Cost: A survey in 1992 indicated that the capital costs of a subsurface flow constructed wetland system averaged around $US 200,000 per hectare ($US 87,000 per acre)8. The major cost (about 53% of the total) is in the expense of procuring the rock or gravel media, taking it to the site, and placing it. For a survey of systems using this system, the unit cost was $US 163/m3 ($US 0.62/gal) of wastewater treated8. Research opportunities: Constructing a wetland on campus would attract research funds as well as provide a research facility for members of the surrounding community to tour and examine. Research could be done by a variety of disciplines 11 into such things as the role of plant roots in maintaining desirable conditions, removal mechanisms for metals and pathogens, optimum selection of media type and size, optimum plant species to be used, possible desired end products if a plant harvest is done, etc… Constanza, Limburg, van der capital. 6 R.R., d’Arge, R., de Groot, R., Farber, S., Grasso, M., Hannon, B., K., Naeem, S., O’Neill, R.V., Paruelo, J., Raskin, R.G., Sutton, P., and Belt, M. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural Nature 387:253-260. United States Environmental Protection Agency. 2000. Guiding Principles for Constructed Treatment Wetlands. Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds. Washington, D.C. 7 8 Reed, S.C. and Brown, D. 1992. Constructed wetland design – the first generation. Journal of the Water Environment Federation 64(6): 776-781. Position on sustainable development 1 and action strategies Purchasing managers at Quebec universities recognize that, through their mission, their institutions contribute to the betterment of society—thus, they have a responsibility to ensure their use of resources and their activities are in line with sustainable development objectives. Through group purchases and activities specific to their establishments, the members of RGAUQ intend to favour products and solutions that will allow them to maintain and improve the quality of the environment. Moreover, in order to maintain leadership in sustainable development, the members of RGAUQ will support the following actions whenever possible: 1 Favour the acquisition of products or the adoption of solutions that allow maintenance or improvement of the environment. Favour the purchase of goods and services that are designed and delivered in an ecological manner. Favour packaging that is compact, recyclable and picked up after delivery. Seek products and solutions that have a high recycled materials content that can be reused or recycled. Favour products or solutions that comply with various environmental certification programs, such as Energy Star®, EcoLogo, ISO 14000 certification, etc. Seek out and favour products and solutions that are energy efficient or use renewable energy sources. Encourage the evaluation of bids as part of life cycle analyses specifying environmental and social impacts. Limit calls for tenders to products that protect the environment, or give reasonable preference to such products. The standard definition of sustainable development is taken from the Brundtland report. 12 The members of RGAUQ also support the sustainable development awareness and training role of higher education establishments as follows: Encourage purchasing teams and internal requestors to become informed about the environmental impact of products and solutions. Encourage purchasing teams to understand and promote new products, solutions, techniques and policies in terms of sustainable development. Set up an information source for strategic monitoring of sustainable development issues. Provide a general or specific account in its annual report of the action strategies implemented for sustainable development in each grouppurchasing file. Ensure its actions and decisions are in line with the Quebec government’s sustainable development policy and the Quebec policy on waste management. Make suppliers aware of the need to adhere to sustainable development principles and support the Responsible Supplier Code of Conduct below: RGAUQ Responsible Supplier Code of Conduct 2 As a supplier, we support the following commitments: Propose, on an ongoing basis, products and solutions that help to maintain and improve the quality of the environment. Obtain certification in the EcoLogo Environmental Choice Program to provide “environmentally preferred” products and solutions. Implement a manufacturing approach to protect the environment based on ISO14000 standards for plants located here and in other countries. Favour packaging that is compact, recyclable, made of recyclable materials, and picked up after delivery. Offer to pick up used goods and equipment that was sold in the past and can be re-used. Provide information about the potential recycling, re-use and environmentally responsible disposal of goods sold. Encourage the production of environmental and social assessment reports. Promote and comply with fundamental labour rights, such as those recognized by the International Labour Organization (ILO)2, particularly with respect to the following areas: a) Work hours b) Minimum wages c) Minimum age d) The worst forms of child labour e) Weekly rest f) Abolition of forced labour g) Right of association, union freedom and collective bargaining h) Occupational illness i) Prevention of major industrial accidents j) Old age pensions http://www.ilo.org/ilolex/english/ 13 k) l) m) n) Disability insurance Pay equity Maternity protection Promotion of employment and unemployment protection Preliminary Report of the Energy/Water Workgroup of the Subcommittee of the Environment at McGill 2007 The following are preliminary recommendations of the energy/water workgroup. This document is only a working paper that should serve as a basis for further discussion. The committee acknowledges the enormous amount of work that both the Sustainable McGill Project and the Macdonald College Sustainability Project did in their sustainability reports. Many of the ideas outlined in this document originated from these reports. Water Canada has the second highest per capita water consumption in the world. The Montreal Urban Community has an average per capita water consumption of over 1000 L per day. On average, water use tends to be from 18 to 25% lower when meters are used. And a leak of the amount of one drop per second amounts to about 10,000 liters of water wasted per year. A water tax for all residents, businesses and institutions in the Montreal area is inevitable. This would allow the city to repair its leaking infrastructure. This is why it is important for McGill University to take the necessary steps to reduce its water consumption. It would also serve as a model for the rest of the community. The committee has identified the following priorities that the University should pursue in its pursuit of reduced water use: (1) Most buildings at the downtown campus of McGill have water meters 2. However, at the Macdonald Campus there are only two meters – one at Laird Hall and one for the Centennial Center. There are no water meters in any of 14 the buildings at John Abbott College which shares the same water system with Macdonald College 1. That means that only 2 of 82 buildings at Macdonald Campus have water meters. Meters should be installed in the remaining buildings at both campuses with priority being given to those with high traffic and/or high usage. Meters should be tracked to enable to gauge the success of any implemented conservation measures and to motivate consumers to alter their habits. (2) Sustainable McGill has identified fixing leaky pipes as the most effective means to reduce water consumption at McGill. Any conservation measure will be ineffective without this being done. For example, pressure testing is not being done at Macdonald College (pipe leaks can be recognized by a water level change in the water tower). Pressure testing must be implemented, along with the speed with which leaky fixtures should be reported by students and staff and subsequently repaired. Students and other users should be made aware of the existence of the Facilities Call Centre at McGill for reporting leaks in the system and the importance of doing it immediately. Notices could be posted in all bathrooms and kitchens. It can take five working days or less for a repair to be done 2. A response time of 24 hours or less would be ideal in the future. (3) Installing low-flow showerheads in all residences and gyms in the University could save 7.5 L/min of clean potable water 1. With water-saving showerheads throughout Laird Hall in 2003-04 it was estimated that 331,200 L of water per month would be saved 1. With less hot water being used, it was estimated at Middlebury College in 2003 that a low-flow showerhead in residence would save $US 26 per year, along with 0.5 metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents annually 3. 15 (4) Installing other high-efficiency fixtures would save thousands of liters annually. Ultra low volume toilets use 6 L of water per flush compared to 1519 L for standard toilets 2. And standard faucets have an average flow rate of 13.5 L per minute compared to low flow ones with 2 L per minute. Automatic (self-closing) faucets shut off when the user movers away, while urinals with automatic flush censors use an amount of water dependent on frequency and length of urinal use. All of these fixtures have been installed in 17% of campus buildings in the University 2. The University should continue to install such fixtures in the residences and other high traffic areas on campus. (5) Lawn watering needs to be researched to determine how often and when it is watered, along with whether it is done whether it is raining or not 1. Another question that should be addressed is whether a more efficient drought resistant landscape can be utilized. And another question that has to be answered is whether the lawn is cared for to minimize its water requirements (eg. frequency of cutting and cutting height). (6) Students and staff can be educated about the importance of conserving water through posters, theme days and ads in places like bathrooms. The importance of reporting fixture leaks along with other information on water could be added to the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System course that all McGill students and staff must take to be able to work in a lab at McGill. (7) Pilot projects at McGill can be conducted on collecting storm water, establishing a roof top garden and increasing storm water retention in the soil. Energy 16 Canada has the highest per capita energy consumption in the world. Global carbon dioxide emissions are expected to increase in the next twenty years from 50 to 60% while fossil fuels will be depleted many times faster than they are made. Yet there are many things that the average individual can do to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and save energy. For example, it is estimated that if every American changed one of his incandescent light bulbs for a compact flourescent one, there would be enough electricity saved to power all of Delaware and Rhode Island while cutting 1.3 million cars’ worth of greenhouse gas emissions. The committee has identified the following priorities that the University should pursue in its pursuit of reduced energy use: (1) Energy meters should be installed in all buildings at McGill and Macdonald Campus. This would help measure the success of any implemented conservation programs, along with making students and staff more aware of the benefits of energy reduction schemes. (2) Heating and cooling are controlled centrally at Macdonald Campus, for example. Because certain labs and rooms have different amounts of heat emitting equipment, this causes certain areas to be colder or warmer than others within the same building. In the summer, for example, some use space heaters around their working areas since it may be too cold. This causes an unnecessary use of electricity. More thermostats and the ability to individually adjust those that may be in place would allow more control of temperature in individual rooms. Regulations regarding window opening should be made clear to residents to ensure that more energy is not spent to cool a building in the summer if certain windows are opened by residents. 17 (3) The installation of motion detector sensor systems can be initiated in certain target areas. These would close lights and reduce the heating in an unoccupied room, thereby saving energy. (4) With respect to purchasing decisions on appliances and office equipment, the maintenance and energy efficiency features should be prioritized over the purchasing price. Where possible, Energy Star equipment should be chosen. (5) VendingMiserTM should be purchased and installed on all vending machines on campus. They cost about $165, cut electricity consumption in half and have a pay-back of about 1-2 years 1. Savings obtained with Vending Misers are shown in Table 1. Carbon dioxide emissions per year are cut in half (from 2.26 tons to 1.12 tons) using a vending miser. Table 1. Savings made with the installation of Vending Misers Electricity Usage Of One Vending machine w and w/o a Vending Miser 1 Without Vending Miser With Vending Miser 3468 kWh 1716 kWh 2.26 tons 1.12 tons -- $165 $381 $189 -- -- -- less than 1 year Electricity Use Per Year (this number was estimated, after a energy consumption of a vending machine was measured for one week in an occupied dormitory) CO2 emissions per year @ 1.3 lbs/kWh Cost of vending miser Cost over 52 weeks Cost of electricity @ $0.11/kWh Cost of installation Payback Not including installation costs 18 (6) Compact flourescent light bulbs can use up to 70% less electricity and last ten times longer than incandescent ones. All incandescent bulbs should be replaced with compact flourescent ones where possible. Replacing one regular light bulb with a compact flourescent light will save 45 kg of carbon dioxide per year. (7) Heating pipe insulation should be repaired where possible. At Macdonald College, for example, there is a heat loss of 10-15% 1. This would cost approximately $20,000 to fix and has a payback of about 10 years. Eventually the boilers will have to be replaced and could be done with Energy Star certified ones. (8) Computers at McGill could be put on computer energy management software available from the Environment Protection Agency (EPA) that would put them in a deep sleep mode, permitting the saving of an enormous amount of energy if all computers at McGill are put on this system. This system is being used at companies like General Electric and Universities such as Harvard. Computer users at McGill would also be encouraged to download this software. It was reported that if only one third of the 2350 undergraduare students at Middlebury College reduced their computer usage from 15 to 5 hours by using the computer energy saving software provided by the EPA, carbon dioxide emissions would decrease by 29 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalents 3. The EPA estimated that providing all the computers in the United States with their energy saving software (reducing energy use by 60-70%) would save enough electricity annually to power Vermont, New Hampshire and Maine, cut electric bills by $US 2 billion, and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by the equivalent of 5 million cars 3. 19 (9) Students and staff can be educated about the importance of conserving energy through posters, stickers in appropriate places like light switches, and theme days. The importance of reporting rooms that are too hot or cold, closing the sash on a fume hood (this can save up to two thirds of the annual cost of these 1), closing lights and computers when not in use, switching off printers and buying energy efficient equipment could be added to the Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System course that all McGill students and staff must take to be able to work in a lab at McGill. (10) Research and course work on renewable energy projects such as solar, wind or biomass energy should be encouraged. (11) An energy audit could be done by Hydro Quebec on one building at McGill. There is a cost associated with such an energy analysis. Certain buildings at McGill could fall under the Building Initiatives Program. This would allow optimization projects such as repairing pipe insulation to be partially funded by Hydro Quebec. (12) Substantial greenhouse gas reductions (along with associated costs of energy) could be achieved by simply turning down the thermostat in campus buildings. Students, staff and faculty would be made aware of the decreasing building temperature and positive environmental consequences two weeks before. Space heaters might be provived to people in target buildings. At Middlebury College, for example, it was reported that lowering the campus thermostats to 20 oC would reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 400-500 tonnes annually 3. At the University of Buffalo the temperature is reduced to 12.78 oC during off-hours, weekends and holidays 3. (13) Windows in certain buildings that are old and inefficient should be replaced while others should have caulking applied to them. There would be less demand for heating and cooling by air-conditioners. At Middlebury 20 College it was reported that an old wooden framed, single paned window loses approximately 1.2 BTU/hour 3. Double paned, argon insulated, vinyl framed windows will reduce this loss to 0.34 BTU/hour. The carbon dioxide emissions associated with newer models would be reduced by 75%. References 1 Ecosystem Sustainability Assessment Macdonald Campus. Macdonald College Sustainability Project. October, 2006. 2 The Sustainable McGill Project. Ecosystem Sustainability Assessment of McGill University – Trees, Toilets, and Travel. February, 2006. 3 Carbon Neutrality at Middlebury College: A Compilation of Potential Objectives and Strategies to Minimize Campus Climate Impact. Hanley et al. June, 2003. Sub-Committee on Environment (SCE) Working Group: Waste Management (Consumption/Procurement) Members: Trevor Fraser – SSMU Environment Commissionner Normand Laguë – Purchasing Services Saima Sidik – Greening McGill Wayne Wood – EHS (Vice-Chair) Progress Report as of January 24, 2007 1.0 Mandate of the Working Group Our mandate was to recommend ways to reduce McGill’s waste by looking at the beginning of the procurement cycle rather than at the end (which will be looked at by the Working Group on Recycling and Composting). We have developed a list of potential actions that will help reduce our consumption, conserve natural resources, reduce the volume of waste generated by our institution, and provide guidance to adopt sustainable responsible purchasing practices. We acknowledge that the University has already taken positive steps toward these goals but the challenge remains with communicating, implementing, and monitoring these practices. 21 We have grouped our recommendations in three parts: - Actions to adopt sustainable responsible purchasing practices; - Actions to reduce our consumption; - Actions to communicate existing policies, tools and guidelines. 2.0 Adopt Sustainable Purchasing Practices 2.1 Adopt a Purchasing Policy Considering that the University does not have a formal Purchasing Policy, it is rather difficult to generate changes in the procurement practices. Proposed Action: Purchasing Services has drafted a Purchasing Policy that is being reviewed by higher management. Estimated Budget for SCE: Zero 2.2 Develop a Sustainable Responsible Purchasing Practices Purchasing Services has drafted a Socially Responsible Purchasing Practices that is to be included in the Purchasing Policy. Proposed Action: The document is attached for SCE review. It is noted that since the document is already at the review stage with higher management, it might be too late to receive further comments. Estimated Budget for SCE: Zero 2.3 Contract Catering Services with Sustainable Responsible Practices Currently various catering services are used by the McGill community, including McGill’s internal service providers and external vendors. McGill’s Catering Services should set a high standard for sustainable catering. Having a limited number of catering service providers could facilitate the adoption of sustainable practices (for example using reusable dishes, glass wears, cutlery, etc…). Proposed Action: SCE to approach AVP Services Jim Nicell. Estimated Budget for SCE: Zero 3.0 Reduce our Consumption 3.1 Water Consumption Analysis The proliferation of bottled water has not only a detrimental impact on the world’s water resources but the empty bottled have also contributed greatly to the increase in waste. An ENVR 401 project comparing the different brands of bottled water to McGill’s tap water could be of interest. Proposed Action: At the next SCE meeting, consult with SCE members how we can approach the related faculties. Estimated Budget: TBD 3.2 Install New Toilet Paper Dispenser Many of our current bathrooms are still equipped with toilet paper dispensers that do not prevent the abuse of paper consumption. Proposed Action: Contact Marc Dozois, Director Building Services and Grounds to evaluate feasibility Estimated Budget: TBD 3.3 Install New Hand Paper Dispenser or Xcelerator Hand Dryer Many of our current bathrooms are still equipped with either old hand paper dispensers and /or old hand dryer. 22 Proposed Action: Contact Marc Dozois, Director Building Services and Grounds to evaluate feasibility Estimated Budget for SCE: TBD 4.0 Communications 4.1 Promote the Reuse of Used Assets Promote the use of MOARDS (McGill Online Asset Redeployment and Disposal System) that was created to allow redistribution of used assets within the McGill community. MOARDS operates like eBay. Proposed Action: Normand Laguë to contact Internal Mail Services to see if they could distribute the post-card flyer already printed. Estimated Budget for SCE: Zero 4.2 Promote the Returned of Used Toner Cartridges and the Use of Remanufactured Toner Cartridges Inform the McGill faculty and staff members that they can return their used toner cartridges when ordering remanufactured toner cartridges with the McGill contracted vendor. Proposed Action: Purchasing Services will include an article on this topic in their next week Newsletter coming out this spring. Estimated Budget for SCE: Zero 4.3 Promote the Purchase of Eco-Logo and 100% PC papers Following the practice of Greening McGill, we will send departments who are still ordering non-recycled paper a package containing 1 stack of Eco-Logo paper and I stack of 100%PC paper with ordering and pricing information and a letter from the chair of the SCE. Proposed Action: With the assistance of Purchasing Services, we estimated that close to 1000 units should be considered as potential candidate for this campaign. Each package is estimated to cost $10.00. Estimated Budget for SCE: $10,000.00 4.4 Promote the Paper Use Policy to Academics and Staff Students have reported that many Academics still insist on having single-sided assignments. At the beginning of each fall and winter session, an email could be sent to all academics to reinstate the Paper Use Policy. Since this seems to occur across whole departments, McGill staff member should also be informed of the Policy. Academics should also be encouraged to post syllabi on WebCT. Proposed Action: SCE to contact Provost Office. Estimated Budget for SCE: Zero SUSTAINABILITY PROJECT EVALUATION WORKING GROUP McGill Subcommittee on Environment Proposed sustainability projects will need to conform to the followinggeneral requirements (1) Project supports, or does not contravene, University Mission and policies. (2) Project is well defined regarding the goals, resources required, timeframe, and has built-in project evaluation criteria. University Mission 23 The Mission of McGill University is the advancement of learning through teaching, scholarship and service to society: by offering to outstanding undergraduate and graduate students the best education available; by carrying out scholarly activities judged to be excellent when measured against the highest international standards; and by providing service to society in those ways for which we are well-suited by virtue of our academic strengths. The projects will be evaluated based on the following Criteria (1) Environmental benefits (2) Social benefits (3) Economic benefits Environmental Benefits Prerequisites: 1. Conforms to University Environmental Policy. 2. Conforms to the University Master Plan. Projects will also be evaluated regarding: (iv) whether they are completely beneficial to the environment, or have tradeoffs in different environmental categories (e.g. noise, water, energy, waste, etc), (v) the magnitude of the environmental benefits in each category (e.g. positive, negative, or neutral), (vi) the projected reduction in the University’s ecological footprint. Social Benefits Prerequisites: 3. Conforms to University statements on diversity, student rights, fight against harassment and discrimination 4. Conforms to the University Master Plan. 5. Conforms to the McGill Code of Ethics. Projects will be evaluated regarding: (v) the level of project visibility (e.g. to the community, the city, etc), (vi) the level of participation within the University community (e.g. how many people will participate? be affected by? benefit from?) (vii) whether the project benefits the physical or mental health of its participants, and of the university community in general (viii) whether the project improves relations with University partners, neighbours, social groups, community groups, other universities, and the city of Montreal. Economic Benefits Prerequisites: 6. Is within the means of the University. 24 7. Conforms to the University Master Plan. Projects will be evaluated regarding: (v) cost and resources required (e.g. people, space, etc), on a life-cycle basis (vi) whether the project has the potential to be self-sustaining (e.g. does it require volunteers, training, or special knowledge or skills?), (vii) whether the project will result in long-term financial savings or is revenuegenerating, (viii) whether the project will improve University operations. Other Considerations/Future Tasks: - How to compare quantitative versus qualitative criteria? - How to ensure that the assessment is not biased towards one set of criteria. Or if it is biased, that the bias is appropriate. 25