SUSTAINABLE MAPLEWOOD 2050: Green Work Place – Waste

Environmental Science, Policy and Management 4041

Report 6/8 Prepared for: The City of Maplewood

Prepared by:

Kelsey Jaeger (leader) Meghan Daun Sara DeTuncq Heather Baltes Martin Asao

December 11, 2008 University of Minnesota

  

i

Acknowledgements

The achievement of our goals and visions would not have been possible without the help and contributions of many people throughout the past several months. We recognize the selfless time and effort that our peers and professors have contributed to the development of this document. We are grateful for the assistance the Maplewood staff provided to help us meet our shared goals. Their collaboration over the past several months allowed us to creatively and intellectually develop recommendations for the City of Maplewood. Without the patience and assistance of the following people, this report would not have been possible:

Shann Finwall –Maplewood Environmental Planner Bill Priefer – Maplewood Recycling Coordinator Larry Farr – Maplewood Chief Building Engineer Phil Powell – Maplewood Police Department Mychal Fowlds – Maplewood Information Technology Director Christopher Goodwin – Eureka Recycling Noelle Bell – Eureka Recycling Miriam Holsinger - Eureka Recycling Carol Mason-Sherrill - Maplewood Environment and Natural Resource Commission Cindy McCommas – Minnesota Technical Assistance Program The Maplewood Green Team.

We would like to thank our fellow classmates for being dedicated and determined with this project throughout the fall semester. Their hard work is demonstrated through a vast array of recommendations provided for Maplewood to consider over the next 40 years. Finally, we would like to thank our professors Dr. Kristen Nelson and Dr. Gary Johnson for their wisdom and advice shared throughout the course of this project. Both professors contributed greatly to the development and editing process by providing a focus for our individual work as we narrowed our recommendations and formally developed them.

  

ii

Executive Summary  

 The City of Maplewood identified waste reduction as integral to attaining a Sustainable Maplewood by 2050. Maplewood staff worked with senior students from the Environmental Sciences, Policy, and Management major at the University of Minnesota to address waste reduction on Maplewood’s City Campus. With Eureka we developed an analysis of the waste disposal system implemented throughout the City Hall, Public Works Building, and Community Center on the City Campus. The following information may help Maplewood re-evaluate their current waste management system to incorporate environmentally-preferred decisions during the process of becoming a waste-free city. We assessed the type and quantity of waste generated on the City Campus, reviewed current environmentally preferred purchasing policies, and researched the importance of education regarding the “4R’s” throughout Maplewood. The 4R’s are “rethink, reduce, reuse, and recycle” an important organizing principle for evaluating waste generated on the City Campus. Our evaluation addressed the following topics: the content of waste generated on Maplewood’s City Campus, current infrastructure for waste disposal, recycling practices of Maplewood’s Green Team members, and other sustainability initiatives in local communities that may serve as a resource in the process of becoming a waste-free city. We developed a series of recommendations that may contribute to a reduction in the waste generated on the City Campus and proactive waste management for the future. These recommendations include: waste education, implement updated infrastructure, development of an environmentally preferred purchasing policy and composting program as well as continual improvement of the sustainability activities on the City Campus. Any recommendation that is put into place will offer a degree of waste reduction and assist Maplewood in attaining their vision of becoming a sustainable, waste-free city in the future.

  

iii

Table of Contents

List of Figures and Tables..........................................................................................iv Introduction................................................................................................................1 Vision Statement...................................................................................................2 Objectives .............................................................................................................3 Site Description..........................................................................................................3 Methods......................................................................................................................4 Site Visits ..............................................................................................................4 Interviews..............................................................................................................4 Maplewood Green Team Survey ..........................................................................5 Recycling Assessment ..........................................................................................5 Waste Sort.............................................................................................................5 Waste Assessment.................................................................................................5 Secondary Data .....................................................................................................6 Findings......................................................................................................................6 The Green Team Starts with a Waste Sort............................................................6 A Signification Portion of Maplewood’s Waste is Compostable .........................6 Rebate Shares with Eureka Recycling Increasing Each Year...............................8 Infrastructure Concerns Identified through the Waste Assessment Inventory .....8 City Campus Printers are Continually Improved..................................................10 Environmentally Minded Practices in the Automobile Shop ...............................10 Trash Bin Presence and Contamination................................................................10 Current Trash Disposal and Recycling Practices Reported by Maplewood’s Green Team...............................................................................12 Infrastructure and Education Concerns Identified ................................................13 Paper Purchasing for the City Campus .................................................................14 Minnesota Examples for Observation...................................................................14 Recommendations......................................................................................................16 Recommendation 1: Increase Education Initiatives on the City Campus............16 Recommendation 2: Modify the Recycling and Waste Infrastructure.................17 Recommendation 3: Implement Environmentally Preferred Purchasing Policy and Program..........................................................................................18 Recommendation 4: Composting is the Next Step in Recycling that Maplewood Can Consider................................................................................19 Recommendation 5: Establish a Continual Improvement Initiative ....................21 Conclusions................................................................................................................22 References..................................................................................................................22 Appendices.................................................................................................................25

  

iv

  

v

List of Figures and Tables  

Figure 1: Example of current and proposed trash/recycling infrastructure to support recommendations in City Hall, Maplewood, 2008 ..............................18 Table 1: Eureka Recycling monthly bills and rebate shares, January 2006 August 2008....................................................................................9 Table 2: Average rating of contamination in trash receptacles on the Maplewood city campus by building and type, inventoried three days in October 2008.........................................................................................................11

Table 3: Frequency of trash receptacles with contamination on the Maplewood city campus, October 2008 ...............................................................12

  

1

Introduction

In 2008, the City of Maplewood and students from the University of Minnesota worked together to develop tools Maplewood could use to achieve their goal of becoming sustainable by 2050. Sustainability is defined by “a method of harvesting or using a resource so that the resource is not depleted or permanently damaged” (Merriam–Webster, 2008). As resources become increasingly scarce commodities, finding ways to reduce the amount of resource use is essential for a robust economy and clean environment. Maplewood feels strongly that sustainability is a definitive issue for current and future generations; because of this we assisted with a plan to reduce waste produced on their city campus. Many people place a high value on open space within their community. Unfortunately, continual production and consumption of goods leads to a decrease in the amount of available open space. Reducing the amount of waste that we generate as consumers is an important task to keep these open areas undisturbed. In order to achieve optimum waste reduction, knowledge about the “4 R’s” is vital for success. These 4 R’s are rethink, reduce, reuse, and recycle. By keeping these terms in mind when addressing waste, Maplewood can achieve the level of sustainability it desires by 2050.

As a foundation, we can more efficiently reduce the waste produced in our communities by recycling materials such as packaging and food scraps. For example, Austin, Texas, has limited the use of noncompostable bags. This ordinance contributed to waste reduction throughout the city (Brock, 2008). Recycling is a common way to eliminate waste that would have gone to a land-fill and it is implemented throughout many cities. As one planner suggested, “waste generate[d] that cannot be prevented should be recycled in an environmentally safe manner” (Bandyopadhyay, 2006). It is a simple way to support the community while allowing us to be more responsible with our waste generation and disposal habits. As an added benefit, recycling is a good way to boost the economy by supporting the market for recycled materials, often providing a significant financial return for communities. Another decision that will promote waste reduction involves rethinking what purchases are made, and select those with the least environmental impact or changing the way we make everyday decisions we can reuse materials that would normally be recycled and subsequently result in less we have to buy and throw away on site. City-wide projects to “simulate qualitative and quantitative waste reduction” offer considerable methods for the prevention of waste generated (Salhofer, 2007). To lessen the waste produced by products it is important to reuse as many of them as possible; whether it be a product as small as a pen or as large as a desk. Reusing products rather than throwing them out will ease the burden of finding new landfill space for our waste.

In the fall of 2008, the City of Maplewood commissioned the seniors in the Environmental Science, Policy and Management major, at the University of Minnesota, to conduct an assessment to support community goals of achieving a sustainable

  

2

Maplewood. The students worked on eight themes, identified by Maplewood staff, as necessary steps for sustainability. These themes included vegetation, impervious surfaces, parks, energy, transportation, waste, collaboration with neighboring cities, and education. The students worked with the Maplewood Green Team, which consists of twelve volunteers, one from each of the city departments. The Green Team’s goal was to implement sustainable practices. This report focuses on waste management because it plays such an integral role in the level of sustainability the community can achieve. The current waste hauler for Maplewood is Waste Management and the recycling services are provided by Eureka Recycling. We focused on the City Campus in Maplewood which is composed of the City Hall, Public Works Building, and Community Center. This site served as a model for the rest of the community to observe, evaluate, and consider implementing practices within their residential households and local businesses.

Planning for waste reduction incorporates three main themes: physical, economic, and human consumption challenges. The physical challenges include storage, management, and transportation of waste. Challenges based upon economic concerns are purchasing, removal, and allocation of materials. Human consumption and the associated disposal behaviors are significant challenges to a successful waste reduction plan. Maplewood is a proactive community seeking solutions beyond the timeframe of their Comprehensive Plan for 2030 by addressing sustainability for 2050. This proposed timeframe will ensure continued improvement for their community and the surrounding natural environment. Thus, the city has created a vision statement to guide them in this endeavor:

The City of Maplewood, in order to ensure stewardship of its environment, will promote sustainable development and practices for the preservation, design, and maintenance of its natural and built environments. Developments and practices should maintain or enhance economic opportunity and community well-being while protecting and restoring the natural environment that people, economies, and ecological systems depend on (City of Maplewood, 2008a).

Vision Statement

The class developed the following statement to guide the multiple projects and provide support for the City of Maplewood.

We are committed to working with the City of Maplewood to assist them in achieving their vision of a sustainable community. We share this goal of using innovative solutions to improve and preserve environmental integrity while promoting economic opportunity and community well-being for current and future generations.

To fully realize the scope of this project we used the following goal to direct our work on waste management:

  

3

We will provide sustainable options for the City of Maplewood to reduce waste, control the composition of waste, and increase the quantity and quality of materials provided for recycling.

Objectives

The following objectives guide this report.

Identify waste management concerns with The Maplewood Green Team, Conduct a “walk-through assessment” of City Hall with Eureka Recycling, Provide an assessment of Maplewood’s current waste management system, Conduct a waste audit to determine key areas in need of improvement, Develop sustainable purchasing policies and practices for city departments to

use as a guideline, and Provide feasible and cost-effective recommendations for their current waste

management system. Site Description

The City of Maplewood is a suburb of the Minneapolis and St. Paul Metro Area in Minnesota. It encompasses 18 square miles with a population of approximately 35,258 residents (City Maplewood, 2008B). The residents are served by the local city government with 178 individual employees working in nine departments located on the City Campus (Appendix A). These departments include the City Manager’s Office, Police Department, Community Development Department, and Recreational Planning Department (City of Maplewood, 2008c). Maplewood’s Comprehensive Plan (2008) identifies the available housing stock within the city limits as a building block for the entire community; with the quantity and quality of homes providing an indicator of the resident’s quality of life. Maplewood recognizes that they require diverse housing types in order to support the diverse economic status of its residents and identifies this as the “most significant form of development in Maplewood” (City of Maplewood, 2008d). The median household income was estimated to be $51,596 (US Census, 1999). Maplewood is home to an extensive business community that ranges from small, family owned to corporate businesses. In 2002, the US Census Bureau highlighted twelve main business sectors within the City of Maplewood including industries such as manufacturing, retail trade, real estate, and arts, entertainment, and recreation. The retail trade industry is the number one employer in Maplewood with approximately 5,490 employees. The health care and social assistance industry employs the second largest number of individuals with 3,910 employees (US Census, 2002).

The City Campus will be the model for recommendations and implementation of a sustainable waste management system that will provide examples of sustainable practices for the citizens of Maplewood. The campus provides a number of different functions for

  

4

the community. The City Hall building houses the Police Department, as well as licensing and other customer services, and serves as a central meeting location for the City Council. There are 60 employees at City Hall, with an additional 62 employees that work in the Police Department (City of Maplewood, 2008e). The Community Center is a public meeting space with a pool, small cafeteria, work-out facility and banquet rooms for community events. The Public Works Building houses staff from planners to maintenance employees in charge of city vehicles and it provides storage and office space. This is also the location where new city street signs are assembled as needed.

Methods

To successfully complete this project, we visited the City Campus buildings (Appendix A), surveyed the Maplewood Green Team, assisted with Eureka Recycling’s recycling assessment, participated in the City Hall waste audit, conducted expert interviews, conducted our own waste assessment, and finally analyzed secondary data consisting of purchasing records, building plans as well as recycling and waste bills. By performing these activities we were able to identify the strengths in the current waste management procedures as well as potential areas for improvement.

 

Site Visits The first priority of this project was to visit the City Campus to gain a preliminary understanding of the employees and community members we would be working with and the areas under consideration. We made several visits to the City Campus throughout September 2008. During these visits we received guided tours of City Hall, the Community Center, and the Public Works Building. Visiting each building allowed us to establish an idea of the current waste management system, the types of waste generated, and preliminary areas for improvement. While on-site we took note of any specific needs a building may have such as special waste streams.

Interviews

During the months of September and October 2008, we interviewed five experts from the City of Maplewood to gain a perspective on the current waste management system. We spoke with Shann Finwall, Environmental Planner; Larry Farr, Building Chief Engineer; Bill Priefer, Recycling Coordinator; Phil Powell, Administrative Assistant in the Police Department; and Mychal Fowlds, Director of Information Technology. These interviews provided us with information regarding infrastructure and current disposal and purchasing practices on the City Campus. We also interviewed Christopher Goodwin, the Director of Customer Relations at Eureka Recycling. The information we gathered during these interviews included the Eureka Recycling process, the mutually beneficial relationship they share with the City of Maplewood, and other future opportunities in waste management.

  

5

Maplewood Green Team Survey On September 18, 2008, during the first Maplewood Staff Green Team meeting, we administered a survey to all of the Green Team member1s. The survey was designed to understand how the Maplewood Green Team members view recycling and waste management. The survey consisted of three questions related to the recycling and waste disposal routines of Green Team members and the people who work in their departments (Appendix B). It asked for a building ranking to identify which building is most important for educating the public about waste management practices.

Recycling Assessment

We conducted the recycling assessment on September 30, 2008, with the Maplewood Green Team, guided by Christopher Goodwin from Eureka Recycling. We divided into two groups to perform the assessment in the City Hall Building. One group assessed the Police Department and the other group assessed the City Hall offices. Each group assessed their section by taking an inventory of all recycling receptacles and recording the receptacle location and accessibility. During the walkthrough we looked into trash and recycling receptacles to determine the visual quantity of contamination in each receptacle. Eureka Recycling took this information and used it to generate a baseline for current recycling practices (Appendix C).

Waste Sort

Eureka Recycling conducted a waste sort for City Hall to examine the contents of the trash collected. The Maplewood staff gathered one week’s worth of waste produced in the City Hall to prepare for the waste sort. On October 10, 2008, we sorted and categorized the waste based on the type of material. The categories used were: compostable, recyclable paper, contaminated paper, one-time use food containers, aluminum cans, plastic bottles, plastic bags, and other metals (Appendix D). Everyone present gained a qualitative understanding of the amount of recyclables thrown out on a weekly basis in the City Hall. After the waste was sorted, Eureka weighed each category to analyze the amount of recyclables in the trash receptacles. This information was used to calculate the approximate composition of the trash and to estimate the total recycling potential for the City Campus. The total recycling potential is an indicator of the extent to which the trash collected can be recycled. This indicator infers a reduction in the amount of waste generated on the City Campus and identifies an area for improvement.

Waste Assessment

To further examine the effectiveness of Maplewood’s current recycling program we conducted our own waste assessment on October 19, 20, 23, and 24, 2008. The first step was to locate and inventory the recycling and trash containers in the City Hall, Community Center, and Public Works Building. Each container was marked and color coded on a copy of the original building plans to ease the analysis (Appendix E). This step established an understanding of the current infrastructure. The second step was to survey the waste receptacles identifying types of contamination and the location where

                                                            1 The letter n represents the number of Green Team members who responded in a particular way to each question.  

  

6

they occur. We define contamination as any product that is placed in the incorrect receptacle such as aluminum cans in the paper recycling receptacle. To ensure that our survey was representative of average building usage, we surveyed each building three separate days during a one-week period and randomized the waste receptacles surveyed.

Secondary Data

A significant portion of our data came from secondary sources such as the City of Maplewood, Eureka Recycling, and internet research. Critical data included building plans, waste and recycling billing information, purchasing procedures, city documents such as Maplewood’s Comprehensive Plan for 2008, and documents from Eureka Recycling. This data illustrated the current City Campus practices and provided insight as to where improvements may be made. The internet provided examples of new and emerging recycling and waste management techniques.

Findings

This section presents information we gathered during the months of September and October 2008 to create a picture of the current waste management system used on Maplewood’s City Campus. The information presented below details what we discovered.

The Green Team Starts with a Waste Sort

On October 10, 2008, we performed a waste sort of the garbage produced during one week in the City Hall with individuals from Eureka Recycling and the City of Maplewood. The waste sort provided information about the contents of the waste generated and was evaluated by Eureka Recycling (Appendix D). Nineteen percent of all waste by volume generated was recycled as cans and bottles, paper and cardboard. The remaining 81% of waste by volume was disposed of as trash. During the waste sort we discovered the composition of this trash. It turned out that 40% of the waste by volume thrown away was compostable and that 26% of the waste by volume is recyclable. This leaves only 34% of all the waste by volume generated that needs to be is disposed of as trash and the remaining 66% of waste by volume can be reused, recycled or composted.

A Significant Portion of Maplewood’s Waste is Compostable

The waste sort performed with Eureka Recycling on October 10, 2008, demonstrated that a large component of the City Campus’s trash for that week was compostable. This includes items such as food scraps and food waste, paper products such as napkins, paper towels, paper plates and pizza boxes, and any other organic debris that may be biodegraded such as leaves or sticks. These are all examples of waste placed in a trash bin that can be composted. A number of other cities and municipalities in Minnesota have addressed this issue by implementing a composting program. Carver County created an Organic Waste Recycling program for businesses and residents. The customer can place all food

  

7

products (even dairy, meat, bones and seafood scraps) and paper products (including paper towels, waxed paper and cardboard and paper dairy cartons) into a single storage container that is picked up by the waste hauler. The Carver County Environmental Services Office offers free on-site assessments, cost-benefit analyses, promotional and educational materials, and on-going assistance to residential and small business customers (Carver County, 2008). In 1998, the City of Hutchinson, Minnesota, demonstrated that composting can be a successful and even profitable option for a small city (population 13,500). The city began to rethink their organic waste when Minnesota landfills banned the disposal of yard waste. The pilot project was implemented in three phases to allow for adoption and adaption as lessons were learned during each phase. First they collected food waste from two large grocery stores (Cash Wise and More Four) and two large business cafeterias (3M and Hutchinson Technology). The grocery stores provided between 2,000-3,000 pounds of organic waste to the program (Tom, 2004). Program officials were worried that plastic utensils from the cafeterias would create a contamination problem, therefore, they decided to only collect the food preparation waste that was generated for the 2,000-2,500 meals each day. A hospital, that served 600 meals per day, was added at the end of phase one to generate more waste by volume for the composting facility.

The second phase collected food waste from elementary, middle, and high schools. This phase was most successful in the elementary schools because students “were very diligent in separating their food waste,” while the middle and high schools generated less waste and more contamination (Tom, 2004). The third phase began in May 1998 collecting organic waste from 230 upper-middle class homes (Winter, 1999). These homes were each given a 90 gallon container that was to be placed at the curb along with their trash on the regular collection day. The initial participation rate was 65% and provided 7,500 pounds of food and yard waste for the composting facility each week (Winter, 1999). Today, organic waste collected is transported to Creek Side Organic Material Processing Facility which is located only a few miles from downtown Hutchinson, on the same site as the city’s wastewater treatment plant. The facility is able to process 10-12 tons of organic waste each week (Winter, 1999). The waste is processed by an “in-vessel” system that mixes the organic waste with wood chips in an airtight container. The site has four containers that are forty cubic yards by volume that control temperature and odor (Winter, 1999). The waste is processed, bagged and sold at hundreds of retail outlets across the Midwest (Tom, 2004). The setup costs for the facility were $3.4 million and have an assumed payback of five years based on compost sales. Hutchinson received $1.34 million from the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance and $1.125 million from McLeod County to begin building the composting facility. The remaining $900,000 paid by the City of Hutchinson. After implementing the project the city observed that their trash disposal has decreased by 35% and saved them $36,000 annually (Tom, 2004)

  

8

Rebate Shares with Eureka Recycling Increasing Each Year The City of Maplewood receives their recycling services from the non-profit, Minneapolis and St. Paul based company, Eureka Recycling. The cost-sharing contract allows Maplewood to receive a rebate each month from Eureka Recycling that is subtracted from the bill. This rebate is calculated using the market value of each product when it is sold back into the market to be reused. The rebate amount Maplewood receives each month changes due to the price fluctuations observed by the market for items such as aluminum, paper, and cardboard. From 2006-2008 Maplewood’s Eureka Recycling bill has remained steady and the average monthly rebate has increased each year (Table 1 and Appendix F). In 2006, Maplewood’s average bill was $18,689/mo and the average rebate share was $5,463.51/mo. The following year, 2007, observed an average bill of $17,601.40/mo and an average rebate share of $7,023.61/mo. The average bill for 2008 was $17,339.05/mo with an average rebate of $9,140 each month. The averages for 2008 only represent the months of January thorough August. These increases in rebates observed can be attributed to the changes in market price of used materials. About 75% of the waste that Eureka receives from the City of Maplewood is fibrous (cardboard, newspaper, office paper) and the remaining 25% is composed of plastic and aluminum containers. During 2006-2008 the container rebate amount remained between $2,000-3,000, and the fibrous rebate amount has increased each year. According to Eureka Recycling, the increase in the fibrous rebate amount is due to the increase in demand for recycled paper and cardboard products; especially in China where manufacturing and shipping has increased.

Infrastructure Concerns Identified through the Waste Assessment Inventory

The waste receptacles throughout out the City Campus provide evidence of inconsistencies in the types of infrastructure available for recycling and waste disposal (Appendix E). There is a lack of paper recycling containers in the Police Department. There is also a lack of can and bottle recycling containers throughout the entire City Hall and the Public Works Building. In general the waste infrastructure lacks uniformity. There are a wide variety of bins and uses for them on the Campus. One example is the Police Department break area. There are four recycling bins, one is labeled for cans and bottles, another for glass and plastic, and then the other two recycling bins are unlabeled and used for trash. Under the current two-stream recycling system offered by Eureka Recycling, all cans, plastics, and glass can go in the same bin. Using two different containers for the same stream may be confusing for employees, which can lead to lower recycling rates, as well as creating more work for custodial staff since the two containers will be eventually combined. In another example, multiple types of containers with inconsistent labeling are used in all of the buildings on the City Campus. In the Community Center, several recycling bins on the second floor are labeled with materials that may be recycled such as aluminum cans and plastic bottles. These bins frequently contained contamination in the form of waste during the waste assessment.

  

9

Table 1. Eureka Recycling monthly bills and rebate shares, January 2006 August 2008.

2006 Tons Recycled Bill total Rebate

Jan. 227.5 $16,913 $4,893.53 Feb. 181.39 $20,148.70 $4,274.09 Mar. 223.76 $16,545.78 $5,480.33 Apr. 200.92 $20,445.62 $5,242.81 May 225.69 $19,623.34 $5,639.32 Jun. 225.8 $16,537.89 $5,441.10 Jul. 187.59 $15,804.06 $4,219.84 Aug. 231.02 $21,368 $5,781.51 Sept. 216.01 $18,743.01 $5,328.97 Oct. 225.6 $19,495.44 $5,445.08 Nov. 239.95 $19,260.31 $7,006.06 Dec. 229.03 $19,383.89 $6,809.52

2007 Jan. 214.26 $13,111.90 $5,968.27 Feb. 176.29 $18,957.02 $5,399.23 Mar. 218.91 $14,280.68 $7,748.05 Apr. 214.74 $21,399.27 $6,468.60 May 230.56 $18,524.81 $6,693.45 Jun. 227.29 $16,617.60 $7,013.74 Jul. 214.13 $18,365.49 $7,421.48 Aug. 242.21 $19,290.27 $8,359.09 Sept. 208.91 $16,877.99 $7,056.30 Oct. 248.63 $20,255.05 $8,288.27 Nov. 261.77 $14,164.51 $5,936.49 Dec. 231.76 $19,372.18 $7,930.31

2008 Jan. 210.51 $17,812.39 $7,110 Feb. 206.07 $16,678.81 $7,155.78 Mar. 205.87 $16,501.66 $8,285.44 Apr. 220.03 $18,528.23 $8,670.50 May 236.39 $19,537.00 $9,249.00 Jun. 212.48 $14,614.12 $9,245.43 Jul. 219.82 $20,982.10 $11,226.43 Aug. 215.89 $14,058.12 $12,174.04

  

10

City Campus Printers are Continually Improved A large portion of the waste generated on the City Campus is in the form of office copying and printing paper. Out of 65 printers, 52 are located on the City Campus. The remaining 13 printers are used off of the City Campus in locations such as the fire station. A large portion of the City Hall printers are desktop units connected to a work station for one person. These desktop units are being phased out in favor of network printers that print faster and are typically more energy efficient. The new network printers are set to print duplex (double sided) as a default setting. In the Police Department, the majority of the documents printed are one-sided and subsequently use more paper. Duplex printing is not widely used in the Police Department because their documents must be scanned and inserted into the archives. The scanner used by the department scans one-sided documents and provides an incentive for the employees to use one-sided printing.

Environmentally Minded Practices in the Automobile Shop

The Public Works Building plays host to a large amount of vehicle maintenance for the Public Works, Police, and other Maplewood vehicles. This maintenance generates a significant amount of used oil waste. Maplewood employs a third party company to collect and recycle the oil. In order to maximize the amount of oil available for recycling, they use an oil filter crusher which squeezes the extra oil out of the filter prior to disposing the casing.

Trash Bin Presence and Contamination

The City Campus has a noticeable amount of “contamination” in their garbage bins, specifically in the City Hall and Public Works Building (Table 2). Contamination is defined as any material that is available for recycling such as cans, plastic bottles, newspapers etc., but has been thrown in a trash receptacle. The City Hall has the most paper contamination in the general receptacles available for use by staff. There is also a significant amount of organic material generated in the Community Center and Public Works Buildings in staff trash receptacles.

Public receptacles, available to employees and the general public, provide an area for improvement in City Hall and the Community Center. Specifically, the Community Center has primarily organic material and paper contamination. The City Hall has the most recycling bins available in total (Table 3), and the personal desk areas have the least amount of recycling containers available. A personal desk receptacle is available for use by one person in their work station and is usually located beneath their desk. Approximately 46% of the personal trash receptacles in the City Hall are accompanied by a recycling receptacle (Table 3). The percentages increase when analyzing the Public Works Building’s personal trash and recycling receptacles. In this building, 58% of the personal trash receptacles are accompanied by a recycling receptacle. The Community Center has the fewest recycling receptacles present with thirty percent of all personal areas having both trash and recycling receptacles. Based on these percentages the Community Center and City Hall could improve by increasing the availability of recycling receptacles.

  

11

Table 2. Average rating of contamination in trash receptacles on the Maplewood city campus by building and type, inventoried three days in; October 2008.* (<1 = little, >1 = 3 or more items)

Recycling in Trash Receptacles Day1 Day2 Day3 Desk Trash Personal: Cans/Bottles/Plastics/Glass ● Public Works (n=31) 0.2 0.07 0 ● Community Center (n=13) 0 0 0 ● City Hall (n=113) 0.09 0.16 0.13 Desk Trash Personal: Paper ● Public Works 0.8 0.57 0.5 ● Community Center 0.33 0.67 0 ● City Hall 0.88 1.05 1.2 Desk Trash Personal: Organics ● Public Works 0.8 0.64 0.5 ● Community Center 0.17 0.67 0.25 ● City Hall 0.13 0.68 0.51

Receptacles for Staff: Cans/Bottles/Plastics/Glass ● Public Works (n=32) 0.46 0.09 0.25 ● Community Center (n=21) 0 0.25 0.33 ● City Hall (n=93) 0.28 0.22 0.26 Receptacles for Staff: Paper ● Public Works 1.08 0.27 0.63 ● Community Center 0.27 0.5 1 ● City Hall 0.72 0.83 1 Receptacles for Staff: Organics ● Public Works 0.46 1 1.5 ● Community Center 0.45 1.25 0.5 ● City Hall 0.28 0.78 0.88

Receptacles for Public: Cans/Bottles/Plastics/Glass ● Community Center (n=70) 0.28 0.55 0.3 ● City Hall (n=8) 1 0.67 0.5 Receptacles for Public: Paper ● Community Center 0.38 0.73 0.65 ● City Hall 2 0.67 1.25 Receptacles for Public: Organics ● Community Center 1.08 1.18 1.45 ● City Hall 1 0.67 1.25 Note: The Public Works building was not included in the comparison for public receptacles because it does not have public traffic.

* Illustrates the qualitative average of presence of contamination (recyclables in trash) broken down by material type, in personal trash receptacles: n = number of trash receptacles assessed for each building. (1 = little contamination, 2 = 3 or more items present, and 0 = no items present)

  

12

Table 3. Frequency of trash receptacles with contamination on the Maplewood city campus, October 2008.*

Recycling Receptacle with Trash Paper

Cans/Bottles/ Plastics/Glass None

Receptacles Desk Trash Personal: ● Public Works (n=31) 18 0 13 ● Community Center (n=13) 3 0 10 ● City Hall (n=114) 51 2 61 Receptacles for Staff: ● Public Works (n=32) 10 7 15 ● Community Center (n=21) 7 0 14 ● City Hall (n=93) 27 20 46 Receptacles for Public: ● Community Center (n=70) 2 15 53 ● City Hall (n=8) 0 3 5

* Number of recycling bins present (separated by type) with trash receptacle presence during assessment.  

In summary, approximately 50% of all receptacles available for staff use only on the City Campus have both a trash and recycling receptacle. The largest number of recycling receptacles available is in the City Hall. The City Hall has 47 receptacles available for recycling materials for both paper and the recycling of containers such as aluminum cans and plastic bottles. The increased number of recycling receptacles available is expected as the number of employees in this building is higher than that of the other buildings on the City Campus.

 

The public areas on the City Campus have the least amount of recycling receptacles present. A public area receptacle is available to all individuals who enter a building on the City Campus. Approximately seventy five percent of the trash receptacles available for public use in the Community Center are not accompanied by a recycling receptacle. Comparing this statement with the earlier stated amount of recycling receptacles available in City Hall (approximately 38 receptacles), it is clear that there is room for improvement in the public areas. These areas can serve as a model for sustainable waste management practices in Maplewood and can provide an area for educating their citizens to attain their own sustainability goals.

Current Trash Disposal and Recycling Practices Reported by Maplewood’s Green Team

Responses to the Green Team questionnaire indicated that the tendency to recycle is high among the members of the Green Team, but they noted that their co-workers do not recycle as frequently as they do (Appendix G). The Green Team members encourage the use of education and a change in the recycling infrastructure to increase the employees’ tendency to recycle. All of the Green Team members commented that they engage in a

  

13

common practice of recycling soda cans, bottles, and paper (n=12). The members also included the practice of recycling glass products (n=5). The rates of recycling among Green Team members are reported as high, foreshadowing the potential for the entire City Campus to engage in a common recycling practice. The Green Team members commented on the use of duplex-printing (double-sided printing) of documents on the City Campus (n=6). One department representative noted a group policy that requires the use of duplex-printing on large copiers in their department. The use of duplex-printing decreases the amount of paper consumed on the City Campus without changing their day to day activities. The respondents self-identified three additional practices that support practices of the 4 R’s; including the use of one-sided paper as scratch paper (n=3), the use of online resources (n=1), and the use of a mug/reusable bottles for the consumption of drinks while at work (n=1). Using one-sided paper allows for the reuse of products prior to recycling and reduces the use of new paper. Using a mug versus a paper cup decreases the quantity of cups disposed weekly and similarly, reusable bottles decrease the quantity of one-time use plastic bottles purchased in vending machines and stores and subsequently disposed of on the City Campus.

The respondents offered a noticeably different reality about their co-worker’s current trash disposal and recycling practices. The number of co-workers that recycle (n=5) was significantly lower than the number of Green Team members who recycle (n=12). However, some of the Green Team members noted that their co-workers do engage in the common practice of recycling soda cans, bottles, paper, and glass products. Other members noted that their co-workers use duplex-printing when they copy or print a document in order to reduce the quantity of paper consumed on the City Campus (n=1). The response to the Green Team Questionnaire detailed the practices in place on the City Campus and indicates the high recycling rate among the Green Team members. One member of the Green Team stands out as a progressive model for the rest of the City Campus. The respondent identifies five sustainable practices that are easily and readily incorporated into the workplace environment. These sustainable practices include: recycling paper and cans, the use of the default printer setting for duplex-printing, the reuse of one-sided paper for scratch paper, the use of a mug rather than a paper cup and the use of a durable, multiple-time use bottle rather than purchasing water in a plastic, one-time use bottle. This model can be used to encourage employees throughout the City Campus to incorporate practices that rethink the consumption of products and reduce the quantity of products consumed. It will encourage employees to reuse the products they do consume and properly recycle those products as they reach the end of their lifetime.

Infrastructure and Education Concerns Identified

Green Team members demonstrated a concern about the adequacy of the trash disposal and recycling system used by Maplewood. Members indicated that the recycling system infrastructure was a challenge for recycling on the City Campus (n=3). As one person noted “we need more recycling containers in the lunch rooms,” and another mentioned

  

14

that, “time, can location” were challenges. These responses point to a lack of recycling containers in appropriate, strategic places throughout the City Campus. The Green Team members identified a need for education among their co-workers on the City Campus. The respondents noted knowledge and education as a challenge to recycling on the City Campus (n= 4). Two respondents noted a sense of confusion among their co-workers; inferring the need for increased education about what can be recycled and how it should be recycled. Other members noted that each person considers the environmental trade-offs when they make the decision to recycle an item or dispose of it in the trash receptacle. Finally, another member noted a general lack of concern for recycling among their co-workers.

Paper Purchasing for the City Campus

Paper is purchased for Maplewood’s City Campus through Xpedx, a leading company for the procurement of printing and copying products (Appendix H). The paper products hold one of three environmental certifications and contain various levels of post-consumer waste (PCW) recycled content. The three Chain of Custody certifications available are the Sustainable Forestry Initiative, Green Seal, and Forest Stewardship Council. These certifications guarantee the paper purchased is grown, harvested, and manufactured in an environmentally-preferable manner. Xpedx offers paper that contains 0 to 100% PCW recycled content: the percentage of a new paper product that is made from recycled paper. Purchasing paper with a high PCW content encourages the recycling and reuse of materials rather than sending usable resources to a landfill.

Maplewood purchases several paper grades and subsequently supports a variety of certifications and PCW recycled content. Each department on the City Campus has unique paper requirements and orders paper based on their departmental needs. This leads to little uniformity in the grade of paper purchased, PCW recycled content and third party Chain of Custody certifications. The most frequently purchased paper is Exact Multipurpose: a Green Seal Certified product with thirty percent PCW recycled content. Exact Multipurpose paper grade is an environmentally preferred paper grade that is purchased for the City Campus. The second most frequently purchased paper grade is Report and it is less environmentally preferred as it does not have an environmental certification or labeled PCW recycled content. The City Hall purchased the paper grade Exact Multipurpose in February and the Exact Brights grade in April The environmental services offered by each paper present an inconsistency in the paper grade purchased for the City Campus.

Minnesota Examples for Observation

Maplewood is surrounded by 11 other municipalities and three nearby cities that have developed similar sustainability initiatives. These cities are Roseville, Woodbury, and Medina. For each of these cities a summary of their plan, their targeted goals, and the success of the program is detailed below. In 2006, the City of Roseville developed a comprehensive plan for the community called “Imagine Roseville 2025.” The community itself was involved in the development

  

15

process through brainstorming sessions, the formation of subcommittees and resident surveys. Key points of the vision statement include providing safe and well maintained neighborhoods, designing a regulatory framework that will foster a sustainable community, actively participating in a regional collaborative with nearby communities, investing in lifelong learning and life-cycle housing, and striving to be more inclusive, proactive, responsible, and efficient for future generations (City of Roseville, 2006). In Woodbury’s case, the municipal government created a citizen’s group called the Energy Conservation Task Force in 2005. After compiling data and talking with experts, the task force focused on energy conservation, and has created an Environmental Advisory Commission that is comprised of residents who advise the City Council on environmental issues. Two main components of the project include a sustainability resolution and the Sustainability Critical Success Factor (City of Woodbury, 2006).

The Sustainability Critical Success Factor consists of seven principal success factors that are crucial for Woodbury as a community (Appendix I). These principles serve as a guide for strategic planning that supports the city’s vision statement, which is: “Woodbury strives to be a sustainable community that promotes community health and wellness through the protection of the environment” (City of Woodbury, 2006). The sustainability resolution is an extension of the vision statement and includes the goals of “a more sustainable community; energy, water and cost savings…, increased recycling and materials reuse; less local and global adverse environmental impacts; reduced environmental risk; minimized future disposal infrastructure needs…”(City of Woodbury, 2006). The Sustainability Resolution and the Sustainability Critical Success Factor are the measures by which Woodbury hopes to achieve success in the implementation of their program. Finally, though Medina does not have a sustainability plan, it does address the issue in its 2010 Comprehensive Plan. This plan is focused on “goals, strategies, policies, and standards for growth and development that preserve the rural character, open spaces, and natural resources that make Medina a unique place” (City of Medina, 2008). The plan is designed to help guide the city’s growth through the year 2030 and addresses issues surrounding community character and viability, land use and development goals, and neighborhood pattern and housing goals. Two projects of note in Medina are the installation of solar panels on the roof of the Public Works Facility, which is estimated to offset 2000 tons of carbon dioxide emissions over its lifetime, and the other project focuses on the implementation of low-impact development in projects around the city. The second project includes implementation of sustainable methods in terms of renewable energy, improving the recycling program, initiating sustainable development, using an environmentally preferable purchasing program.

Each of these cities have developed plans to address sustainability concerns that are both current and projected into the future. The cities, with the exception of Medina, are similar in size and in composition to Maplewood. These cities also appear to have similar visions and goals for sustainability. Woodbury’s initiative is similar to Maplewood in that it addresses both business and community aspects of sustainability as well as focusing on

  

16

some of the same issues Maplewood is most concerned about, such as improving their recycling program, addressing energy and water conservation, and developing a model of sustainability for the community with the implementation of green practices within their city-owned businesses. Communication among these communities and Maplewood would be very beneficial as they each impart their respective ideas. Collaboration could also open up new avenues for Maplewood in terms of ideas or goals that could be implemented in the community that had previously been unaddressed. Since all of these cities’ programs are relatively new, the success of each is not easily evaluated, though it appears these programs are receiving warm reception throughout their communities, mainly due to the inclusion of residents in the process.

Recommendations

To assist the City of Maplewood with their goal, we developed a series of recommendations that may reduce the amount of waste produced on the City Campus and support proactive waste management decisions in the future. These recommendations include: waste education, implementation of new infrastructure and an environmental preferred purchasing policy, development of a composting program, and continually improving the sustainability activities on the City Campus. Any recommendation that is put into place will offer some degree of waste reduction.

Recommendation 1: Increase Education Initiatives on the City Campus

Education for employees and visitors to the Maplewood City Campus is a crucial foundation a successful recycling and waste program. The current system creates significant confusion among employees and users of the City Campus buildings. This confusion was demonstrated through the Green Team questionnaire, the waste assessment, and the waste sort. Employees expressed confusion about proper recycling methods. We recommend that Maplewood increase the amount of informal education available to all users of the City Campus to reduce confusion. Educational initiatives may include proper signage in all of the City Campus buildings that instruct users about what materials can be recycled in each receptacle. For the employees on the City Campus, holding a workshop or a meeting would reinforce the signage and allow employees ask questions about what materials can be recycled, how to properly dispose of these items, and make suggestions for improvement. Clarifying and supporting recycling may increase the quantity of materials recycled on the City Campus and the proper disposal of trash.

Some challenges to implementing these ideas are the cost of new signs for the recycling receptacles and the unwillingness of users to change their behavior. However, if the amount of recycling increases, Maplewood’s rebate from Eureka Recycling could potentially increase. These additional funds could be used to offset the cost of the educational initiatives. User education focused on the 4 R’s (rethink, reduce, reuse and

  

17

recycle) is important, but the most critical for Maplewood’s program is rethink because it encourages innovation and re-evaluation of current practices leading to the most efficient and effective practices for the City Campus.

Recommendation 2: Modify the Recycling and Waste Infrastructure

Maplewood has a great opportunity to reduce its waste by providing a complete waste disposal system in public areas and for staff use only. This complete waste disposal system must be highly adaptable to meet the needs of different departments. The waste inventory demonstrated that there are areas on the City Campus where trash receptacles are not accompanied by a recycling receptacle. These areas include entrances to buildings, and a majority of the Police Department. This lack of infrastructure in these areas leads to contamination in trash receptacles (recyclables in trash). Contamination was less in areas with complete recycling and trash options. Implementing a complete waste disposal system throughout the City Campus, Maplewood may see an increase in proper waste disposal, maximization of an effective system, and may eliminate confusion among users. Infrastructure that is adaptable will fit the needs of different building on the City Campus more adequately and allow for easy transitions between waste and recycling haulers. Ways to begin implementing a uniform waste and recycling system may include placing recycling receptacles for each stream (paper and containers) and a trash receptacle at each waste disposal station in all public areas and staff use only areas. While it would be most complete to address all trash locations, including personal desk receptacles, it may not be cost effective at this time. To combat the loss of efficiencies in a staged implementation plan, complete waste disposal systems can be placed in general areas where many people in personal offices can use them. An appropriate example may be to put a complete disposal system near a cluster of cubicles (Figure 1). This area has three trash bins and two paper recycling bins, which means it is missing the recycling option for cans and bottles, etc. A complete system could be added to accommodate the staff in this area, as well as staff walking through the hallway. This method will increase the convenience of proper disposal for people in this area and can decrease costs by not buying new receptacles for every office. Other ideas which can create more adequate infrastructure include reallocation of bins currently in use. If an area has two recycling receptacles and only one is used, the extra receptacle can be moved to an area in need.

Some challenges that may present themselves are cost and confusion. To reduce cost, a system with two colors would be beneficial, one color for trash and the other for recycling streams. This will cut costs by not buying different bin colors for all streams and will contribute to knowledge through prompts, because color will denote where, and what the disposal is. Labels and pictures can also used to decrease the amount of confusion regarding what materials are acceptable for recycling. These labels can be easily replaced if the receptacle use changes over time.

  

18

                         

            Current Proposed Legend:

= Trash Receptacle = Paper Recycling Receptacle = Cans, Bottles, Plastics etc. Receptacle

Left Figure is Current Infrastructure Right Figure is Proposed Infrastructure Figure 1. Example of current and proposed trash/recycling infrastructure to support recommendations in City Hall, Maplewood, 2008.

New or improved infrastructure may increase recycling rates, which in turn will decrease the cost of waste removal and overall waste impact. An increase in recycling volumes will also increase the monthly rebate received from Eureka Recycling. The quality of recycling may increase because less contamination will be present.

Recommendation 3: Implement Environmentally Preferred Purchasing Policy and Program

We suggest Maplewood implement an environmentally preferred policy and program that encourages the procurement of products that support the use of the 4R’s principle throughout Maplewood. Maplewood can develop and adopt an environmentally preferred purchasing policy and program to assist city employees and community members in becoming a paperless, waste-free city by 2050. Incorporating the 4R’s and evaluating the products purchased for the city will decrease the quantity and increase the quality of the materials used on the City Campus. An environmentally preferred purchasing policy and program provides a system under which all products purchased are evaluated by an environmental, economic, and social standard. These standards allow Maplewood to ensure that each product purchased meets the city goals. An analysis of the paper purchased during 2008 highlights some inconsistencies in the grade of paper purchased from Xpedx and the associated environmental features are supported by an individual grade. The paper purchased ranges in the percentage of post-consumer waste recycling content and the third party Chain of Custody certifications associated with each paper grade. A purchasing policy will create a guideline for purchases based on the environmentally-preferred features associated with each grade. Taking the additional step of developing a purchasing program can encourage the

  

19

employees on the City Campus to extend this focus to the procurement of many products throughout the departments. In addition, Maplewood City Campus can provide an example of an environmentally preferred purchasing guideline for Maplewood’s business sector. In the Maplewood guidelines, environmentally preferred products can be designed to consider the extraction, manufacturing, and use of the product. In addition, the policy may include the consideration of the reuse, recycling, remanufacturing, and ultimate disposal of each product. A policy provides an example of standards and specifications that may be considered when developing an environmentally preferred purchasing policy (Appendix J).

Through guidelines, the city joins many government organizations and businesses. The federal government adopted a requirement for all federal agencies to make environmentally preferred purchases for all products used by the government. For example, to assist federal agencies, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) developed the Environmentally Preferred Purchasing (EPP) Program that offers guidance on four major topics: identification of federal requirements for purchasing materials, location of green products and services for procurement, cost/benefit analysis calculator, and suggestions for managing the agencies green purchasing policies (US Environmental Protection Agency, 2008). The next step to implementing Maplewood’s guidelines is creating purchasing team that provides advice on purchasing products for the City Campus. Perhaps a centralized team, such as the Green Team, with representatives from each department can oversee the types of products used on the City Campus. This team can be responsible for evaluating how the guidelines are working and modify them as future issues emerge. They may choose to incorporate some of the suggestions of the EPA through the EPP Program. An environmentally preferred purchasing policy and program can provide a foundation for Maplewood City Campus and example for an environmentally conscientious community. The development of a uniform purchasing system that supports specific paper grades and environmentally preferred products will help Maplewood support the 4R’s and move toward attaining their sustainability goal.

Recommendation 4: Composting is the Next Step in Recycling that Maplewood Can Consider

A number of city officials and members of the public in Maplewood have expressed interest in implementing a composting program. The main challenge to implementing a composting program is determining whether or not Maplewood wants to move forward with this type of program. Once this challenge is addressed, the next hurdle will involve determining how to implement a composting program that is effective and efficient for Maplewood. Nonetheless, composting is the next step in waste management for Maplewood, contributing to a sustainable city by 2050. Waste reduction and waste utilization is a key component in sustainability. Each year the US sends 55% of its waste to landfills across the country. There are at least five states

  

20

that have reported that they have less than 10 years of remaining landfill capacity and, therefore, are obliged to transport their waste to landfills in different states (Kallman, 2008). Unfortunately, landfills produce methane, a greenhouse gas that is more than 70 times as powerful as carbon dioxide at trapping heat and contributing to global warming. These landfills are the source for 28% of the US methane emissions (Katz 2002). Many existing landfills have been disrupted and have begun leaching contaminants into the groundwater, resulting in adverse effects on our ecosystems and drinking water supplies (Kallman, 2008). In additions, emissions from garbage and recycling trucks are contributors to global warming. Fifteen percent of US waste is burned through a process called incineration (Katz, 2002). Incinerators are known to release cancer causing chemicals called dioxins, and air pollutants like nitrous oxide and sulfur dioxide which contribute to acid rain, and particulates that contribute to other respiratory problems (Kallman, 2008).

In 1999, the US generated 4.64 lbs of waste per person each day. The composition was (by weight) 38% paper, 23% food and yard waste, and 11% plastic. These are all items that can be recycled. The remaining 28% is not recyclable and is thus considered trash (Katz, 2002). However, the 55% of US waste that is sent to landfills is staggeringly more than the 28% of US waste that is actually trash. This means that a significant portion of our paper, plastic, and food waste is sent to landfills and incinerators as trash when it could be recycled. These inefficiencies will need to be addressed on a global scale if our environmental problems continue to increase. Composting of organic waste is an important step for Maplewood to sustainably manage their waste by the year 2050. Forty percent by volume of the City Campus’s generated trash is compostable. These items include any form of food scraps, napkins, paper towels, paper that is soiled with food, and paper food products. Other items that may be composted include sticks, leaves, grass clippings, cat litter, pizza boxes, junk mail, and vacuum cleaner bags. The only items that should be left out of recycling receptacles are clothes, Styrofoam, batteries, rocks and stones, construction debris, pens, computer disks, toothpaste tubes, etc. All other plastic, metal, and aluminum containers as well as office paper, newspaper, and cardboard should be recycled in their appropriate receptacles.

By implementing a composting program, the City Campus will have the chance to reduce the volume of trash sent to a landfill or incinerator each month by approximately 40%. This provides an excellent opportunity for Maplewood to save money on their trash collection bills. Our group was informed by City employees that the trash on the City Campus is collected twice per week by Waste Management and costs $1,908 each week. With a reduction in the amount of waste generated on the City Campus, Maplewood may be able to reduce their pick ups to one per week and subsequently reduce their Waste Management, Inc bill by approximately $49,608/year. In the beginning phases of implementation, the city may choose to set up a small composting site on the City Campus for organic waste generated within City Hall, Public Works Building, and the Community Center. If the city decides they would rather not compost on-site, they can bring their organic waste to the Ramsey County Composting

  

21

Facility. By providing appropriate waste receptacles for organic material and education for employees and visitors, Maplewood citizens will begin to recognize composting as a relevant technology, and be more receptive to the strategy when the option is available to them in the future. In this way, the City Campus models composting as a part of their sustainable waste management strategy to educate the citizens. As was demonstrated by the City of Hutchinson, a city-wide composting program can be extremely successful at reducing waste that is sent to the local landfill. Hutchinson sells their high-grade composted waste in hundreds of retail stores across the Midwest, an option that can be considered by Maplewood as well. By creating a marketable product, Maplewood residents will develop product stewardship for the end product of their compost, possibly steering them to take more pride in the composting process within their homes. While the set up costs for Hutchinson’s facility were expensive, the payback was estimated to be five years, and most of the cost was paid for by grants from the Minnesota Office of Assistance and McLeod County (Tom, 2004).

There are many challenges that need to be addressed if a composting program were to be implemented by Maplewood. First, the decision regarding the best strategy may prove to be difficult. Next, Maplewood will need to provide educational programs to help employees understand what can be composted and how composting works. Most importantly, the city will need to evaluate the qualitative and quantitative costs and benefits to make an environmentally preferred decision. By getting a head start on what seems to be the inevitable, the city has the chance to take advantage of grants and other financial incentives that may not be available in the future as composting becomes more widely used. Reducing Maplewood’s waste volume by up to forty percent will save money and support the environment. Implementing a composting program appears to be the next step for Maplewood to take to achieve their sustainability goals for the year 2050.

Recommendation 5: Establish a Continual Improvement Initiative

Continual improvement targets the current and future undertakings of Maplewood by suggesting a system to monitor and identify areas for improvement. There will be advances in technology, methods, and social standards that relate to sustainability in the future. To ensure that Maplewood is not falling behind it is important to be mindful of these advances as well as the status of current programs. An example of how monitoring and evaluating current and potential practices can lead to improved sustainability could be something as simple as looking at trends in recycling rates. Over time it may become apparent that there is a decrease in recycling rates. If Maplewood notices such a decrease, the city may decide to increase educational initiatives about recyclables to turn declining rates around. Even though this is a simple example, the key point is that without monitoring the current system, areas for improvement may be over looked. Another example is utilizing new developments in computer technology. In the future it may be possible to expand the use of personal computers or hand held devices making it possible to use electronic copies of documents

  

22

rather than printing hard copies. This would dramatically reduce the amount of paper used by the city. A continual improvement initiative can be implemented in many ways and does not need to be extraordinarily extensive. An example of this would be to have the Maplewood Green Team conduct an annual review of current and potential waste management practices, identifying any areas for improvement either through the revision of current methods or implementation of new technology. Important monitoring criteria involve the efficiency and effectiveness of current practices and assessing new options for the feasibility of implementing these options on the City Campus.

Creating an initiative focused on continual improvement will be beneficial to Maplewood. This initiative can be implemented at minimal cost to Maplewood by using resources that are already available. It may keep Maplewood current on all aspects of sustainability as well as ready to make decisions about new practices. Maplewood has taken the first step in sustainability; continual improvement is the rest of the marathon.

Conclusions

Maplewood has taken steps to improve their disposal and recycling practices. The next phase involves five recommendations that may assist Maplewood in attaining a sustainable future for their citizens and employees. These recommendations include: continue waste education, update disposal infrastructure, develop an environmentally preferred purchasing policy and composting program, as well as continual improvement of the sustainability activities on the City Campus. Each of these alternative activities can enhance the sustainable waste management programs implemented throughout the City Campus buildings. Overtime, the City Campus can be used as a model for residents and local businesses to further support Maplewood in fulfilling their goal of becoming a sustainable city by 2050.

References  

Bandyopadhyay, S. 2006.Source composite curve for waste reduction. Chemical Engineering Journal 125:99-110.

Brock, E. 2008. Mission: Green, Locals seek agents of change to help plan sustainable

futures. American Country & City, 30-33. Carver County. 2008. Carver County Commercial Organics Recycling Program. Carver

County, MN. Retrieved November 12, 2008 from http://www.co.carver.mn.us/departments/LWS/docs/Commerical_Organics_Recycling.pdf

  

23

City of Maplewood. 2008a. 2008 Draft Comprehensive Plan. Maplewood, MN. Retried October 2, 2008 from http://www.ci.maplewood.mn.us/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={F3F5B9AD-A213-4BAB-85C3-8B637993A0BD}&DE={22B3AF12-0833-4D8A-95F3EEC04D51743A}

City of Maplewood. 2008b. 2008 Xpedx Invoices. Minneapolis, MN: Xpedx Paper and

Graphics. City of Maplewood. 2008c. City Departments. Maplewood, MN. Retrieved October 9,

2008. http://www.ci.maplewood.mn.us/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC={D075E260 -1939- 42DE-A0E5-31C5A5D56D7A}

City of Maplewood. 2008d. GIS Maps. Maplewood, MN. Retrieved October 9, 2008

from http://www.ci.maplewood.mn.us/index.asp?Type=B_LIST&SEC={09139061-955B-4C98-A3B5-73E1537C66A5}

City of Maplewood. 2008e. Police. Maplewood, MN. Retrieved October 10, 2008 from

http://www.ci.maplewood.mn.us/index.asp?nid=460> City of Medina. 2008. City Council Meeting Minutes. from http://www.ci.medina.mn.us/

Meetings/Council/minutes/2008/4.29.2008,%20special.pdf City of Roseville. 2006. Imagine Roseville 2025 Final Report. from

http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/DocumentView.asp?DID=1134 City of Woodbury. 2006. City of Woodbury Sustainability Resolution. Woodbury, MN.

Retrieved November 3, 2008 from http://www.ci.woodbury.mn.us/environ/susres.pdf Eureka Recycling. 2008a. Eureka Recycling Monthly Recycling Bills for the City of

Maplewood January 2006–August 2008. Minneapolis, MN. Received September 18, 2008 from the City of Maplewood.

Eureka Recycling. 2008b. Maplewood Waste Sort Tallies. Minneapolis, MN: Holsinger,

Miriam. Eureka Recycling. 2008c. Reinvigorating Recycling at Maplewood City Hall.

Minneapolis, MN: Goodwin, Christopher. Google Maps. 2008. [Interactive map displaying Maplewood, Minnesota at the

intersection of White Bear Avenue and County Road B East]. Retrieved from http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Maplewood+Minnesota&sll=44.931785,93.672465&sspn=0.094062,0.215607&g=55364&ie=UTF8&ll=45.005055,-93.022259&spn=0.002936,0.006738&t=h&z=17

  

24

Kallman, M. 2008. Talking Trash: The world’s waste management problem World Resources Institute. Retrieved November 12, 2008 from http://www.iswa.org/html/portlet/ext/articleslist/redirect.jsp?id=658&listId=10&language=en&rnd=0.6319953186114

Katz, J. 2002. What a Waste. Regional Review 12(1):22. Retrieved November 12, 2008

from http://www.antonian.org/Library/waste.pdf Maleshefski, T. 2007. It Planner: 5 Steps to Green It. EWEEK 12, 40-46. Minnesota Climate Change Advisory Group. 2008. Minnesota Climate Change Advisory

Group Final Report: A Report to the Minnesota Legislature. Retrieved October 24, 2008 from http://mnclimatechange.us/MCCAG.cfm

Tom, P. 2004. The Sweet Smell of Success. Waste Age Magazine. Retrieved November

12, 2008 from http://wasteage.com/mag/waste_sweet_smell_success/ Salhofer, S., G. Obersteiner, F. Schneider, and S. Lebersorger. 2008. Potenials for the

prevention of municipal solid waste. Waste Management 28:245-259. Xpedx. 2008. Creative Professionals: Sustainable Choices. Chicago, IL. Retrieved

November 23, 2008 from http://xpedx.com/files/misc/Sustainable_Choices_ONLY_032408.pdf

US Census Bureau. 2002. Maplewood Minnesota 2002 Economic Census. Washington,

D.C. Retrieved October 16, 2008 from http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFEconFacts?_event=Search&geo_id=04 000US27&_geoContext=01000US|04000US27&_street=&_county=Maplewood &_cityTown=Maplewood&_state=04000US27&_zip=&_lang=en&_sse=on&Act iveGeoDiv=geoSelect&_useEV=&pctxt=bg&pgsl=040&_submenuId=business_1 &ds_name=ECN_2002_SAFF&_ci_nbr=&qr_name=&reg=%3A&_keyword=&_ industry=

US Census Bureau. 1999. Maplewood Minnesota Fact Sheet. Washington, D.C.

Retrieved October 16, 2008 from http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFFacts?_event=&ActiveGeoDiv=geoSelect&pctxt=fph&_lang=en&_sse=on&geo_id=16000US2740382&_state=04000US27&show_2003_tab=&redirect=Y

US Environmental Protection Agency. 2008. Environmentally Preferred Purchasing:

Basic Information. Washington, D.C. Retrieved October 25, 2008 from http://www.epa.gov/epp/pubs/about/about.htm

Winter, L. 1999. Hutchinson beings ambitious pilot project to compost municipal food

waste. Journal of the Minnesota Office of Environmental Assistance. Retrieved November 12, 2008 from http://www.pca.state.mn.us/oea/res/V8_4/hutchins.cfm

  

25

List of Appendices

Appendix A.: Location of Buildings on the City Campus, Maplewood, Minnesota, 2008 Appendix B.: Green Team Questionnaire–Waste Management Appendix C.: Recycling and Trash Container Inventory by Green Team, Students and Eureka

recycling, City Hall, 2008. Appendix D.: Maplewood City Hall Waste Sort Results, Jan.–Sep., 2008 Appendix E.: Location of Waste Receptacles on the City Campus: City hall, Community Center,

and Public Works Building, 2008. Appendix F.: Eureka Recycling Monthly Bills and Rebate Shares with Fiber and Container

Proportions Appendix G.: Green Team Questionnaire Data Appendix H.: 2008 Xpedx Invoices Appendix I.: City of Woodbury Sustainability Resolution Appendix J.: Maplewood Environmentally Preferred Purchasing Policy Draft

  

26

Appendix A. Location of Buildings on the City Campus Source: Google Maps. (2008).

 

 

  

27

Appendix B. Green Team Questionnaire – Waste Management

Name: 

1.  What common disposal and recycling practices do you routinely follow at work? For example, do you recycle paper, soda cans, and water bottles, save paper by printing on both sides, ect? 

 

 

 

 

 

2. What do your co‐workers routinely do? Please briefly explain routines you have noticed throughout your department, those that are challenges for recycling and that help recycling efforts? 

 

 

 

 

3. We will be looking at the following buildings on the city campus: 

___community center, ___public works building, ___city hall, ___ and park maintenance building.  

Please rank these according to which area will require the most attention for waste management over the next 20 years? (Rank 1 = most attention/5= least attention). Please explain why you ranked them in this order? 

 

 

 

  

28

Appendix C. Recycling and Trash Container Inventory Source: Eureka Recycling. (2008c).

 

  

29

Appendix D. Maplewood City Hall Waste Sort Results Source: Eureka Recycling. (2008b).

Weight Volume Pounds Gallons Recyclable in trash: Paper 26.7 56 Contaminated Paper 9.3 24.5 Plastic Bags 0.3 10 Glass 0 0 Aluminum 1.5 7 Plastic bottles 3.2 15 Tin Cans 1.3 3.5 Total Recyclables 42.3 116 Recyclable Percentage 14% 21% Reusable: Packing Peanuts 0.1 1.75 Reuse Percentage 0% 0% Compostable: Compostable 63.6 175 Compostable Percentage 22% 32% Garbage: Plastic one-time use food containers 9.7 80.5 Other Garbage 9.3 43.75 Trash bags 3.3 28 Total garbage 22.3 152.25 Garbage Percentage 8% 28% Recyclables Recycled Bottles and Cans recycled 19.35 35.00 Paper and cardboard recycled 144.40 70.00 Total Recyclables Recycled 163.75 105.00 Recyclables Recycled Percentage 56% 19%

Total Weight

292.05

550.00  

 

  

30

Appendix E. Location of Waste Receptacles on the City Campus Source: Base Maps Larry Farr, Chief Building Engineer, Maplewood

Community Center Mezzanine Level

 

  

31

Community Center Upper Level

  

32

Community Center Lower Level

  

33

City Hall

  

34

Public Works Upper Level

  

35

Public Works Lower Level

 

  

36

Appendix F. Eureka Recycling Monthly Bills and Rebate Shares with Fiber and Container Proportions Source: Eureka Recycling. (2008a).  

2006

Tons Recycled Bill total Rebate

% Fiberous

Fiber Revenue

Share %

Containers Containers

Revenue Share Jan. 227.5 $16,913 $4,893.53 72% $1,965.60 28% $2,917.93 Feb. 181.39 $20,148.70 $4,274.09 72.50% $1,578.09 27.50% $2,696.00 Mar. 223.76 $16,545.78 $5,480.33 72.50% $2,433.39 27.50% $3,046.94 Apr. 200.92 $20,445.62 $5,242.81 72.50% $2,185.01 27.50% $3,057.80 May 225.69 $19,623.34 $5,639.32 72.50% $1,963.50 27.50% $3,675.81 Jun. 225.8 $16,537.89 $5,441.10 72.50% $1,964.46 27.50% $3,476.64 Jul. 187.59 $15,804.06 $4,219.84 72.50% $1,632.03 27.50% $2,587.80 Aug. 231.02 $21,368 $5,781.51 72.50% $2,512.34 27.50% $3,269.16 Sept. 216.01 $18,743.01 $5,328.97 72.50% $2,349.11 27.50% $2,979.86 Oct. 225.6 $19,495.44 $5,445.08 72.50% $2,453.40 27.50% $2,991.68 Nov. 239.95 $19,260.31 $7,006.06 72.50% $3,653.24 27.50% $3,352.82 Dec. 229.03 $19,383.89 $6,809.52 72.50% $3,486.98 27.50% $3,322.54 2007 Jan. 214.26 $13,111.90 $5,968.27 75.59% $3,401.33 24.41% $2,566.94 Feb. 176.29 $18,957.02 $5,399.23 75.60% $3,198.61 24.40% $2,200.63 Mar. 218.91 $14,280.68 $7,748.05 75.59% $4,964.50 24.41% $2,783.55 Apr. 214.74 $21,399.27 $6,468.60 75.59% $3,895.92 24.41% $2,572.68 May 230.56 $18,524.81 $6,693.45 75.59% $4,215.39 24.41% $3,493.58 227.29 $16,617.60 $7,013.74 75.59% $4,123.63 24.41% $2,890.11 Jul. 214.13 $18,365.49 $7,421.48 75.59% $4,856.09 24.41% $2,565.38 Aug. 242.21 $19,290.27 $8,359.09 75.59% $5,492.90 24.41% $2,866.19 Sept. 208.91 $16,877.99 $7,056.30 75.59% $4,737.71 24.41% $2,318.59 Oct. 248.63 $20,255.05 $8,288.27 75.59% $5,638.49 24.41% $2,649.77 Nov. 261.77 $14,164.51 $5,936.49 75.59% $5,936.49 24.41% $3,020.69 Dec. 231.76 $19,372.18 $7,930.31 75.59% $5,255.91 24.41% $2,674.39 2008 Jan. 210.51 $17,812.39 $7,110 75.59% $4,774.00 24.41% $2,336.35 Feb. 206.07 $16,678.81 $7,155.78 75.60% $4,673.67 24.40% $2,482.11 Mar. 205.87 $16,501.66 $8,285.44 73.10% $5,417.67 26.90% $2,867.77 Apr. 220.03 $18,528.23 $8,670.50 73.10% $5,793.31 26.90% $2,880.19 May 236.39 $19,537.00 $9,249.00 73.10% $6,220.84 26.90% $3,028.16 Jun. 212.48 $14,614.12 $9,245.43 73.10% $6,523.56 26.90% $2,721.87 Jul. 219.82 $20,982.10 $11,226.43 73.10% $8,195.11 26.90% $3,031.32 Aug.

215.89

$14,058.12

$12,174.04

73.10%

$9,468.94

26.90%

$2,705.10

      

  

37

Appendix G. Green Team Questionnaire Data

Question 1: What common disposal and recycling practices do you routinely follow at work? For example, do you recycle paper, soda cans, and water bottles, save paper by printing on both sides, etc.?

Frequency of Responses to Question 1 Recycling Practices Yes No

Recycle 12 0Soda Cans 9 3Bottles 8 4Paper 10 2Glass 5 7Electronics 1 11Duplex Printing 6 6Reuse One-Sided Paper 3 9Use of Online Resources 1 11Use of Reusable Mug/Bottle 1 11

Question 2: What do your co-workers routinely do? Please briefly explain routines you have noticed throughout your department, those that are challenging for recycling and that help recycling efforts?

Frequency of Responses to Question 2

Recycling Practices Yes No Recycling 5 7 Soda Cans 5 7 Bottles 5 7 Paper 5 7 Glass 5 7 Electronics 0 12 Duplex Printing 3 9 Reuse One-Sided Paper 1 11 Use of Online Resources 0 12 Use of Reusable Mug/Bottle 0 12

Question 3: We will be looking at the following buildings on the city campus:

__community center, __public works building, __city hall, __and parks maintenance building. Please rank these according to which area will require the most attention for waste management over the next 20 years? (Rank 1 = most attention/5 = least attention). Please explain why you ranked them in this order?

Building Rank of Importance

City Campus Building 1 2 3 4

Community Center 5 1 2 0 City Hall 3 4 0 1

Public Works 0 2 6 0

Park Maintenance 1 0 2 5

  

38

Appendix H. 2008 Xpedx Invoices Source: City of Maplewood. (2008b). & Xpedx. (2008).

Date Item # Department Description Chain of Custody

Certification

Post

-Con

sum

er

Was

te C

onte

nt

Qua

ntity

(cas

es)

Pric

e/C

ase

Total Sale

Jan-08 34497 Unknown Exact MP GRN Green Seal 30% 4 $42.10

405909 Unknown Report WHT 98 BRT 4 $37.40

405907 Unknown Report WHT 98 BRT 38 $35.10

SVC Service Charge 4 $1.00

DEL Delivery Charge 30 $1.00 $1,803.90

Feb-08 34499 Unknown Exact MP YLW Green Seal 30% 3 $42.10

34498 Unknown Exact MP BLU Green Seal 30% 3 $42.10

34496 Unknown Exact MP SALMN Green Seal 30% 3 $42.10

406396 Unknown Vector WHT 3HP 92

BRT Green Seal 15% 2 $34.30

405907 Unknown Report WHT 98 BRT 34 $35.10 $1,758.22

Feb-08 SVC Service Charge 35 $1.00

DEL Delivery Charge 4 $1.00 $39.00 Apr-

08 405907 Police Report WHT 98 BRT 12 $39.80

  

39

2008 Xpedx Invoices Continued

405907 City Hall Report WHT 98 BRT 20 $39.80

417603 City Hall Exact BRTS TANGRIN 2 $70.50

417607 City Hall Exact BRTS PURPL 2 $70.50

417609 City Hall Exact BRTS GRN 2 $70.50

SVC Service Charge 4 $1.00 DEL Delivery Charge 30 $1.00 $1,851.91Jun-

08 405907 City Hall Report WHT 98 BRT 30 $39.80

405907 Fire Report WHT 98 BRT 4 $39.80

SVC Service Charge 4 $1.00

DEL Delivery Charge 20 $1.00 $1,473.95Aug-

08 405907 City Hall Report WHT 98 BRT 20 $42.20

33723 City

Hall HAML Color Copy WHT Sustainable

Forestry Initiative

6 $78.75

33721 City

Hall HAML Color Copy WHT Sustainable

Forestry Initiative

2 $81.30

34499 City Hall Exact MP YLW Green Seal 30% 3 $46.90

34498 City Hall Exact MP BLU Green Seal 30% 2 $46.90

34502 City Hall Exact MP IVORY Green Seal 30% 2 $46.90

23129 City Hall Astrobrit Lift Off Lemon Green Seal 30% 2 $93.80

405907 Police Report WHT 98 BRT 12 $42.40

417608 Police Exact BRTS BLU 6 $7.16

405907 Public Works Report WHT 98 BRT 6 $42.20

  

40

2008 Xpedx Invoices Continued 405907 Fire Report WHT 98 BRT 4 $42.20

DEL Delivery Charge 40 $1.00

SVC Fuel Service Charge 4 $1.00 $3,229.87Sep-

08 405907 City Hall Report WHT 98 BRT 20 $42.20

34504 City Hall Exact MP GOLD Green Seal 30% 2 $46.90

34496 City Hall Exact MP SALMN Green Seal 30% 1 $46.90

34509 City Hall Exact MP BUFF Green Seal 30% 1 $46.90

34503 City Hall Exact MP PNK Green Seal 30% 1 $46.90

405907 Police Report WHT 98 BRT 10 $42.20

405907 Public Works Report WHT 98 BRT 6 $42.20

405908 Public Works Report WHT 98 BRT 3 $57.40

405907 Fire Report WHT 98 BRT 4 $42.20

SVC Service Charge 4 $1.00

DEL Delivery Charge 30 $1.00 $2,283.71

  

41

Appendix I. City of Woodbury Sustainability Resolution Source: City of Woodbury. (2006).

City of Woodbury Sustainability Resolution Whereas, Sustainability means satisfying our present needs without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs; and Whereas, the City is committed to lead by demonstrating sustainable stewardship that will yield cost savings to taxpayers by reducing CITY operating costs, providing healthy work environments for CITY staff and visitors, protecting, conserving and enhancing the CITY’S resources, and establishing community standards of sustainable living practices; and Whereas, the CITY is committed to designing, constructing, and operating CITY facilities to minimize environmental impacts by incorporating the use of resource and energy efficient materials, renewable resources, alternative energy sources, water conservation, waste reduction, pollution prevention; and Whereas, the CITY should be a leader in Minnesota in setting policies, guidelines, goals, and strategic actions that will result in:

a more Sustainable community energy, water and cost savings through the construction, operation and maintenance of high performance buildings and landscapes increased recycling and materials reuse healthier and more productive work environments less local and global adverse environmental impacts reduced environmental risk and CITY liability minimized future disposal infrastructure needs adoption of Environmental Landscape Management practices

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF WOODBURY, MINNESOTA

That the City Administrator may direct CITY staff to develop policies, guidelines, and strategic

actions for sustainable building practices for CITY facilities. The CITY will lead by example. The City Administrator may charge CITY staff with overseeing the development and application of the guidelines to all facilities; and

That the City Administrator may direct CITY staff to provide on-going training and education opportunities for affected staff to further sustainable stewardship, and that the City Administrator may direct CITY staff to develop, promote, and implement sustainable stewardship education programs within the community, and establish marketing partnerships to advance these principles; and

That the CITY shall be guided by established energy efficiency standards providing for an integrated whole building design approach to ensure the best processes are implemented through every phase of design, construction and renovation so that buildings realize substantial economic and environmental benefits through their entire life cycle; and

That for the CITY to achieve these initiatives, the City Administrator may direct CITY staff to explore the feasibility of an Office of Sustainability, its structure, potential funding sources and partners, future benefits, roles, responsibility, and related dynamics and present its recommendations to the City Council.  

  

42

Appendix J. Maplewood- Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Policy DRAFT- November 20, 2008

Maplewood city departments purchase products and establish contracts using different decision criteria, including cost, use, health/safety, and others. This policy aims to incorporate environmental and equity criteria into existing economic criteria in Maplewood’s purchasing protocols. This will assist Maplewood in meeting its triple bottom line: economic profit, while supporting environmental efficiency and social justice.. Environmentally preferable purchasing (EPP) has the potential to reduce waste and energy use, reduce costs, improve employee health and safety, and improve community health and well-being.

In accordance with Maplewood’s Sustainability vision and goals2, specifically the goals of:

1. Follow low impact and environmentally sensitive city maintenance and operation practices.

2. Rethink product decisions by reducing, reusing, and recycling solid waste prior to disposal.

3. Protect and enhance air quality and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. 4. Promote local production and consumption of foods and products. 5. Make energy efficiency and conservation a priority through building code improvement

and city operations.

City departments shall strive to purchase environmentally-preferable products when available, taking into account budgeting and other considerations. Products are preferable if they:

1. Require less product to achieve the same result(s) as comparable products 2. Are reusable 3. Are recyclable/remanufactured 4. Have less packaging 5. Are more efficient 6. Are less toxic 7. Are produced locally

Products that are third-party certified are preferred, but not mandatory.

* This policy will be updated as new environmental concerns and information emerge.

                                                            2 See draft Sustainability Chapter of Comprehensive Plan for more information: http://www.ci.maplewood.mn.us/DocumentView.asp?DID=711

  

43

Guiding Principles:

1. Pollution Prevention Preventing pollution before its generated can save disposal and purchasing costs, as well as reducing the environmental impact of pollution. Therefore, purchasers should focus on products that first:

a. Use less product to achieve the same result as comparable products; then b. Are reusable, then c. Are recyclable/remanufactured, then d. Produce less waste than comparable products and produce no hazardous waste

2. Support Community Well-Being When possible, purchasers should give preference to locally owned businesses and locally produced products to promote city economic well-being and reduce the associated delivery transportation emissions.

3. Life Cycle Performance and Cost Maplewood examines the entire cost of potential products. In addition to the initial purchase cost, life cycle costs include extraction/production, maintenance, labor, and disposal costs. Purchasers should take all of these costs under consideration when making product decisions and negotiating contracts.

4. Producer Responsibility Companies that work with Maplewood to mitigate the financial and/or physical responsibility for the safe disposal of its products at the end of lives will be given preference in purchasing. Maplewood places an emphasis on preventing pollution to the environment from products used on the City Campus on the environment at the end of useful life.

The following areas have specific requirements for products:

ENERGY

All appliances and products purchased by city departments should be ENERGY STAR certified when available. When ENERGY STAR is not available purchasers should choose products that are more energy efficient than traditional products.

OFFICE SUPPLIES

All desktops, notebooks, and computer monitors should be, at a minimum, EPEAT (Electronic Product Environmental Assessment Tool) bronze certified.

  

44

All paper used for printing and copying should be, at a minimum, 30 % Post-Consumer Waste (PCW) recycled content.

All paper used for printing and copying should be chlorine-free certified. Chlorine Free Products Association’s Totally Chlorine-free (TCF) and/or Processed Chlorine-free (PCF) marks are preferred for purchasing.

All paper should contain a chain of custody certification such as the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), Green Seal, the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI), and/or EcoLogo.

All products should be packaged in recyclable wrapping and boxes that contain at least 30 % Post-Consumer Waste (PCW) content.

All toner and ink jet cartridges should be remanufactured and recyclable. All trash bags should be biodegradable.

TRANSPORTATION

All vehicles should be energy efficient and use environmentally-preferable fuel sources when available.

OTHER

No prepackaged bottled water may be purchased for consumption on the City Campus unless no alternative means of obtain safe drinking water is available and/or in the case of an emergency.

All cleaners should be certified as green cleaners by Green Seal or EcoLogo. All cups, dishes, and silverware purchased for use on the City Campus should be reusable or biodegradable.

  

45

RESOURCES FOR PURCHASERS:  

US ENERGY STAR – US EPA’s energy efficiency product labeling program. http://www.energystar.gov/

EPEAT – An online tool that allows purchasers to select and compare electronics based on their environmental impact.

http://www.epeat.net/

Green Seal – Environmental certification for cleaning products. http://www.greenseal.org/

State of Minnesota Materials Management Division- Environmentally Responsible Purchasing http://www.mmd.admin.state.mn.us/envir.htm

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency- Environmentally Preferable Purchasing http://www.pca.state.mn.us/oea/epp/index.cfm

Green Guardian- Waste Reduction and Recycling in the Twin Cities http://www.greenguardian.com/

Responsible Purchasing Network – Purchasing Network that Connects Businesses with Products http://www.responsiblepurchasing.org

MPLS Environmental Purchase Policy - http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/council/2008-meetings/20081010/Docs/EPP-RCA.pdf