OHSU 2.6.15 Final

Oregon Health and
Science University: Kohler
Pavilion and Mackenzie
Hall
Materials Assessment™
Prepared for Oregon Health and Science University
Moonrose Doherty Operations Manager
Ashley Donald Materials Assessment Lead
February 6, 2015
Community Environmental Services
Portland State University
PO Box 751 – CES
Portland, OR 97207

Contents
Section 1: Background 6
Kohler Pavilion Background 6
Mackenzie Hall Background 8
Section 2: Methods 9
Kohler Pavilion Methods 9
Mackenzie Hall Methods 11
Section 3: Observations 16
Kohler Pavilion Observations 16
Mackenzie Hall Observations 18
Section 4: Findings 19
Kohler Pavilion Findings 19
Mackenzie Hall Findings 21
Section 5: Comparison 25
Section 6: Recommendations 29
Section 7: Materials Assessments Photos 31
Kohler Pavilion 31
Mackenzie Hall 33
Section 8: Glossary of Material Categories 37
Appendix A: Waste Assessment Report – OHSU South Hospital and BioMedical Research
Building 2013 40

Figures
Table 4.1: Detailed material composition (by weight in pounds) 19
Figure 4.1: General material composition (by weight in pounds) 20
Table 4.2: OHSU’s MH detailed material composition (by weight in pounds) 21
Figure 4.4: OHSU’s MH general material composition 22
Figure 5.1: MH Readily Recyclable & Compostable Materials 23
Figure 5.2: MH To-go Drink Cups, To-go Food Containers, Food Soiled Fibers as Combined
Categories 23
Figure 5.3: MH Readily Recyclable & Compostable Materials 24
Figure 5.4: MH To-go Drink Cups, To-go Food Containers, Food Soiled Fibers as Combined
Categories 24
Table 6.1: Detailed comparison by year of landfill-bound material composition: 2007, 2010,
2011 and 2014 26
Figure 6.1: Comparison by year of landfill-bound general material composition: SH, BRB,
KP, and MH 27

Community Environmental Services | February 6, 20156
Section 1: Background
Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) contacted Community Environmental Services (CES) of
Portland State University, a research and service unit specializing in materials assessments and diver-
sion analysis, in October 2014 to conduct a comprehensive materials assessment and analysis. This as-
sessment included analyses of the landfill-bound materials for the Kohler Pavilion (KP), located at 808
S.W. Campus Dr. Portland, Oregon, and Mackenzie Hall (MH), located at 3181 S.W. Sam Jackson Park
Rd. Portland, Oregon. Both buildings are located on the Marquam Hill campus, which is OHSU’s largest
campus.
The objectives of the current materials assessment are as follows:
1. Determine the composition of the landfill-bound materials stream by conducting a materials as-
sessment. The assessment provides a snapshot of the waste material composition and daily ac-
tivities of each building, and covers a time period that reflects typical operations.
2. Assess the selected material streams by hand sorting the materials into specific categories,
weighing the sorted materials, recording the data, and making quantitative and qualitative ob-
servations.
3. Provide an objective, third party assessment of waste diversion practices based on examination
of the landfill-bound material stream from the building.
4. Compare the results from the current two (2) material assessments to the prior two (2) materials
assessments in 2013.
5. Develop recommendations regarding improving waste materials diversion, enhanced materials
capture, and reductions in materials consumption based on the findings from the assessment.
This report solely focuses on the materials generated by OHSU at KP and MH, with a comparison to the
two (2) previous material assessments of OHSU campus buildings. The two (2) previous material as-
sessments of OHSU’s landfill-bound materials were conducted by CES on the Bio-Medical Research
Building (BRB) and the South Hospital (SH) in 2013.
Kohler Pavilion Background
Kohler Pavilion (KP) is a fourteen (14) story ex-
pansion to the hospital and provides OHSU a
home for the Center for Women’s Health; Center
for Hematologic Malignancies; room for nearly
150 medical, surgical, and intensive care beds;
state of the art operating rooms and sterile pro-
cessing areas; as well as a 15,000 square-foot
parking garage allowing for 456 parking spaces
for staff and patients. The thirteenth (13th) and
fourteenth (14th) floors were a second addition
to the building to provide care for a variety of
oncology diagnoses. The building is accessible

Oregon Health and Science University: Kohler Pavilion and Mackenzie Hall : Materials Assessment 7
via traditional roadways, and also connected to
the South Waterfront via the Portland Arial Tram
at the ninth (9th) floor.
Trashco Services Incorporated collects KP’s land-
fill-bound waste three (3) times a week: Mondays,
Wednesdays, and Fridays from a forty (40) yard
trash compactor.
OHSU currently implements a variety of material
diversion practices depending on the building
and its occupants. All buildings currently collect
commingled recycling, as well as glass bottles &
jars. Other materials such as rigid and film plas-
tics are collected where generation areas occur.
Foam packaging (i.e. air-blown/expanded plas-
tic/polystyrene) is also currently being diverted
from the landfill bound waste stream.
The degree of recycling availability and the set-
up of the garbage and recycling system is differ-
ent on every floor and may be dependent on a
floor’s self-initiated sustainability actions (i.e. the
level of personal involvement and interest by
employees of that floor). For example, the 10th
floor has red bio bags in isolation rooms for PPE,
non-isolation patient rooms have two garbage
cans (a large one in the room and a small one in
the bathroom) that are lined with clear garbage
bags. The hallways have pods (stations) where
there are garbage cans and paper shredding con-
tainers, but no recycling. The Nurses Station has
paper shredding, one large garbage can and
three small cans, and no recycling. The Nurses
Lounge has one garbage can and recycling for
commingled materials (corrugated cardboard,
paper, metal, plastic bottles and tubs), and recy-
cling for glass bottles and jars. The 13th
floor has
a green team and more access to recycling.
OHSU currently implements a variety of material
diversion practices depending on the building
and its occupants. All buildings currently collect
commingled recycling, as well as glass bottles &
jars. Other materials such as rigid and film plas-
tics are collected where generation areas occur.
Foam packaging (i.e. air-blown/expanded plas-
tic/polystyrene) is also currently being diverted
from the landfill bound waste stream.
OHSU’s Office Reuse Center takes gently used
binders, desk organizers, pens, pencils, paper
clips, accessory computer components (mice,
keyboards, & cords), and other office goods for
reuse among staff and students. The ITG Logis-
tics/Surplus department oversees the reuse of
furniture and equipment that staff is no longer
uses. Much of this material is diverted through a
partnership with SRUT (Student Recycling Uni-
versal Technology) in The Dalles which accepts e-
waste and cleared computers/hard-drives. Lastly,
battery recycling bins are distributed to depart-
ments and units for collection and proper dispos-
al.
Operating rooms have incorporated materials
recycling for preoperative setup and postopera-
tive collection. As part of this program, OHSU is
donating usable medical supplies to vulnerable
populations by working with local non-profit or-
ganizations. Identified units in patient care areas
have also incorporated collection of blue wrap,
medical supply donations, and a reusable instru-
ments program.

The Custodial & Recycling Services department
also provides drop boxes at the Maintenance
Yard for wood, yard debris, and metal collection
for staff. This collection area is utilized by a
number of departments, ranging from mainte-
nance technicians, grounds staff, and contractors.
OHSU has reported since the 2013 assessment,
the findings have been utilized as supporting
documentation when emphasizing potential re-
cycling and waste reductions opportunities on
campus and within operations. Additionally,
OHSU has continued to work closely with Trash-
co to install cardboard compactor on campus as a
means to capture more of this material stream.
In the past year, updates have been made to re-
cycling signage on campus and have been redis-
tributed. This effort has been made to clarify and
educated on recyclable materials by including
detailed information on which items are recycla-
ble, service contact information and visual infor-
mation for collection locations
Mackenzie Hall Background
Mackenzie Hall (MH) is the oldest building on
Marquam Hill. It is connected to the Portland
Veterans Affairs building via a 660-foot sky
bridge. The MH building primarily houses aca-
demic and research units. Food and beverage
locations within MH are the Mac Hall Bistro and
the Mac Hall Espresso on the first floor. The Mac
Hall Bistro offers a full deli, hot entrees, a’la carte
side items, grill station, salad bar, and taco bar.
Mac Hall Bistro and Mac Hall Espresso are only in
operation during weekdays until 2pm for the Bis-
tro and 2:30pm for the Espresso bar.
The MH fifteen (15) yard compacter is picked up
on an “as needed” basis due. This compacter is a
new addition to the facility and is still being eval-
uated for the frequency of use.

Section 2: Methods
Kohler Pavilion Methods
The materials assessment was conducted on Fri-
day, November 21, 2014; by CES staff at the Met-
ro South transfer station, located at 2001 Wash-
ington Street, Oregon City, Oregon. The material
load consisted of landfill-bound materials gener-
ated during one (1) day at OHSU’s KP: Thursday,
November 20, 2014 and was delivered to the site
by OHSU’s commercial hauler, Trashco Services
Incorporated.
The landfill-bound waste materials load weighed
9,540 pounds according to the Metro South scale
house. At the transfer station, CES staff began
the materials assessment by performing a visual
assessment of the load. CES then strategically
extracted approximately 10% of the load by vol-
ume as a representative sample. By weight, CES
extracted 11%.
The materials assessment was divided into six (6)
phases: 1) count the autoclaved (red) bags; 2)
extract the anomalies; 3) extract the 10% by vol-
ume representative sample; 4) pre-sort the bags
by perceived content; 5) hand-sort the contents
of sortable bags that did not contain restroom
waste or patient care procedural waste, or per-
sonal protective equipment (PPE), or other haz-
ardous materials; and 6) weigh the bagged mate-
rials, loose materials, anomalies, and hand-
sorted materials.
The materials assessment was conducted as fol-
lows:
1. Count of autoclaved (red) bags
CES visually assessed the load for composition,
taking note of anomalies and bag colors, types
and contents. The red autoclaved bags were
counted based on what was visible in the load
(see Image2.2). Based on the weight of the auto-
claved red bag bundle obtained from the Metro
South scale house and the bundle count in KP’s
load, a 10% weight calculation was determined
to allow for a representative sample of the KP
load.
2. Extracting anomalies
CES staff pulled from the load 10% of anomalies,
which included expanded foam block, bagged
and loose cardboard, and nested cartons (see
Image 2.3). CES utilized 10% of the weight of
each of the anomaly categories in order to fea-
ture the data alongside the representative sam-
ple data.
3. Extract the 10% by volume representative
sample
4. Pre-sorting bags
CES separated bags in the load based on per-
ceived content. CES extracted from the load ten
(10) % by volume of all bags containing Patient
care procedural waste, all bags containing Per-
sonal protection equipment (PPE), and all bags
containing Mixed-use/combined materials waste.
Additionally, ten (1o) % by volume of all other
bags containing mixed contents were pulled

from the load for hand sorting (see Images2.4-6).
Of these bags, restroom waste was not sorted.
5. Hand-sorting the contents of bags
The contents of all mixed content bags; exclud-
ing the bags determined to hold restroom waste
or other hazardous materials, were hand-sorted
into seventeen (17) material categories detailed
in Table 2.1. Restroom waste, PPE, patient care
procedural waste, and other hazardous materials
were not hand-sorted; and were individually
weighed only.
6. Weighing bagged materials, loose materials,
anomalies, and hand-sorted materials
CES photographed and weighed all representa-
tive sample materials, including the hand-sorted
materials, anomalies, and bagged materials.
Each material category was weighed individually
utilizing a bench scale independently calibrated
and collecting weights to the nearest hundredth
of a pound.
Image 2.1: Load before sampling Image 2.2: Autoclaved biohazard (red bags)
Image 2.3: Anomalies Image 2.4: Hospital/Patient care waste

Mackenzie Hall Methods
The materials assessment was conducted on
Thursday, January 15, 2015, by CES staff at the
Metro Central transfer station, located at 6161
NW 61st
Avenue, Portland, Oregon. The material
load consisted of landfill-bound materials gener-
ated during one (1) day at OHSU’s MH: Wednes-
day, January 14, 2015 at OHSU’s Mackenzie Hall
and was delivered to the site by OHSU’s com-
mercial hauler, Trashco Services Incorporated.
The landfill-bound waste load weighed 4,520
pounds according to the Metro South scale
house. At the transfer station, CES staff began
the materials assessment by performing a visual
assessment of the load. CES then strategically
extracted approximately 10% of the load by vol-
ume as a representative sample. By weight, CES
extracted 9%.
The materials assessment was divided into five
(5) phases: 1) extract the anomalies; 2) extract
the 10% by volume representative sample; 3)
pre-sort the bags by perceived content; 4) hand-
sort the contents of sortable bags that did not
contain restroom waste or patient care proce-
dural waste, PPE, or other hazardous materials;
and 5) weigh the bagged materials, loose materi-
als, anomalies, and hand-sorted materials (see
Images 2.7-.8).
The materials assessment was conducted as fol-
lows:
1. Extracting anomalies
CES staff pulled ten (10) % by volume of anoma-
lies, which included a box of broken glass, loose
binders, and blankets (see Images 2.9-10).
2. Extract the 10% by volume representative
sample
3. Pre-sorting bags
CES separated bags in the load based on per-
ceived content. CES extracted from the load one
ten (10) % by volume of all bags containing Per-
sonal protective equipment (PPE) and all bags
containing Mixed-use/combined materials waste.
Within the load, no bags of Patient care proce-
dural waste was found. Additionally, ten (1o) %
by volume of all other bags containing mixed
Image 2.5: Personal protection exequipment (PPE) Image 2.6: Mixed content sortable bags

contents were pulled from the load for hand sort-
ing. Of these bags, restroom waste was not sort-
ed.
4. Hand-sorting the contents of bags
The contents of all mixed content bags; exclud-
ing the bags determined to hold restroom waste
or other hazardous materials, were hand-sorted
into twenty-two (22) material categories detailed
in Table 2.1. Restroom waste, PPE, patient care
procedural waste, and other hazardous materials
were not hand-sorted; and were individually
weighed only.
5. Weighing bagged materials, loose materials,
anomalies, and hand-sorted materials
CES photographed and weighed all representa-
tive sample materials, including the hand-sorted
materials, anomalies, and bagged materials.
Each material category was weighed individually
utilizing a bench scale independently calibrated
and collecting weights to the nearest hundredth
of a pound.
Image 2.7: Load before sampling Image 2.8: Extracted 10% of the load by volume
Image 2.9: Anomalies (loose binders)
Image 2.10: Lab glass

The twenty-five (25) material categories listed in Table 2.1 below were utilized in the landfill-bound ma-
terials assessment for KP and for MH, and are presented visually in Images 8.1 to 8.48. Materials high-
lighted in red are materials found outside of the frequent categories used in material assessments by
CES. Visual representation of all material categories is provided in Section 7: Materials Assessments
Photos and a detailed description of each material category is provided in Section 8: Glossary of Ma-
terial Categories.
Thirteen (13) of the above material categories
are in accordance with CES standards and cor-
respond with categories commonly used in ma-
terials assessments by CES. The category of
Mixed use/combined materials waste was cho-
sen to correspond with bags found in the load
which contained sortable materials combined
with hazardous materials therefore making the
Readily Recyclable Compostable Other Recoverable Non-Recoverable
 Corrugated card-
board
 Mixed paper (in-
cludes nested card-
board)
 Plastic bottles & tubs
 Mixed metals
 Glass bottles & jars
 Compostable food
scraps
 Plastic film
 Rigid plastic
 Reuse
 Reuse binders
 HDPE foam
 Textiles
 Expanded polystyrene
foam block
 True waste
 Single-use drink cups
 Single-use food ser-
vice ware
 Food-soiled fibers
 Restroom waste
 Single-use EPS food
service ware
 Lab glass
 Carpet
 Mixed use/combined
materials waste
 Personal protection
equipment (PPE)
 Patient care proce-
dural
 Autoclaved biohaz-
ard (red bags)
Table 2.1: Material categories overall

bag unsortable; the category of Personal pro-
tection equipment (PPE), Patient care proce-
dural, and Autoclaved (red) bags were chosen
due to the observed presence of the materials
in OHSU’s landfill-bound load during the as-
sessment process by CES; to correspond with
material categories utilized in the 2013 assess-
ments for OHSU. Materials that make up a sig-
nificant portion of the material waste stream
are identified by CES in order to address the di-
version options or waste reduction and reduc-
tion in consumption opportunities associated
with these specific material categories.
The four (4) general material groups used by CES,
(defined below) take into account the existing
diversion opportunities in the region and at
OHSU, and Metro and City of Portland guidelines
for recycling and waste practices:
 Readily Recyclable materials category in-
cludes both commingled recycling mate-
rials (corrugated cardboard, mixed paper,
plastic bottles and tubs, and metals) and
the glass bottles and jars for recycling.
These materials are required to be recy-
cled by businesses under the Metro re-
gional government’s business recycling
requirements (Please note that in the
Metro region, glass bottles and jars are
recycled separately from the commin-
gled recycling and any other readily re-
cyclable materials listed. This dual-
stream method of recycling glass bottles
and jars separately allows for better qual-
ity and viability of recyclable materials as
products and as commodities.). Readily
Recyclable materials are collected by
OHSU’s primary commercial hauler,
Trashco.
 Compostable materials are those that are ac-
cepted under Metro regional govern-
ment’s current compostable materials
guidelines for businesses. Food scraps
fall under this category and were sorted
separately by CES. Additionally, intact
food was sorted separately and included
under the compostable category alt-
hough it should be noted that intact food
also has potential for diversion through
food donation in some cases. Food-
soiled fibers and compostable food ser-
vice ware were previously categorized as
compostable, in OHSU’s 2013 materials
assessments, however due to changes in
the Metro region’s acceptable com-
postable materials guidelines for com-
mercial programs, (which no longer in-
cludes waxed cardboard, compostable
food and beverage service ware, or food-
soiled fibers), CES has categorized food-
soiled fibers under non-Recoverable ma-
terials in this report. Currently, only food
scraps and approved BPI-certified com-
postable bags comprise the contents of
acceptable materials for the Metro re-
gion’s commercial composting programs.
For more information, visit Metro’s web-
site: http://www.oregonmetro.gov.
 Other Recoverable materials are those that
have the opportunity to be recovered
through an expanded diversion program
or an existing non-primary hauler diver-
sion system. Some of these materials are
currently included in OHSU’s diversion
program: plastic film and rigid plastic.
These materials experience fluctuations
in recoverability due to the volatility of
global secondary commodity markets.
The materials are sometimes less readily
recyclable than at other times, such as
during times of market downturns. Some
materials, like rigid plastics and plastic
film, are accepted by multiple material

recovery facilities in the Metro region.
Others, like expanded polystyrene block
foam are more difficult to recycle but
may be acceptable by some material
processors. Please note that all other re-
coverable materials are unacceptable in
the commingled recycling stream.
 Non-Recoverable materials are those that
cannot be diverted from the landfill
through OHSU’s existing collection sys-
tems or in the Portland Metro region due
to lack of markets and/or processing fa-
cilities. For analytical purposes this was
divided into the following subcategories:
true waste, single-use drink cups, single-
use food service ware, food-soiled fibers
(formerly categorized under composta-
ble), restroom waste, single-use expand-
ed polystyrene (EPS) food service ware,
lab glass, carpet, mixed-use/combined
materials waste, personal protective
equipment (PPE), patient care procedur-
al, and autoclaved (red) bags.

Section 3: Observations
The following qualitative observations were made in addition to the quantitative data gathered during
the site evaluation walk-through and during the materials assessments. The observations give an un-
derstanding of the materials being generated, their disposal and collection methods, and overall diver-
sion practices. The qualitative observations that follow are valuable in adding to the quantitative data
and comprehensive picture of KEEN’s Factory operational material flows. These observations were tak-
en into consideration and addressed when creating the recommendations listed in Section 6: Recom-
mendations.
Kohler Pavilion Observations
1. Sorted bags contained a lot of food waste,
primarily composed of lunch waste, bana-
nas, and coffee grounds (Image 3.1).
2. Large amounts of OHSU single use cups
were found throughout the hand-sorted
bags (Image 3.2).
3. Multiple white fiber/ paper plates and to-
go containers found throughout the hand-
sorted bags (Images 3.3).
4. One bag contained primarily recyclable
aluminum cans and many other bags con-
tained recyclable containers (plastic bot-
tles and aluminum cans) (Images 3.4).
5. An unopened bag of Isolation Gowns was
found in the load (Image 3.5).
6. Twenty-five (25) autoclaved biohazard
(red bags) were counted in the load (Image
3.6).
7. The load was primarily comprised of Auto-
claved biohazard (red bags), Patient care
procedural, and Personal protective
equipment (PPE) (Image 3.7).
8. Several loose materials were found within
the load, including: corrugated cardboard,
polystyrene expanded foam block, and
nested cardboard cartons (Image 3.8).
Image 3.1: Sortable bags with mixed content Image 3.2: OHSU Single-use cups

Image 3.3: Single-use food containers Image 3.4: Aluminum cans
Image 3.5: Isolation gowns Image 3.6: Autoclaved biohazard (red bags)
Image 3.7: Entire load, Autoclaved bundles, PPE, and
procedural waste are apparent
Image 3.8: Loose materials found in the load

Mackenzie Hall Observations
1. Many of the bags perceived to be “sort-
able” with food scraps and recyclables in
them, were found to also contain pa-
tient care items such as gloves or other
materials (Image 3.10)
2. Multiple small bags were often found
within a larger clear bag. (Image 3.11)
3. Lab materials were found mixed with
recyclable materials. (Image 3.12)
4. A bag containing only mixed paper was
found. (Image 3.13)
5. Several large pizza boxes were found.
Image 3.10: Percieved sortable bags Image 3.11: Smaller bags in a large wastebag
Image 3.12: Lab materials
Image 3.13: Clean plastic film that could have been diverted

Section 4: Findings
Findings and recommendations resulting from the landfill-bound materials assessments are cited in
terms of weight in pounds. Lighter materials such as plastic film and expanded polystyrene foam block
can comprise a large percentage of volume in the load, yet when considered by weight alone, these ma-
terials may not appear as a significant component of the load. By extrapolating the weights obtained
from the representative sample, CES can approximate the composition of the entire landfill-bound load.
Please refer to the photos in Section 7: Materials Assessment Photos for visual representation.
Kohler Pavilion Findings
Figure 4.1 and Table 4.1 present the weight ac-
cording to the four general material groups out-
lined in Section 2: Methods for Kohler Pavilion.
Figure 4.1 shows that 1% by weight of the land-
fill-bound materials could have been diverted
through OHSU’s existing recovery systems for
commingled recycling (corrugated cardboard,
mixed paper, plastic bottles and tubs, metals)
and for glass bottle and jar recycling. Of these
readily recyclable materials, corrugated card-
board comprised the largest portion with 46%
of the weight of readily recyclable materials
and 0.5% of the entire load (see Table 4.1, Fig-
ure 4.2).
Figure 4.1 shows that other recoverable mate-
rials are at zero percent, however Table 4.1 de-
tails the weights of rigid plastic, plastic film, and
expanded polystyrene foam block, which were
present in amounts registering below one per-
cent. Materials such as clean plastic film and
rigid plastic, have the potential to be diverted
from the landfill if OHSU continues to close the
gaps in its existing materials collection system.
Table 4.1: Detailed material composition (by weight in
pounds)
Material LBS %
Corrugated cardboard 5.6 0.5%
Mixed metals 2.8 0.3%
Mixed paper 1.6 0.2%
Plastic bottles & tubs 1.1 0.1%
Glass bottles & jars 1.0 0.1%
Compost
able
Compostable food scraps 10.6 1.0%
Rigid plastic 0.4 0.0%
Plastic film 0.1 0.0%
Styrofoam 0.8 0.1%
Autoclaved bundles 660.3 64.3%
PatientCare Procedural 168.0 16.4%
Personal Protective Equipment
(PPE)
106.6 10.4%
Mixed-use/Combined Materials
Waste
31.5 3.1%
Food-soiled fibers 10.5 1.0%
True waste 7.5 0.7%
Restroomwaste 7.3 0.7%
Single-use food service ware 6.6 0.6%
Single-use drink cups 5.0 0.5%
GRAND TOTAL 1027.4 100.0%
Readilyrecyclable
Other
Recoverables
Non-recoverable

Figure 4.1 and Table 4.1 show that 1% by weight of the landfill-bound materials could have been divert-
ed through OHSU’s existing recovery system for compost.
Finally, 98% of the load by weight consisted of materials without current recovery markets and materi-
als that were unable to be hand-sorted. It should be noted that within the 32% of Mixed-use/combined
materials waste are materials that would ordinarily be placed into the readily recyclable, compostable,
and other recoverables categories. These materials were unable to be hand-sorted due to the bags con-
taining hazardous materials Therefore, these divertible materials were measured under the non-
recoverable category. Divertible materials contributing to non-recoverable category indicates that the
98% is actually lower and the 1% for readily recyclables and the 1% for compostable is actually higher.
Table 4.1 demonstrates that the largest category within the non-recoverable materials was the auto-
claved bundles, comprising 64.3% of the total load. If Autoclaved biohazard (red bags), Mixed-
use/combined materials waste, PPE, and Patient care procedural were removed, single use items (cups
and food containers), food-soiled fibers, and true waste would comprise the greatest portions of non-
recoverable materials at 19%, 18.2%, and 12.3% of the load respectively.
Readily recyclable and compostable materials are broken down in Table 4.1 as a means of assessing
areas within this category, which can be a prioritized.
1%
readily recyclable
0%
other recoverable
1%
compostable
98%
non-recoverable
Figure 4.1: General material composition (by weight in pounds)

Mackenzie Hall Findings
Figure 4.1 shows that some other recoverable
materials, such as clean plastic film, rigid plastic
and various reuse materials including office items
and binders, have the potential to be diverted
from the landfill if OHSU pursues closing the
gaps in its existing materials collection system.
Additionally, Figure 4.1 shows that readily recy-
clable materials composed the greatest
portion of the load (14%) which could be
diverted from the landfill-bound waste
stream.
Finally, 71% of the load consisted of mate-
rials without current recovery markets.
This number/percentage is somewhat de-
ceiving however due in large to the Mixed-
use/combined materials waste. Within the
40% of Mixed-use/combined materials
waste are materials that would ordinarily
be placed into the readily recyclable,
compostable, and other recoverables cat-
egories. These materials were unable to be
hand-sorted due to these bags containing
hazardous materials. The divertible mate-
rials were measured under the non-
recoverable category thus increas-
ing/inflating the non-recoverable percent-
age.
The largest category within these non-
recoverable materials was the mixed
use/combined materials waste, comprising
40% of the total load. If this material cate-
gory was removed however, true waste
would be the largest material category in the
non-recoverable materials category with 22% or
13% with mixed use/combined materials waste
included.
Figure 5.1 gives a detail of the KP readily recycla-
ble and compostable materials. While the total
weight of these materials in the load seems neg-
ligible (see Figure 4.1), materials such as corru-
Table 4.2: OHSU’s MH detailed material composition (by weight in
pounds)
Material LBS %
Mixed paper 14.8 3.8%
Metals 3.0 0.8%
Plastic bottles & tubs 2.8 0.7%
Corrugated cardboard 1.7 0.4%
Glass bottles & jars 0.9 0.2%
Compost-
able
Compostable food scraps 27.0 7.0%
Reuse 13.4 3.5%
Reuse binders 9.1 2.3%
HDPE foam 3.9 1.0%
Textiles 3.4 0.9%
Rigid plastic 2.8 0.7%
Plastic film 1.8 0.5%
Expanded polystyrene foam block 0.7 0.2%
Mixed use/combined materials waste 153.9 39.7%
True waste 51.2 13.2%
Lab glass 31.9 8.2%
Food-soiled fibers 22.2 5.7%
Single-use food service ware 20.8 5.4%
Single-use drink cups 10.3 2.7%
Restroom waste 8.9 2.3%
Liquid 1.8 0.5%
Carpet 1.3 0.3%
Single-use EPS food service ware 0.1 0.0%
GRAND TOTAL 387.7 100.0%
ReadilyrecyclableNon-recoverableOtherrecoverable

gated cardboard and mixed metals can be an ar-
ea for addressing and improving diversion. Such
a focus would have a significant impact on reduc-
ing landfill-bound waste. This can be further con-
trasted to Mackenzie Hall in Figure 5.3.
Figure 5.1 gives a detail of the KP readily recycla-
ble and compostable materials. While the total
weight of these materials in the load seems neg-
ligible (see Figure 4.1), materials such as corru-
gated cardboard and mixed metals can be an ar-
ea for addressing and improving diversion. Such
a focus would have a significant impact on reduc-
ing landfill-bound waste. This can be further con-
trasted to Mackenzie Hall in Figure 5.3.
6%
readily recyclable
9%
other recoverable
7%
compostable
78%
non-recoverable
Figure 4.4: OHSU’s MH general material composition

Section 5: Detailed Findings
This section is featured for comparison purposes to the OHSU material assessment report 2013 (see
Appendix A: Waste Assessment Report - Oregon Health and Science University Solid Waste As-
sessment Report, 2013). The previous report featured a breakdown of the Readily Recyclable and
Compostable materials. For comparison purposes Figures 5.1 and 5.3 have been provided. To highlight
of the single use food service ware and single use drink cups usage as provided previous, comparison
breakouts are shown in Figures 5.2 and 5.4.
The OHSU materials assessments in 2013 included Compostable food service ware, Compostable food-
soiled fibers, and Compostable drink cups within the compost general group. However, due to the
changes in Metro’s compostable guidelines, these materials are not included in the compostable cate-
gory for KP and MH in this report.
Figure 5.1 gives a detail of the KP readily recyclable and compostable materials. While the total weight
of these materials in the load seems negligible (see Figure 4.1), materials such as corrugated cardboard
and mixed metals can be an area for addressing and improving diversion. Such a focus would have a
significant impact on reducing landfill-bound waste. This can be further contrasted to Mackenzie Hall in
Figure 5.3.
Figure 5.1: MH Readily Recyclable & Compostable Materials
Figure 5.2: MH To-go Drink Cups, To-go Food Containers, Food
Soiled Fibers as Combined Categories

Figure 5.2 depicts the generalized material composition of the landfill-bound load, with a specific em-
phasis on Single-use drink cups, Single-use food service ware, and Food-soiled fibers. While the percent
by weight composition of Single use drink cups and Single use food service ware is a very small per-
centage, three (3) %, the weight of these materials combined is more than Restroom waste, True waste,
and Food-soiled Fibers (see Table 4.1). This indicates a significantly important material area for reduc-
tion by KP.
Food-soiled fibers is emphasized in figure 5.2, as this material was previously combined with Com-
postable Food in the 2013 materials assessments report for OHSU (see Appendix A: Waste Assess-
ment Report - Oregon Health and Science University Solid Waste Assessment Report, 2013).
Therefore figure 4.3 allows for comparison of KP to SH and to BRB in terms of food-soiled fibers and
true reductions of materials categorized as compostable which are no longer accepted in this materials
stream.
Figure 5.4, just as in Figure 5.2, depicts the generalized material composition of the landfill-bound load,
with a specific emphasis on Single-use drink cups, Single-use food service ware, and Food soiled fibers.
While the percent by weight composition of To-Go Drink Cups and To-go Food Containers is a very
small percentage, eight (8) %, the weight of these materials combined would make it the third largest
category within the non-recoverable materials (see Table 4.2). This indicates a significantly important
material area for reduction by MH.
Figure 5.3: MH Readily Recyclable & Compostable Materials
Figure 5.4: MH To-go Drink Cups, To-go Food Containers,
Food Soiled Fibers as Combined Categories

Section 6: Comparison
Table 6.1 and figure 6.1 compare the material composition of the landfill-bound waste streams of South
Hospital (SH), Bio-Medical Research Building (BRB), Kohler Pavilion (KP), and Mackenzie Hall (MH). The
South Hospital and the Bio-Medical Research Building were assessed in 2013, Kohler Pavilion in 2014,
and Mackenzie Hall in 2016. Data from SH and BRB is derived from the landfill-bound materials as-
sessment that CES completed in May and June of 2013, respectively (Appendix A: Waste Assessment
Report - Oregon Health and Science University Solid Waste Assessment Report, 2013).
Table 6.1 provides a comparison of the detailed findings for each building (SH, BRB, KP, and MH). Fig-
ure 6.1 presents a comparison across the four (4) assessment buildings (SH, BRB, KP, and MH) material
composition of the landfill-bound loads, based on the four (4) material classifications discussed in Sec-
tion 2: Methods. This presentation method suggests an inconsistent use of methodologies and incon-
sistencies in material diversion methods across the four buildings, which alludes to a perpetration to the
greater extent of the OHSU campus.
It should also be noted that in order to give an accurate comparison between the building’s data, CES
had to move around and combine some of the detailed material categories from each of the previous
years’ assessments into the general categories. For original placement of categories please see Appen-
dix A. The following list provides reference for the comparison categories’ composition:
 SH: The materials found within compost bags have been placed within their appropriate material
category, marked by an asterisk (*). Hot and Cold drink cups have been combined to Single-use
drink cups. Non-recoverable to-go food containers has been renamed Single-use food service
ware.
 BRB Hot and Cold drink cups have been combined to Single-use drink cups. Non-recoverable to-go
food containers has been renamed Single-use food service ware. Plastic cold drink cups has also
been combined with Single-use drink cups.
 KP: Compostable service ware, Compostable drink cups, and Compostable fibers are no longer
listed in compostable materials due to Metro’s changes. Materials within all categories reflect
Section 2: Methods.
 MH: Compostable service ware, Compostable drink cups, and Compostable fibers are no longer
listed in compostable materials due to Metro’s changes. Materials within all categories reflect
Section 2: Methods.

Table 6.1: Detailed comparison by year of landfill-bound material composition: 2007, 2010, 2011 and 2014
LB % LB % LB % LB %
Corrugated cardboard 213.97 22% 11.16 3% 5.63 1% 1.73 0.4%
Mixed paper 34.89 4% * 32.56 8% 1.63 0% 14.84 4%
Plastic bottles & tubs 4.49 0% * 5.21 1% 1.13 0% 2.84 1%
Mixed metals 1.34 0% 0.97 0% 2.81 0% 2.99 1%
Glass bottles & jars 0.51 0% 3.68 1% 1.02 0.1% 0.93 0%
Total Readily Recyclable 255.20 26% 53.58 14% 12.21 1% 23.33 6%
Compostable food - - - - 10.61 1% 26.95 7%
Compostable service ware 10.08 1% 10.78 3% - - - -
Compostable drink cups 6.12 1% 2.28 1% - - - -
Compostable food & fibers 84.97 9% * 53.28 14% - - - -
Total Compostable Food & Fibers 101.17 10% 66.34 17% 10.61 1% 26.95 7%
Plastic to-go food containers (clam shells) 1.39 0% * 1.61 0% - - - -
Flatware 2.34 0% * - - - - - -
Rigid plastics 1.18 0% - - 0.41 0% 2.82 1%
Plastic cold drink cups - - 1.10 0% - - - -
Lab rigid plastics - - 20.52 5% - - - -
Plastic film 5.76 1% 8.46 2% 0.07 0% 1.82 0%
Other lab film - - 2.89 1% - - - -
Waxed cardboard 19.01 2% - - - - - -
Polystyrene expanded foam block 1.62 0% 2.39 1% 0.78 0% 0.69 0%
HDPE foam - - - - - - 3.92 1%
Textiles - - - - - - 3.41 1%
Batteries - - 0.22 0% - - - -
CDs - - 0.71 0% - - - -
Reuse binders - - - - - - 9.10 2%
Reuse - - - - - - 13.41 3%
Electronics - - 6.78 2% - - - -
Total Other Recoverable 31.30 3% 44.68 12% 1.26 0% 35.17 9%
Restroom waste 11.54 1% 32.72 8% 7.34 1% 8.94 2%
3.5" floppy disks - - 2.05 1% - - - -
Ceiling tiles - - 8.93 2% - - - -
Aquarium rocks - - 19.87 5% - - - -
Animal project materials - - 43.43 11% - - - -
Carpet - - - - - - 1.27 0%
Personal protection equipment (PPE) 40.19 4% 25.55 7% 106.56 10% - -
Super sacks - - 7.14 2% - - - -
(Non-recyclables) True waste 30.75 3% * 77.73 20% 7.52 1% 51.17 13%
Hospital/patient care waste 126.40 13% - - 168.00 16% - -
Mixed use/combined care waste 112.28 11% - - 31.52 3% 153.88 40%
Autoclaved Biohazed (red bags) 264.00 27% - - 660.25 64% - -
Lab glass - - - - 31.89 8%
Unused toilet paper rolls - - - - - - - -
Single-use drink cups 3.43 0% 4.06 1% 5.00 0% 10.29 3%
Single-use food service ware 4.80 0% * - - 6.60 1% 20.78 5%
Single-use EPS food service ware - - - - - - 0.07 0%
Food-soiled fibers - - - - 10.48 1% 22.16 6%
Liquid 3.10 0% 0.32 0% - - 1.79 0%
Total Non-Recoverable 596.49 61% 221.80 57% 1003.27 98% 302.24 78%
GRAND TOTAL 984.16 100% 386.40 100% 1027.35 100% 387.69 100%
MATERIAL SH BRB KP MH
* Category contains contents of Compost bags from original report

The overall proportion of recoverable materials in the landfill-bound load was larger at BRB as com-
pared to all other buildings (Figure 6.1). Within this category, readily recyclable materials most signifi-
cantly impacted the landfill-bound load at SH and BRB with 26% and 14% respectively. In both circum-
stances, corrugated cardboard and mixed paper were the largest contributors to this material category.
While there is a general decline in readily recyclable materials, and more specifically corrugated card-
board and mixed paper at KP and MH these locations, these materials continued to be the largest con-
tributors to the readily recyclable materials. This overtly suggests a need for emphasis on these specific
materials within for increased diversion methods and practices.
Other recoverable materials has fluctuated greatly between the buildings from nearly insignificant by
weight by volume of KP’s to 11% of BRB’s the landfill-bound load. The materials within this category
have varied as well, with the only consistent material across all buildings being Polystyrene expanded
foam block. In all buildings, this material consisted of no more than 1% of the total landfill-bound load.
The largest contributor to other re-
coverable materials at each building is
as follows: SH, Waxed cardboard (2%);
BRB, Lab rigid plastics (1%); KP, Poly-
styrene expanded foam block (0%),
and MH, Reuse (3%). The wide varia-
tion of materials found that are appli-
cable for other recoverable methods
suggests a need to increase and ex-
pand existing programs at OHSU.
Due to the changes made by Metro in
regards to compostable materials,
there is a somewhat deceiving decline
in compostable materials found in KP
and MH. If Food soiled fibers were to
be combined with compostable food
for comparison, within KP, this mate-
rial would comprise 2% of the landfill-
bound load. It should be noted this has
been deflated by the presence of Au-
toclaved biohazard (red bags), Patient
care procedural waste, Personal pro-
Figure 6.1: Comparison by year of landfill-bound general material compo-
sition: SH, BRB, KP, and MH

tection equipment (PPE), and Mixed-use/combined materials waste. If these materials were not present
in the load, Compostable food and fibers, if combined would constitute 35% of the landfill-bound load.
In comparison, if these materials were to be combined at MH, Compostable food and fibers would
comprise 13% of the load. While this too is deflated by the abundance of unsortable Mixed-
use/combined materials waste, this percentage would only increase to 21% with the removal of the
Mixed-use material category. As CES is unable to determine the percentage of food to fiber percent-
ages for SH and BRB, it is difficult to ascertain if Compostable food as remained constant in all buildings
assessed. Regardless, the material category remains a prominent area for diversion practices through
increased programs and education.
Non-recoverable materials composition vary greatly amongst the four buildings. The consistent mate-
rial categories are Restroom waste, Non-recyclables (True waste), and most notable Single-use drink
cups. It should be noted if Metro’s current compost practices were in place when the BRB assessment
was conducted, Single-use service ware would also be considered consistent across the four buildings.
Single-use service ware had the greatest composition within MH’s landfill-bound waste (5%).

Section 7: Recommendations
After analysis of the data, CES recommends the following:
 Provide each floor with assistance, education, and resources to start a green team, conduct
green team work, and follow basic structural guidelines for green teams at OHSU. (If there are
no green team basics and guidelines at OHSU consider developing these standards). This will al-
low OHSU to have consistency across floors and for employees to recognize and understand the
diversion process at OHSU, waste reduction goals at OHSU, and become comfortable with
OHSU’s systems.
 Reduce the amount of paper being used. Recyclable mixed paper made up 0.02% of KP and
3.8% of MH’s landfill-bound load. Reducing paper use can cut costs.
» Mandate that all the printer settings be set to print on two sides (double sided printing).
» Encourage staff to send files electronically versus printing them out.
» Make sure that signage and containers to recycle paper are clear and visible in areas where
paper is generated frequently (and/or directs employees to paper shredding bins)
» Distribute Recycle at Work boxes to put next to desk-side garbage bins to ensure a higher
diversion rate of recyclable paper. Consider working with Sustainability Liaisons to ensure
recycling bins are properly paired with garbage cans and signs are in place in each work
unit.
» For more information about paper recycling information visit, EPA- Paper Basics
 Consider implementing innovative waste reduction strategies by promoting the use of durable
drink cups and food service ware. These measures will reduce the amount of single-use drink
cups and food service ware in the landfill-bound load (see Images 8.13-.14 and 8.39-.44.).
» Provide durable dishes in break-rooms for employee use to reduce the use of disposable
dishes for everyday use, not just special events or large group meetings.
» Consider making reusable take-out containers available to employees. Examples of reusa-
ble take-out containers include Eco-Takeouts (http://ecotakeouts.com/).
» Consider exploring hosting a Go Box drop box and partnering with Mac Hall Bistro so that
Mac Hall Bistro offers the option of Go Box. https://www.goboxpdx.com/
» Partner with Mac Hall Espresso to initiate a reusable mug campaign that offers incentives
for using a reusable mug. Examples may include: a punch card system for employees and
students that utilize reusable mugs with a free drink at the completion of the punch card.
 Explore expanding the compost collection for kitchen food scraps Utilize strategic signage in
the kitchens/breakrooms at the buddied disposal area and at the coffee machine in order to direct
staff to the compost bucket (usually kept on the counter top next to the sink). This will encourage
capture of compostable coffee grounds and food scraps from lunches for diversion as compost.

» Put in place a plan of action for responsibility of emptying the compost pail into the com-
post roll cart supplied by the hauler. Consider listing this action under the green team
guidelines.
» Provide periodic food waste diversion education to employees and custodial staff.
» Provide outreach to floors that have not yet elected to host a compost collection system
under OHSU’s goals toward sustainability.
 Create a buddy system for break rooms. Create a buddy system that consists of: one (1) landfill-
bound container, one (1) commingled recycling container, one (1) compost container, and one (1)
glass bottles and jars container. By doing so, this allows employees to divert their waste to the
proper stream.
» Get proper signage for each container with pictures that show what goes in and what stays
out of each container (see Images 7.1-7.2).
» For additional resources pertaining to stickers and posters that can be downloaded for
free visit, America Recycles Day- Toolkits & Posters .
Image 7.1: Example of signage for a compost
brute in the break room
Image 7.2: Example of commingled recycling sign that
could go over all commingled recycling containers

Section 8: Materials Assessments Photos
Kohler Pavilion Photos
Image 8.1 Mixed paper Image 8.2: Corrugated cardboard
Image 8.3: Corrugated cardboard
Image 8. 4: Mixed metals Image 8.5: Mixed metals Image 8.6: Plastic bottles & tubs
Image 8.7: Glass bottles Image 8.8: Compostable food Image 8.9: Rigid plastic

Image 8.10: Plastic film Image 8.11: Autoclaved biohazard
(red bags)
Image 8.12: Patient care procedural
Image 8.13: Mixed-use/Combined
materials waste
Image 8.14: Food soiled fibers Image 8.15: True waste
Image 8.16: Single-use food service
ware
Image 8.17: Single-use drink cups

Mackenzie Hall Photos
Image 8.18 Mixed paper
Image 8.19: Mixed paper
Image 8.20: Corrugated cardboard
Image 8. 21: Mixed metals Image 8.22: Plastic bottles & tubs Image 8.23: Glass bottles
Image 8. 24: Mixed metals Image 8.25: Reuse Image 8.26: Reuse binders

Image 8. 27: HDPE foam Image 8.28: Textiles Image 8.29: Rigid plastics
Image 8. 30: Plastic film Image 8.31: Expanded polystyrene
foam block
Image 8.32: Mixed-use/combined
materials waste
Image 8.33: True waste Image 8.34: True waste Image 8.35: True waste

Image 8.36: Lab glass
Image 8.37: Food soiled fibers Image 8.38: Food soiled fibers
ware
ware
ware
Image 8..42: Single-use drink cups Image 8.43: Single-use drink cups Image 8.44: Single-use drink cups

Image 8.45: Restroom waste Image 8.46: Carpet Image 8.47: Single-use EPS food
service ware

Section 9: Glossary of Material Categories
Autoclaved Biohazards (red bags) – Red biohazard bags containing autoclaved biohazards in large
melded bundles.
Carpet – Floor or stair covering made from woven fabric.
Compostable food scraps – Vegetable, fruit, grain-based food scraps, meat, fish, fat, bones, eggshells,
tea bags, and coffee grinds. This category excludes compostable and non-compostable hot and cold
drink cups, gable-top or square shaped aseptic cartons, waxed cardboard, and utensils, straws, lids, or
bags made of plastic, biodegradable plastic, or compostable plastic.
Corrugated cardboard – A material made from fiber, and contains a wavy corrugated layer enclosed by
a layer of kraft board. Corrugated cardboard boxes and sheets are commonly used to package, ship and
move materials.
Expanded polystyrene foam block – Light expanded polystyrene plastic used for product packaging.
Food-soiled fibers – Fibers such as paper towels, napkins, paper plates, and paper linings, which have
come in contact with food scraps and liquids.
Glass bottles – Containers made of glass. This category excludes light bulbs, flat glass, flower vases,
drinking glasses, and tempered glass such as baking dishes.
HDPE foam – High-density polyethylene foam that is commonly used as a packing material.
Lab glass – Glass containers, such as beakers, that were clearly identified as having been used in a la-
boratory.
Mixed metals – Containers made of aluminum, steel or tin, including containers for beverages, food,
and other materials. Empty aerosol cans and scrap metal are included in this category.
Mixed paper – Includes office paper, newspaper, magazines, phonebooks, paper board/soft cardboard,
folders, scrap paper, sticky notes, shredded paper, paper bags, egg cartons, cereal boxes, and all other
non-corrugated cardboards. This category also includes aseptic such as gable-top milk and juice cartons
and square-shaped cartons often used for soups or soymilk. This category does not include tissue paper,
freezer boxes, or receipts.
Mixed use/combined care waste – bags found in the load which contained sortable materials com-
bined with hazardous materials.

Patient care procedural waste – Bags containing various patient care materials, i.e. latex gloves, paper
towels, bed pans, PPE, patient tubes, baby bottles, syringes, disposable drapes/sheets, equipment
packaging, and recyclable paper catheter packages.
Personal protection equipment (PPE) – Equipment used for protecting eyes, ears, mouth, hands; and
gowns and booties.
Plastic bottles and tubs – Plastic containers with a neck, including containers for beverages, other flu-
ids; plastic tubs of primarily food grade plastic often used for yogurt, margarine, and other food or non-
food materials, rigid plant pots larger than four inches, and plastic buckets smaller than five gallons.
This category includes bioplastics bottles that are made from plant-based resins (plant based PET), but
excludes bioplastics that are biodegradable plastic. This category excludes all plastic containers labeled
as “biodegradable.”
Plastic film – All clean plastic film bags including grocery and sandwich bags. Also includes shrink wrap,
pallet wrap, bubble wrap, and plastic films.
Plastic to-go food containers (clam shells) – Food containers made of plastic and intended for single
use (non-durable).
Reuse- Items that may be re-used through donation to a program or by in-house programs such as for
office supplies or furniture.
Reuse binders - Lightly used binders that could have been reused through a donation or in-house pro-
gram.
Rigid plastic – Non-bottle and non-tub shaped plastics that are not accepted through the regional
commingled recycling programs, but are acceptable at various plastics recycling facilities in the region.
Includes plastic pallets and spools.
Single-use drink cups – Non-durable, non-recyclable single-use cups for either hot or cold beverages.
These cups may be made of plastic, plastic-lined paper, plastic-embedded paper, expanded polystyrene
foam, or compostable plastics.
Single-use expanded polystyrene (EPS) food service ware – Non-durable containers, plates, and
dishes designed for single-use and used to serve and transport food that are made out of expanded pol-
ystyrene foam.

Single-use food service ware – Non-durable containers, plates, dishes and flatware designed for single
use and used to serve and transport food. These may be made of plastic, plastic-lined paper, plastic-
embedded paper, expanded polystyrene foam, or compostable plastics.
Textiles – Fabric used as either clothes or rags.
True waste – Materials that cannot currently be diverted. These materials are known as “true waste”
because there are currently no recycling markets for these materials, and the materials are not com-
postable at local composting facilities, or the materials are not readily reused or fit for donation. Com-
mon materials include candy wrappers, chip bags, freezer boxes, soiled textiles unfit for donation or
recycling, polyvinyl chloride items such as gift cards, credit cards, or pipe, foil and paper wrappers, and
other non-recyclable mixed material items without current recycling markets.

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

Prepared for Oregon Health and Science University
Community Environmental Services
Eric T. Crum, Director
Moonrose Doherty, Solid Waste Assessment Services Manager
Mark Kenseth, Solid Waste Assessments Project Lead
PO Box 751 – CES
Portland, Oregon 97207
July 12th, 2013
Oregon Health and Science University
Solid Waste Assessments Report

Community Environmental Services July 12, 2013
OHSU Solid Waste Assessments 2
Table of Contents
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................2
SECTION 2: METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................................5
BRB METHODOLOGY...................................................................................................................5
SH METHODOLOGY......................................................................................................................6
MATERIAL CATEGORIES FOR BRB & SH...................................................................................7
SECTION 3: FINDINGS..................................................................................................................9
BRB FINDINGS ..............................................................................................................................9
SH FINDINGS ...............................................................................................................................13
SECTION 4: OBSERVATIONS ...................................................................................................17
BRB OBSERVATIONS...................................................................................................................17
SH OBSERVATIONS .....................................................................................................................19
SECTION 5: RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................................21
WASTE REDUCTION ....................................................................................................................25
SECTION 6: PHOTOS OF MATERIAL CATEGORIES AND OBSERVATIONS ........26
BRB PHOTOS................................................................................................................................26
SH PHOTOS ..................................................................................................................................28
SECTION 7: GLOSSARY OF MATERIAL CATEGORIES..................................................30

Section 1: Background
In March of 2013, Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) contacted Community Environmental
Services (CES) with the request to conduct two landfill-bound waste assessments for two selected buildings on
the Marquam Hill campus, located in Portland, Oregon. CES is a research and service unit within the Center for
Urban Studies at Portland State University. OHSU is a public university with a main campus in Portland that
includes two hospitals and a smaller campus in Hillsboro, Oregon.
OHSU currently implements a variety of material diversion practices depending on the building and its
occupants. All buildings currently collect commingled recycling and glass bottles and jars. Pre-consumer
compost is collected in various locations across the campus such as the kitchens and other food preparation
areas as well as some of the coffee shops. The Starbucks coffee shop does not collect compost. Post-consumer
compost is collected in select locations for the public; and employee locations depend on the willingness and
interest of the floor supervisors and staff. Where employee post-consumer compost collection is in place, a do-
it-yourself (DIY) system is utilized, wherein responsible parties either empty their own internal compost bins
into the external compost containers provided by the commercial hauler or utilize the external container in one
location on the floor or in the department.
The Bio-Medical Research Building (BRB) and the South Hospital (SH) collect commingled recycling and glass
bottle and jar recycling on all floors and they also offer battery recycling through specialized pick up. Compost is
collected in small (under 2 gallons) compost buckets that are distributed to work groups that want to participate
in the OHSU composting program. These work groups are responsible for taking the compost bucket down to
the dock and emptying them into a 64 gallon compost cart. The compost cart on the dock is emptied by
Trashco on a weekly basis and switched out when needed. Some floors/participants choose to use compostable
bio-liners for ease of use, but it is by choice and not part of policy at OHSU.
Other materials such as rigid and film plastics are collected where generation areas occur. Foam packaging (i.e.
air-blown/expanded plastic) is not currently diverted because it is not accepted by any of OHSU’s hauling
vendors. Logistics oversees the handling of e-waste, clearing computers/hard-drives of all information and
donating them to a student program in The Dalles, called SRUT (Student Recycling Universal Technology).
OHSU’s Office Reuse Center takes gently used binders, desk organizers, pens, pencils, paper clips, some
computer components (mice, keyboards, & cords), and other office goods for repurposing; the Logistics/Surplus
department oversees the reuse of furniture and equipment that staff is no longer in need of.

The objectives of the waste assessment were as follows:
1. Determine the composition of the landfill-bound waste stream by conducting a solid waste assessment
on the landfill-bound materials generated from two selected buildings on the OHSU campus (Bio-
Medical Research Building and South Hospital).
2. Assess the landfill-bound waste to better understand the composition in relation to daily activities and
gain a general idea of waste composition on the OHSU campus. The waste assessment included hand
sorting the waste from the two buildings into material categories, weighing the sorted materials,
recording the data, and making quantitative and qualitative observations.
3. Develop recommendations regarding material waste that could be diverted or reduced based on the
findings from the solid waste assessment.
4. Provide evidence of waste minimization and targeted diversion opportunities.
For the purposes of this report, the term “waste sort” refers to the physical hand sorting of materials into
defined categories. The term “waste assessment” refers to the entire process of sorting, observing, and analyzing
the materials.
Figure 1.1. The 25-yard landfill-bound waste compactor from the BRB

Section 2: Methodology
The waste assessment for the Bio-Medical Research Building (BRB) was conducted by CES employees at the
Metro Central Transfer Station, located at 6161 NW 61st Avenue, Portland, Oregon on May 22nd
, 2013, and the
waste assessment for the South Hospital (SH) was conducted by CES employees at the Metro South Transfer
Station, located at 2001 Washington Street in Oregon City, Oregon on June 19th
, 2013.
BRB Methodology
The landfill-bound waste load originating from the BRB’s 25-yard compactor, contained materials collected from
six days of operations at the BRB (fig. 2.1). The landfill-bound waste load weighed 1,980 pounds (.99 ton)
according to the Metro Central scale house. The hand-sorted sample weighed a total of 386.40 pounds,
comprising nearly 20% by weight of the entire load, and comprising approximately 15% by volume of the entire
load (fig. 2.2).
Figure 2.1. BRB Landfill-bound Material Prior to Sampling and Sorting
Figure 2.2. BRB Sample, 15% by volume and 20% by weight

SH Methodology
The landfill-bound waste load originating from the SH’s 25-yard compactor, contained materials collected from
one day of operation at the SH (fig. 2.3). The landfill-bound waste load weighed 7,300 pounds (3.65 tons)
according to the Metro South scale house. The hand-sorted sample weighed a total of 984.16 pounds comprising
13.5% by weight of the entire load, and comprising approximately 15% by volume of the entire load (fig. 2.4).
Figure 2.3 SH Landfill-bound Material Prior to Sampling and Sorting
Figure 2.4 SH Sample, 15% by volume (photo does not show one red biohazard bundle included in sample)

Material Categories for both BRB & SH
For the BRB and the SH, the representative landfill-bound waste
samples were hand-sorted into 35 material categories (Table 2.1).
The majority of the material categories were chosen by CES and
OHSU to best understand the waste composition of the OHSU
campus in accordance with the current campus diversion systems.
Additional material categories were added after identification at the
respective waste sort. Some of the material categories were only
found in the waste load from the BRB and some were only found
in the waste load from SH, therefore not all material categories are
present in both of the data presentations.
The material categories grouped under “Readily Recyclable and
Recoverable” are recyclables or compostables that are manageable
with the current diversion infrastructure with the primary waste
hauler for OHSU. The categories under “Other Recoverables”
include materials that are divertible through current systems at
OHSU, and materials that could be diverted if a system were
implemented. The category of “Non-Recoverable Waste” includes
materials that are avoidable and could possibly be diverted through
unique diversion programs, or could be targeted for reduction in
use. See “Appendix A: Glossary of Material Categories” for
detailed descriptions of each material.
Figures 2.5 and 2.6 display CES staff in the process of conducting
the waste sort for BRB and SH respectively, in which materials are
separated and categorized into yellow 14-gallon bins. Figures 2.7
and 2.8 provide a post-sort view of all the material categories prior
to weighing for BRB and SH respectively. The weights provide the
quantitative data for the findings in “Section 3: Findings.” Figures
2.9 through 2.12 are images of the landfill-bound waste load as the
sample was extracted and detailed observations were logged.
Table 2.1. Material Categories
 Readily Recyclable and Recoverable
o Mixed Paper
o Corrugated Cardboard
o Metal Containers
o Plastic Bottles and Tubs
o Glass Bottles and Jars
o Compostable Food and Fibers
o Compostable Service Ware
o Compostable Cold Drink Cups
o Compostable Hot Drink Cups
 Other Recoverables
o Flatware
o Rigid Plastics
o Plastic Films
o Waxed Cardboard
o Lab Rigid Plastics
o Plastic To-Go Food Containers
(Clamshells)
o Expanded Foam (Polystyrene)
o Reusable Office Supplies
o Electronics (e-waste)
o Batteries
o Compact Discs
 Non-Recoverable Waste
o Poly-coated Hot Drink Cups
o Poly-coated Cold Drink Cups
o Non Recoverable To-Go Food
Containers (Soup Bowls)
o Restroom Waste
o Liquids
o True Waste
o Ceiling Tiles
o 3.5” floppy disks
o Aquarium Rocks
o Super Sacks
o Animal Project Related Waste
o PPE (Personal Protection Equip.)
o Hospital/Patient Care Waste
o Mixed-Use/Combined Materials
Waste
o Autoclaved Biohazards (Red Bags)

Figure 2.5. BRB Waste Sort in Progress Figure 2.6. SH Waste Sort in Progress
Figure 2.7. BRB Organized Material Categories Figure 2.8. SH Organized Material Categories
(Not Pictured: Hospital/Patient Care Waste Sample,
Cardboard Sample, One Autoclaved Biohazard Red Bag)
Figure 2.9. BRB Glass in a Recyclable Box
Figure 2.11. BRB Animal Project Related Waste
Figure 2.10. SH Cardboard in the Waste Stream
Figure 2.12. SH Autoclaved Biohazard Bag Weighed

Table 3.1. BRB Waste Audit Data with Specific Landfill-
Bound Waste Categories
Section 3: Findings
Findings and recommendations resulting from the waste sort are cited in terms of weight in pounds. Lighter
materials such as plastic film, expanded foam, hot drink cups, and plastic drink cups can represent a large
percentage of volume in the waste stream, however, when considered by weight alone these materials may not
appear as a significant component of the load. All tables and figures present the data as a comprehensive waste
stream that is representative of the BRB and SH respectively. Any percent variances are due to rounding. Please
refer to the photos in Section 6 for visual examples of materials.
BRB Findings
Table 3.1 provides the weight and percentage of
each material category in relation to the total
landfill-bound waste sample for the BRB. There
are three general types of material:
(1) Readily Recyclable & Recoverable
(2) Other Recoverable Materials
(3) Non-Recoverable Materials
Readily Recyclable and Recoverable Materials in Table
3.1 consist of recyclable and compostable
materials, including mixed paper, cardboard,
metal, plastic bottles and tubs, glass bottles and
jars, compostable food and fibers, compostable
service ware, and compostable drink cups,
totaling 31% of the landfill-bound waste.
The recyclable and compostable materials of
Readily Recyclable and Recoverable Materials are
diverted by two separate streams at the BRB.
Figure 3.1 provides data for each diversion
stream: 14% (53.58 pounds) consisted of
recyclable materials and 17% (66.34 pounds)

Figure 3.1. BRB General Waste Composition
consisted of compostable materials; when combined equals 31% (119.92 pounds) of the total landfill-bound
waste sample. These materials could be recycled and recovered through BRB’s standard recycling and
composting practices currently being implemented on the Marquam campus.
Other Recoverable Materials in Table 3.1 consist of
plastic film, expanded foam, e-waste, batteries,
plastic to-go food containers (clamshells),
plastic cold drink cups, lab rigid plastics, other
lab plastics, and CDs, making up 12% of the
total landfill-bound waste (fig. 3.1). These
materials could be targeted more effectively by
improving a user-friendly collection system and
the promotion of building-specific practices to
capture materials across the entire OHSU
campus. Further elaboration of these strategies
can be found in Section 5: Recommendations.
Combining the Readily Recyclable and
Recoverable Materials (31%) with the Other
Recoverable Materials (12%) makes up 43% of
the landfill-bound waste sample and illustrates
the potential to reassess and improve the
current OHSU diversion program currently
being implemented at BRB.
Non-Recoverable Materials in Table 3.1 consist of poly-coated hot drink cups (0.9%), poly-coated cold drink cups
(0.2%), restroom waste (8.5%), liquids (0.1%), 3.5” floppy disks (0.5%), non-recyclables (true waste) (20.1%),
super sacks (1.8%), ceiling tiles (2.3%), aquarium rocks (5.1%), animal project related materials (11.2%), and
personal protection equipment (PPE) (6.6%); totaling 57% of the landfill-bound waste (fig. 3.1). “Section 5:
Recommendations,” provides recommendations and suggestions on how to begin reducing these materials.

Figure 3.2. BRB Readily Recyclable & Recoverable
Figure 3.3. BRB Other Recoverables
BRB Detailed View of Two Categories
Readily Recyclable and Recoverable Materials
and Other Recoverable Materials are broken
down further in Figure 3.2 and Figure 3.3
respectively to provide a means for assessing
which materials in each category can be
addressed that would have the greatest impact
on reducing landfill-bound waste.
This detailed view of the Readily Recyclable and
Recoverable Materials in the landfill-bound waste
sample shows compostable food and fibers,
mixed paper, and cardboard providing the
largest opportunities for improvement in
material recovery practices (fig. 3.2).
The detailed view of the Other Recoverable
Materials in the landfill-bound waste sample,
shows lab rigid plastics, plastic film, and e-
waste providing the largest opportunity to
improve current landfill-bound waste recovery
practices around these types of recoverable
materials (fig. 3.3).

Figure 3.4. BRB Categories of To-Go Drink Cups (Hot & Cold)
and To-Go Food Containers
BRB Combined To-Go Categories
Figure 3.4 presents the generalized material composition with a specific break-out of the combined “To-Go
Food Containers” and “To-Go Drink Cups”. It should be noted that each of the six types of food containers
and drink cups, belong to the general
categories of either Compostables,
Other Recoverables, or Non-
Recoverables (see Table 3.1) elsewhere
in this report; for this reason the
percentages for Compostables, Other
Recoverables, and Non-Recoverables
are affected in Figure 3.4 versus Figure
3.1.
The two material categories that are
grouped as To-Go Food Containers
include:
(1) Compostable Service Ware
(2) Plastic To-Go Food Containers
(Clamshells)
The four material categories that are grouped together as To-Go Drink Cups include:
(1) Compostable Drink Cups
(2) Plastic Cold Drink Cups
(3) Poly-coated Hot Drink Cups
(4) Poly-coated Cold Drink Cups
Together, the To-Go Food Containers and the To-Go Drink Cups total 19.83 pounds, which is 5% of the entire
waste sample, exhibiting a significant potential for reduction at the BRB. The potential is more substantial when
the materials are considered in terms of volume, since their percentage as a volume component would be
considerably higher.

Table 3.2. SH Waste Audit Data with Specific Landfill-
Bound Waste Categories
Table 3.5. SH General Waste Composition by Weight
SH Findings
Table 3.2 provides the weight and percentage of
each material category in relation to the total
landfill-bound waste for the SH. There are three
general types of material:
(1) Readily Recyclable & Recoverable
(2) Other Recoverable Materials
(3) Non-Recoverable Materials
Readily Recyclable and Recoverable Materials in Table
3.2 consist of recyclable and compostable
materials, including mixed paper, cardboard,
metal, plastic bottles and tubs, glass bottles and
jars, compostable food and fibers, compostable
plates and to-go containers, compostable hot
and cold drink cups, and bags of compost,
totaling 36% of the total landfill-bound waste
sample (see fig. 3.5).
The recyclable and compostable materials
included in the Readily Recyclable and Recoverable
Materials are diverted by two separate collection
streams at the SH. Figure 3.5 provides data for
each diversion stream: 26% of the sample
(254.35 pounds) consisted of readily recyclable
materials; and 10% (103.35 pounds) consisted
of compostable materials. Combined, these
materials represented 36% (357.7 pounds) of
the total landfill-bound waste sample, and are
readily recyclable and recoverable through SH’s
standard recycling and composting practices
currently being implemented.

Figure 3.6. SH Compostable Bags of Compost:
Composition by Weight
Other Recoverable Materials in Table 3.2 consisted of plastic to-go food containers (clamshells), flatware, rigid
plastics, plastic films, waxed cardboard, and expanded foam (polystyrene), making up 3% of the total landfill-
bound waste (fig. 3.5). These materials could be targeted more effectively by improving the collection system and
by promotion of building-specific practices to capture materials across the entire OHSU campus. Further
elaboration of this strategy is found in the “Section 5: Recommendations.”
Combining Readily Recyclable and Recoverable Materials (36%) with Other Recoverable Materials (3%), equals 39% of the
landfill-bound waste and illustrates the potential to reassess and improve the current SH diversion program.
Non-Recoverable Materials in Table 3.2 consist of poly-coated hot drink cups (0.2%), poly-coated cold drink cups
(0.1%), non-recoverable to-go food containers (i.e. soup bowls) (0.5%), restroom waste (1.2%), liquids (0.3%),
non-recyclables (true waste) (3.1%), personal protection equipment (PPE) (4.1%), hospital/patient care waste
(12.8%), mixed-use/combined materials waste (11.4%), and autoclaved biohazard (red bags) (26.8%), totaling
61% of the landfill-bound waste (fig. 3.1). Recommendations in Section 5 provide means for reducing this waste.
SH Compostable Bags Findings
Figure 3.6 shows the composition of the
compostable bags found in the landfill-bound
load and which were possibly deposited in the
landfill-bound compactor in error. The bags
were filled with compost (food scraps,
compostable service ware and fibers) and were
sorted and categorized separately to determine
contaminants. Figure 3.6 displays the 32.3
pounds of sorted materials in these bags.
Recyclable paper and aseptics (i.e. milk
cartons) (2.4%) and plastic bottles (0.2%) made
up almost 3% of the materials in the bags;
non-recyclable poly-coated to-go food
containers (0.5%), plastic to-go food
containers (clamshells) (0.7%), flatware (1.6%),
and true waste (1.3%) made up over 4% of the

Figure 3.7. SH Readily Recyclable and Recoverable
Figure 3.8. SH Other Recoverable Materials
materials: and compost made up just over 93% of the materials in the bags. The relatively low amount of
contaminants in the bags of compost is encouraging and could indicate only a slight need for improved signage,
but the targeted improvements in directing bags intended for compost to the external compost collection
container is a highly recommended priority as this represents wasted resource.
SH Detailed View of Two
Categories
Readily Recyclable and Recoverable Materials and
Other Recoverable Materials are broken down
further in Figures 3.7 and 3.8 respectively to
provide a means for assessing which materials in
each category can be addressed to have the
greatest impact on reducing landfill-bound
waste.
Of the Readily Recoverable Materials in the landfill-
bound waste stream (fig. 3.7), compostable food
and fibers, mixed paper, and cardboard provide
SH the largest opportunities to improve current
landfill-bound waste recovery practices.
Of the Other Recoverable Materials in the landfill-
bound waste stream (fig. 3.8) lab rigid plastics,
plastic film, and e-waste provide the largest
opportunity to improve current landfill-bound
waste recovery practices.

Figure 3.9. SH To-Go Drink Cups (Hot & Cold) and To-Go Food
Containers as Combined Categories
SH Combined To-Go Categories
Figure 3.9 presents the generalized material composition of the entire landfill-bound waste load sample with a
specific break-out of the combined “To-Go Food Containers” and “To-Go Drink Cups (Hot and Cold)” found
in the SH landfill-bound waste load. It should be noted that each of the seven types of food containers and drink
cups belong to the categories of Compostables, Other Recoverables, and Non-Recoverables (see Table 3.2)
elsewhere in this report; for this reason these categories are affected in their percentages in Figure 3.9 versus
Figure 3.5.
The three material categories that are
grouped as To-Go Food Containers
include:
(1) Compostable Plates & Fiber To-
Go Food Containers
(2) Plastic To-Go Food Containers
(Clamshells)
(3) Non-Recoverable To-Go Food
Containers (Soup Bowls)
The four material categories that are
grouped together as To-Go Drink
Cups include:
(1) Compostable Cold Drink Cups
(2) Compostable Hot Drink Cups
(3) Poly-coated Hot Drink Cups
(4) Poly-coated Cold Drink Cups
Together, the To-Go Food Containers and the To-Go Drink Cups total 25.44 pounds, 2% of the entire waste
sample, exhibiting potential for reduction at the SH. This potential is more substantial when the materials are
considered in terms of volume, since their percentage as a volume component would be considerably higher.

Figure 4.1. Compostables
Figure 4.2. Recyclable Paper
Section 4: Observations
BRB Observations
In addition to the quantitative data from the waste sort, the
following qualitative observations were made:
1. A noticeable amount of compostable materials appearing
to originate from employee lunches was observed in the
waste stream (fig. 4.1).
2. Desk-side garbage bags containing considerable amounts
of recyclable paper suggest a need for targeted
improvement to specific areas in need (fig. 4.2).
3. A substantial amount of compostable food containers,
plates, and some flatware were in the landfill-bound waste
load, even though there is compost collection available at
OHSU; indicates an area for improvement (fig. 4.3).
4. Animal project related materials, such as animal bedding,
food bags, and plastic housing boxes were noted (fig. 4.4).
5. Multiple plastic bags filled with eggs were found in the
load (fig. 4.5).
6. Testing materials such as plastic pipettes, plates, and tubes
were prevalent in the load (fig. 4.6).
7. Recyclable clean plastic film packaging from brand-new
testing materials was noticed in the load (fig. 4.7).
8. Flattened loose cardboard that appeared to be intended for
the recycling container was found throughout the load and
represents lost revenue (fig. 4.8).
9. Large quantities of disposable drink cups were found in
the load, exhibiting potential for reduction efforts (fig. 4.9).
10. Disposable plastic clamshell food containers were
throughout the load (fig. 4.10).
11. A number of bags containing only PPE were observed (fig.
4.11).

Figure 4.3. Compostables Figure 4.4. Animal Project
Related Materials
Figure 4.5. Eggs
Figure 4.6. Testing Materials
(Other Lab Plastic)
Figure 4.7. Clean Plastic
Packaging
Figure 4.8. Cardboard
Figure 4.9. Disposable Drink
Cups (Hot & Cold)
Figure 4.10. Clamshells Figure 4.11. PPE

Figure 4.12. Cardboard in the
Landfill-bound Waste Stream
Figure 4.13. Waxed Cardboard
SH Observations
1. An abundance of flattened loose non-waxed cardboard that
appeared to be intended for the recycling container was found
in the sample (fig. 4.12), totaling 213.97 pounds and
representing 21.7% of sorted material (see Table 3.2). Over the
last six months cardboard has been priced at $90-$130/ton on
the secondary commodities markets according to the Oregon
Board Markets (OBM). This would mean a potential revenue
stream of $674.1-$973.7/week for SH if this cardboard were to
be directed to the recycling. The cardboard consisted of both
non-waxed food and produce boxes in addition to non-waxed
boxes from hospital equipment/items.
2. Waxed cardboard was also prevalent in the load and measured
separately from non-waxed cardboard (fig. 4.13).
3. Autoclaved Biohazards (red bags) numbered 13 in the load and
can weigh over 200 pounds each (fig. 4.14).
4. Bags appearing to originate from staff lunch/break rooms
contained recyclables, compostables, and non-compostables
many of which could have been diverted. Recyclables consisted
of aluminum cans, plastic yogurt tubs, and mixed papers (fig.
4.15). Compostable items consisted of coffee grounds,
compostable service ware, compostable fiber plates and
napkins, and food scraps (fig. 4.16). Non-compostable items
consisted of mini coffee creamer packages, plastic utensils, and
chip bags (fig. 4.17).
5. Bags appearing to originate from post-consumer cafeteria areas,
contained items that could also be diverted or reduced in use,
namely food packaging, food scraps, hot drink cups,
compostable fiber plates and napkins, aseptics, and Starbucks
plastic cold drink cups (fig. 4.18).
6. Hospital/Patient Care bags consisted of items such as bed
pans, PPE, patient tubes, baby bottles, syringes, disposable

drapes/sheets, equipment packaging, and recyclable paper catheter packages (figs. 4.19 & 4.20).
7. Considerable amounts of recyclable paper suggest a need for targeted improvement for staff (fig. 4.21).
8. Compostable Bags filled with compostable service ware, fibers, and food scraps were discovered in the
landfill-bound load (fig. 4.22).
Figure 4.14. Autoclaved Biohazards Figure 4.15. Recyclables in Break
Room or Unit/Floor Bag
Figure 4.16. Compostables with Non-
Compostable Flatware
Figure 4.17. K-cups & Creamers with
Compostable Stirrers & Napkins
Figure 4.18. Cafeteria or Public Area
Bag
Figure 4.19. Hospital/Patient Care Bags
Figure 4.20. Catheter Packages Figure 4.21. Mixed Paper Figure 4.22. Bags of Compost

Figure 5.1. Durable Container Options
Section 5: Recommendations
The findings from this waste sort suggest opportunities for substantial improvement in diverting and minimizing
landfill-bound waste. After analysis of the data, CES recommends the following:
1. Encourage the use of durables for food and drinks. Disposable and compostable drink cups and to-go food
containers comprised 5% of the waste stream for BRB (fig. 3.4) and 2% for SH (fig. 3.9):
 Incentivize bringing one’s own reusable cup to
coffee vending locations on campus, which can
be implemented by a variety of mechanisms,
such as raffle-style tickets that lead up to a prize
or gift certificate, a direct discount given at the
time of purchase, and/or floors/departments
compete and win prizes on a quarterly basis.
 Stage a “mug drive” and give out OHSU mugs
to encourage use of durables, while providing
information on the benefits and impacts of
going durable as opposed to single use (fig.
6.30).
 Encourage bringing one’s own durable lunch
containers (fig. 5.1) and explore phasing out pre-
packaged foods from food vending areas on
campus.
 Consider partnering with Go Box
(http://www.goboxpdx.com/) to provide
employees on campus with the option of taking
their lunch to go in a durable container that can
be dropped into a collection box on campus for washing; and/or consider developing a similar option
utilizing a collection system and durable/reusable containers picked up and washed on campus (fig. 5.1).
 Ensure that cafeterias use durable dishes and silverware, while break rooms are stocked with durable
dishes, and promote scenarios on “how to stock your break room” to give ideas on what works.

2. Develop a blog under Sustainable Operations with information on waste reduction strategies, waste
reduction benefits for employees, new campaigns, campus or building waste diversion rates, how to recycle
“Other Recyclables,” FAQ on standard recycling, compost collection basics, how to participate in
composting and fun facts and links:
 Feature a link to get set up with Go Box or other partnering programs such as the durable coffee mug
incentive program.
 Include information about materials that can and cannot be placed in recycling station containers, the
locations of each recycling station, and the same for compost collection.
 Information on specific buildings’ improvements in waste reduction and diversion since initiating certain
programs as well as accomplishments in other areas such as GHG reductions.
 Feature info on the Office Reuse Center in order to collect more lightly used office supplies and other
acceptable materials. If the reuse center finds that they are overwhelmed with supplies, SCRAP, a
Portland non-profit, has a “Fill Minds not Landfills” program for lightly used office equipment
http://scrappdx.org/programs/fill-minds-not-landfills/.
 Develop and promote a campaign of OHSU sustainability efforts and goals.
3. Expand the compost collection systems to more areas by providing targeted/strategic outreach and
specialized systems that include janitorial pick up of the compost buckets. Compostable materials
constituted 17% for BRB (fig. 3.1) and 10% for SH (fig. 3.5) of the sample waste load by weight.
 To avoid contamination of post-consumer compost, consider focusing on food scraps-only collection for
OHSU’s compost systems (fibers such as napkins are okay to include).
 Provide periodic recycling and food waste diversion education and in-service training to custodial staff,
all Room Service Attendants, and to current and new employees that handle food scraps or compost.
This will help move towards a contaminant-free compost stream.
 Provide outreach to floors that have not yet elected to host a compost collection system framed under
OHSU’s goals toward sustainability.
 Distribute compost collection bins with an educational poster and signage and a brief training to floors
newly participating in composting (fig. 5.2).
 Make compost retrieval and disposal part of janitorial responsibilities, to encourage participation on
floors with staffing concerns and floors that do not participate due to this barrier.
 Apply “Compost Only” stickers on all post-consumer compost collection point of disposal holes for a
last, pre-disposal effort to avoid contamination in the compost stream.

Figure 5.2. Compost Education Poster
above a compost collection container
 Explain the compost program/system on the OHSU blog and website, at locations of food and drink
purchases, in the cafeteria, in employee break rooms, to all room service attendants, and janitorial staff.
 Make a link available where compost posters can be obtained and/or printed off; for more information
and free resources, visit the Portland Composts! program at
http://www.portlandonline.com/bps/index.cfm?c=41682
 If compostable service ware remains part of
OHSU’s compost system, consider the following:
o Partnering with or encouraging all coffee
vendors on campus to only use compostable
cups (ASTM, BPI, and/or Cedar Grove
approved brands only).
o Include compostable service ware guidelines
on food service contracts to phase out use
of non-compostable food service ware items
on campus (fig. 6.15), and indicate that only
ASTM tested and BPI certified compostable
products are to be used.
o Developing an outreach and education
campaign targeting compost contaminants
(non-compostables). Of the 32.30 pounds of
compostable bags of compost in SH’s
landfill-bound waste, 6.7% were
contaminants (i.e. paper and aseptics, plastic
bottles, plastic to-go food containers,
flatware, true waste such as chip bags, and
poly-coated to-go food containers such as
soup bowls (fig. 3.6).
o Provide posters and signage about
compostable and recyclable materials in
break rooms, kitchens, and central collection
areas. Ensure that consistent signage and
messaging accompanies all areas of compost collection (fig. 4.2).

4. Continue to improve reduction in use and recycling of materials such as cardboard, mixed paper, plastic
bottles and tubs, metal containers, and glass bottles and jars (see section 6: Waste Sort Photos for examples).
Readily Recyclable and Recoverable materials comprised 14% of the total sampled waste for BRB (fig. 3.1)
and 26% for SH (fig. 3.5).
 Target cardboard for reaching its recycling destination. Cardboard made up 2.9% of the landfill-bound
waste stream for BRB (Table 3.1) and a surprising 21.7% for SH (Table 3.2).
o Work with each department to clarify which container is for cardboard.
o Post large pictographic signage on the cardboard compactor that can be seen from a distance.
o Consider posting signage in multiple languages on each side of the container so that all approach
directions are covered.
 Target paper for reduction in use, recycled content purchasing, and increased recycling. Mixed paper
contributed to 8.4% of the landfill-bound waste sample for BRB (Table 3.1) and 3.5% for SH (Table 3.2)
o Consider a purchasing mandate for minimum 30% post-consumer content.
o Ensure that each employee has access to desk-side recycling bins to further encourage recycling
of paper and other readily recyclable items (figs. 6.1, 6.18, & 6.19).
 Promote recycling at all nurses’ stations and central stations to ensure campus-wide access to standard
recycling collection.
5. The combined category of Other Recoverables accounted for 12% of the landfill-bound waste for BRB (fig.
3.1) and 3% for SH (fig. 3.5). To reduce the presence of these materials in the landfill-stream, CES suggests
the following:
 Promote and expand the current plastics collection system, and increase campus educational outreach for
collection of rigid plastics, lab plastics, clean plastic film, and e-waste. Offer a more user-friendly system
across the entire OHSU campus by providing noticeable drop-off sites; develop online, easily accessible
resources for potential users. Overall, work with relevant custodial and purchasing staff to reduce
OHSU’s use and indirect purchase of expanded/packaging foam (Figure 6.9 & 6.19). Styrofoam is
difficult and expensive to recycle, is a material that should be avoided for environmental purposes, and it
takes up a large amount of volume in the landfill-bound waste.
 Establish and promote an annual e-waste recycling event to prevent employees from throwing away
electronic materials and work with OHSU Logistics to track e-waste donated annually to SRUT.
 Promote building-specific practices across campus for capturing office materials, i.e. each
unit/department has a collection area that is transported to the Office Reuse Center on a periodic basis.

Ensure visits to the Office Reuse Center on campus tours and for new staff or new student orientations.
Explore further promotion of the Office Reuse Center.
 Encourage contractors and facilities to provide data on building maintenance materials recycled and
those landfilled for a comprehensive view of materials management at OHSU (fig. 6.13).
6. Restroom Waste comprised 8.5% of the waste stream for BRB (Table 3.1) and 1.2% for SH (Table 3.2).
 Explore the option of providing high-efficiency hand dryers to supplement paper towel usage in
restrooms. Restroom waste makes up approximately 10% of the campus’ landfill-bound waste stream.
 Post stickers or specially designed permanent signage on paper towel dispensers that read “Please
Conserve” or “These Come from Trees,” which cost $19 for a pack of 100 stickers, can save up to 100
pounds of paper every year and reduce the amount of janitorial effort required for restrooms. More
information on how to purchase the stickers can be found at http://thesecomefromtrees.blogspot.com/.
Waste Reduction:
In addition to the above recommendations, CES suggests the following strategies for overall material waste
reduction:
 Create a Green Scene
An interactive dashboard that allows visitors to see real-time water and energy use for the building, and
features each building’s waste and diversion data to promote sustainability awareness and resource
stewardship.
 Hydration Stations
Establish and promote Hydration Stations for refilling reusable water bottles in order to reduce plastic
waste from disposable water bottles and wasted water from disposable water bottles (see Portland State
University’s successful project for more information: http://www.pdx.edu/healthycampus/campus-
hydration-stations and http://www.portlandoregon.gov/water/article/371719 .
 At the time of inception of OHSU Hydration Stations ( or at any time), offer a discount to all OHSU
employees on the stainless steel water bottles for sale in the OHSU Bookstore to encourage use of the
stations.

Section 6: Photos of Material Categories and Observations
BRB Photos
Figure 6.1. Mixed Paper Figure 6.2. Metals Figure 6.3. Plastic Bottles & Tubs
Figure 6.4. Sorted Glass Figure 6.5. Compostable Drink
Cups
Figure 6.6. Lab Rigid Plastics
Figure 6.7. Plastic Film Figure 6.8. Other Lab Plastic

Figure 6.9. Expanded/Packaging
Foam
Figure 6.10. E-Waste, CDs, & 3.5”
Floppy Disks
Figure 6.11. Restroom Waste
Figure 6.12. Super Sacks Figure 6.13. Ceiling Tiles Figure 6.14. Aquarium Rocks
Figure 6.15. Non-compostable Drink
Cup
Figure 6.16. Unused Garbage Bags Figure 6.17. Various Lab Waste

SH Photos
Figure 6.18. Mixed Paper Figure 6.19. Paper in Bags Figure 6.20. Cardboard
Figure 6.21. Metals Figure 6.22. Plastic Bottles & Tubs Figure 6.23. Compostable Food &
Fibers
Figure 6.24. Compostable Service
Ware
Figure 6.25. Compostable Drink
Cups (Hot & Cold)
Figure 6.26. Clamshells & Rigid
Plastics

Figure 6.27. Plastic Flatware Figure 6.28. Plastic Films Figure 6.29. Expanded Polystyrene
Figure 6.30. Poly-coated & Plastic
Drink Cups (Hot & Cold)
Figure 6.30. Restroom Waste Figure 6.32. True Waste
Figure 6.33. PPE Figure 6.34. Mixed-
Use/Combined Materials Waste
Figure 6.35. Underutilized Bags

OHSU 2.6.15 Final

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to OHSU 2.6.15 Final

Similar to OHSU 2.6.15 Final (20)

OHSU 2.6.15 Final