2013 Greenhouse Gas Audit 1 Results Report m · Following the results of a preliminary student...

McGill Food and Dining Services

2013 Greenhouse Gas Audit m Results Report

1



2

The Research Team

Mathieu Laperle, Director of McGill Food and Dining Services and Project Creator Jerome Conraud, McGill Energy Manager and Project Creator Lou-Anne Daoust-Filiatrault, Project Coordinator and Supervisor Tatjana Trebic, Project Supervisor Meghan Bajzath, Waste Auditor Erica Anderson, Water Auditor Hallie Thornburrow, Energy Auditor Mitch Seider, Energy Auditor Noah Margo-Dermer, Food Auditor Thank you to all students and staff that took the time to obtain, analyse, and implement the results of each audit and worked to make this project successful.



3

Acknowledgements

This project would not have reached its full potential without the assistance and contributions of dedicated staff, students, faculty, and community members. We would like to highlight the help of the following people in supporting and facilitating our research:

Oliver De Volpi Executive Chief, Operations, and Sustainability Jancide Fillion Head Chief of Royal Victoria College Cafeteria Rene Picarella Head Chief of Bishop Mountain Hall Cafeteria Daniel Poulin Head Chief of New Residence Hall Cafeteria Pat Gibbon Head Chief of Carrefour Sherbrooke Residence Cafeteria Lilith Wyatt Sustainability Projects Fund Administrator David Gray-Donald SSMU Sustainability Coordinator William Miller Office of Sustainability Intern Amelia Brinkerhoff MFDS Student Sustainability Coordinator David Balcombe Associate Director of Residences Buildings & Facilities Francisco Tabicas Food Services Units Administrator Luc Roy Director of Operations Suzana Bubic Dining Hall Operations Manager Robert Patterson Residences Building & Facilities Plumber Claude Flipo McGill Buildings Jean-Philippe Denis Carrefour Building Services Paul Meldrum Macdonald Campus Farm Director Michael Bleho Horticulture Technician, McGill Macdonald Campus Horticulture Research Centre Pierre-Luc Poirier Abattoir & Boucherie Poirier Matthew Adams Waste Auditor for WM Ted Dhillon EnviroBYTES inc. Sarah Archibald Campus Food Systems Coordinator at Sierra Youth Coalition Philip Servio McGill Chemical Engineering Professor Sylvain Coulombe McGill Chemical Engineering Department Chair Sumesh Kapoor M. Sc. Integrated Water Resources Management Josh Walker Water Audit Assistant David Sun Waste Audit Assistant



4

Table of Contents 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5

2. INTRODUCTION 6

3. FOOD 7 3.1 B ACKGROUND 7 3.2 T HE M ACDONALD C AMPUS C ATTLE C OMPLEX 9 3.3 C ONCLUSION 15

4. WASTE 16 4.1 M ETHODOLOGY 16 4.1.1 CALCULATIONS 19 4.2 R ESULTS 21 4.2.1 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 31 4.3 L IMITATIONS OF THE S TUDY 32

5. WATER 33 5.1 M ETHODOLOGY 33 5.1.1 CALCULATIONS 35 5.2 R ESULTS 38 5.2.1 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 43 5.3 L IMITATIONS OF THE S TUDY 44

6. ENERGY 45 6.1 M ETHODOLOGY 45 6.1.1 CALCULATIONS 46 6.2 R ESULTS 50 6.2.1 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS 56 6.3 L IMITATIONS OF THE S TUDY 57



5

1. Executive Summary

Scope 1 & 2 1. Direct GHG emissions from sources that are owned or controlled by MFDS. 2. Indirect GHG emissions resulting from the generation of electricity, heat, or steam

generated off-site but purchased by MFDS.

Component GHG Emissions tonnes of CO2-eq/ yr

Carrefour Sherbrooke 13.02

Royal Victoria College 103.64

Bishop Mountain Hall 23.15 Energy use

New Residence Hall 69.77

Scope 3 3. Indirect GHG emissions from sources not owned or directly controlled by he

reporting agency but related to MFDS’ activities.1

Component GHG Emissions tonnes of CO2-eq/ yr

Reduction Potential tonnes of CO2-eq/ yr

Carrefour Sherbrooke 1.94 10.27

Royal Victoria College 11.04 13.78

Bishop Mountain Hall 22.73 22.54 Solid waste

New Residence Hall -27.52 30.68

Carrefour Sherbrooke 3.04

Royal Victoria College 13.47

Bishop Mountain Hall 22.85 Water use

New Residence Hall 18.89

Macdonald Cattle Complex X Food

Abattoir Poirier X

1 "EPA's Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions." U.S. Environmental protection Agency, http://www.epa.gov/oaintrnt/ghg/.



6

2. Introduction Following the results of a preliminary student survey of energy consuming cafeteria equipment2,

the Director of McGill Food and Dining Services (MFDS) and the university’s Energy Manager

proposed to broaden existing research on dining hall sustainability with a comprehensive

greenhouse gas (GHG) audit. Financed by the Sustainability Projects Fund (SPF), the project

creators enlisted the support of the McGill Energy Project (MEP) and the McGill Food Systems

Project (MFSP) to recruit ideal candidates to take on the audit. As a result, five student auditors

and two projects supervisors from varying faculties were hired to further assess the carbon

footprint of four primary residence food service locations and develop the strategies to reduce it.

The goals of this study are to establish:

• A baseline of MFDS’ current GHG emissions • Detailed recommendations to reduce MFDS’ current GHG emissions. • A comprehensive action plan to ensure continuity and cyclic assessment.

The audit is divided into four components: solid waste, energy, water, and food. Of these

components, the first three focus on quantifying GHG emissions within the food service

locations while the food portion concentrates on mapping emissions associated with the growing

and transport of beef from the university’s Macdonald campus to the downtown residences.

Throughout the winter 2013 term, the student auditors collected detailed inventories of energy

use, water use, and solid waste in MFDS’ New Residence Hall (NRH), Royal Victoria College

(RVC), Bishop Mountain Hall (BMH), and Carrefour Sherbrooke (CS) dining halls, which were

then converted in carbon emissions over the following summer. Recommendations from each

stream have been compiled into a complementary Greenhouse Gas Action Plan to ensure that the

results of this report are institutionalized within McGill Food and Dining Services.3

2 Cantor, Hadziosmanovic, Kim, Marsh, Secules, Wright, & Carol Zastavniouk. "A Technical and Behavioral Energy Efficiency Assessment of McGill Cafeteria Operations at Bishop Mountain Hall and Royal Victoria College." Montreal, Quebec: McGill University, 2012. 3 Daoust-Filiatrault, Lou-Anne and Mathieu Laperle. "McGill Food and Dining Services 2013 Greenhouse Gas Audit: Action Plan." Montreal, Quebec: McGill University, 2013.



7

3. Food Food is one of the greatest contributors to greenhouse gas emissions. By some estimates, the

agricultural system is responsible for 30% of global emissions and contributes to vast

deforestation, uses significant quantities of freshwater, and has led to the pollution of several

major bodies of water.4 As a result, food is inherently tied to the most important economic,

ecological, health, and social justice issues of today’s world. Of the myriad of

environmental problems, food sustainability stands out as having the widest, most

tangible appeal to, and impact upon individuals and the environment.5

This section of the report examines the complexity of the food system and estimates its

carbon footprint by analyzing a small portion of McGill Food and Dining Services’

procurement practices. That is, by focusing on beef purchased from the Macdonald Campus

cattle complex for the university’s downtown residences this section outlines the many steps that

occur within the supply chain before food arrives to MFDS and their subcontractor, Aramark.

3.1 Background As one might assume, any food that comes to McGill’s residence cafeterias starts at a farm.

These farms are dedicated to either the growth of livestock and their by-products (i.e. milk and

eggs) and/or the cultivation of fruits and vegetables. Each farm varies in location, size and shape

of their output, and their degree of specificity for the food they produce. Once food is grown,

farmers will usually employ the services of a food broker to assist them with their business.

These brokers function as networkers that help match farmers and markets to each other. Their

presence greatly reduces the business burden on farmers who will not often have the time or

expertise to maintain the international contacts necessary for their business’ success.6

4 Ibid. 5 Pelland, Jessica. "Improving Mcgill's Food Supply Chain: A Two-Part Case Study of Mcgill's Food Service Sustainability and the Poultry Industry from Which It Orders." Montreal, Quebec: McGill University 2010. 6 Glencross, Jonathan. "Food Is Important." The McGill Food Systems Project, 2011. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zudBrepmGR8.



8

Once food is purchased from a farmer, the brokers then sell it to a supplier or distributor. These

suppliers also function as middlemen within the industrial food chain. Generally, they maintain a

vast network of brokers, which allows them to provide their customers with food products

regardless of seasonality or weather variations. This allows a large food service provider like

MFDS or Aramark to set their menus in advance without having to worry about an ingredient’s

sudden lack of availability or increase in price.7

In contrast to the many benefits offered by the food system, its complexity makes tracing the

origin of food extremely difficult. While the system described above is a simplified overview of

McGill’s food procurement process, the loss of information that occurs across these multiple

steps does not allow the food system’s carbon emissions to be accurately quantified within the

timeframe of this audit. Even if the information was collected, MFDS receives hundreds of food

7 Ibid.

Figure 1: Simplified Supply Chain



9

supplier shipments each year that would require the verification of source information on every

shipping slip and to track the emissions from hundreds of farms located all over the world.

As a result, this component of the GHG audit focuses on the production of one specific food item

from one specific farm rather than attempting to track the emission potentials of every delivery

to residence cafeterias. By focusing on a single food, the results of this section give a general

overview of the beef supply chain and its associated greenhouse gas emissions.

3.2 The Macdonald Campus Cattle Complex The production of beef at McGill’s Macdonald Campus Cattle Complex is the focus of this food

audit. The vast quantities of energy and water necessary for the cattle’s lifecycle and the

immense quantities of waste generated throughout the production process, ranks beef as one of

the most GHG intensive foods consumed at McGill. This audit provides an introduction to the

three following components chosen for the GHG audit of residence cafeterias. It should be noted,

however, that the Macdonald cattle complex and associated slaughterhouse within this beef

supply chain are not representative of the industry norm. Generally speaking, beef farming

occurs on a much larger scale than the approximately 160 cows housed at the complex and the

40 cows processed at the slaughterhouse per week recorded in this audit.8 In addition, its

affiliation with the university allowed for information to be directly collected from the farm

without contacting the supplier and/or broker, which is rarely the case.

As it stands, McGill purchased $9512.03 of beef from the Macdonald Campus Farm for the

2011-2012 school year. This consisted of 9.5% of the $99,893.63 of beef purchased for that

calendar year, or approximately 10-12 cows worth of beef.9 The cattle complex slaughters such a

small portion of the 160 cows generally housed within it because it primarily functions as a dairy

farm. Nonetheless, when cows stop producing milk they are then slaughtered for their meat and

sold to McGill Food and Dining Services. It should be noted that this beef is of generally lower

quality and can only be consumed as ground beef.10

8 Pierre-Luc Poirier (Abattoir & Boucherie Poirier) interviewed by Noah Margo-Dermer, May 2013. 9 Paul Meldrum (Macdonald Campus Farm Director) interviewed by Noah Margo-Dermer, May 2013. 10 Oliver de Volpi (MFDS Executive Chef) interviewed by Noah Margo-Dermer, May 2013.



10

While the initial audit planned to quantify emissions from the cattle complex attributable to

McGill’s Food and Dining Services, such calculations were included in this audit. Future

research in this area, however, will include the emissions directly associated with the 10-12 cows

purchased every year by tracking the entire food and water consumption for each individual cow.

That is, from the time of birth, future student auditors, will, under the supervision of MFDS

quantify the methane emissions associated with the waste products of each cow through their

lifetime (belching, flatulence, and manure), as well as calculate the full lifecycle consumption of

each cow for every other component of the beef supply chain that contributes to GHG emissions.

Instead of quantifying emissions, this audit has produced a web of potential emissions associated

with the beef supply chain between the Macdonald Campus Cattle Complex and MFDS to gain a

better understanding of the food system’s contribution to global greenhouse gases and to lay the

preliminary groundwork for future research with MFDS.

This web was divided into five sections: water, waste, transportation, inputs, and facility energy

requirements. Of the five, numerical data was only included for the water and energy component.

Figure 2 below depicts the potential GHG emissions attributable to each specified stream and

identifies, in red, the crossover of certain factors into multiple streams. That is, equipment,

inputs, or practices that must be accounted for in more than one of the identified categories. It

must be noted that the size of each chart section does not represent the stream’s overall GHG

contribution.

The initial emission web can be found at:

http://www.mindmeister.com/314619930/macdonal-cattle-complex-map



11

Figure 2: Potential GHG Emissions for the Macdonald Cattle Complex



12

Water

Sumesh Kapoor, the 2013 Water Resource Management Intern, provided all quantified results

for water use at the Macdonald Cattle Complex. A more in-depth discussion of all water use at

Macdonald Campus can be found in his complementary report.11 Based on this previous report,

the water component for the cattle complex audit was divided into two sections: one for the cattle

complex and one for the slaughterhouse. Within the complex, water was used for cattle drinking

water, cattle food preparation, and cleaning of the complex and its associated machinery. It must

be noted that the quantity of water for drinking and food preparation differed depending on the

cow’s lifecycle stage. For instance, the 75 milking cows (46.9% of the total cow population)

drank 80.2% of all the consumed drinking water and the amount of water used for feed

preparation also differed depending on whether the cow was an adult or a heifer (a young cow

who has not yet had their first calf). Within the cattle complex, water was used for cleaning the

milking machinery, the floors throughout the cattle complex, and the workers’ clothing. In total,

5,086,850 litres of water were used on a yearly basis at the cattle complex.

At the Abattoir Poirier slaughterhouse, Pierre-Luc Poirier, one of the owners, estimated that

about 17 to 18 m3 of water are used each week. Basing his approximations on a previous water

audit of the complex, he stated that the slaughterhouse uses approximately 12 m3 of water on

Mondays, their primary slaughtering day, and then approximately 1 m3 for each of the following

five days of the week for which they are open. This water was used for cleaning the

slaughterhouse floor, various slaughterhouse machines, workers’ clothes and knives, and the

animal body parts after they were slaughtered. With the assumption that the slaughterhouse

would be open 52 weeks per year, approximately 884,000 and 936,000 litres of water is used on

a yearly basis.12

11 Kapoor, Sumesh. "Water Resource Management: Macdonald Campus Baseline Study and Conservation Initiatives ". Montreal, Quebec: McGill University, 2013. 12 Pierre-Luc Poirier (Abattoir & Boucherie Poirier) interviewed by Noah Margo-Dermer, May 2013.



13

Waste

The waste component was divided into two sections: animal life-cycle, which accounted for

waste produced while the cows were alive, and post-slaughter that accounted for waste produced

after the cows were slaughtered. For the life-cycle component, the main greenhouse gas

contributor is methane emissions from cattle belching and flatulence.

Post-slaughter waste, on the other hand, consists of all the cow body parts that cannot be used as

meat. This includes stomach contents sent to composting and the remnants of the packaging used

for shipping the beef products to their respective locations. At the Abattoir Poirier, many of the

remaining cow body parts are brought to a company called Sanimax where they are processed

into various aftermarket products, including lipstick and leather.13

Transportation

The transportation component of this analysis was divided into the shipping of products

necessary for raising cattle and the moving of cattle from the complex to the slaughterhouse. For

the transportation emissions associated to product procurement, only the minerals for cow feed

from Belisle Solution & Nutrition, the soy supplements from both Belisle and Shur-Gain

companies, and the protein supplements from Purina were included. It should be noted, however,

that transportation of these input products is only a small portion of their total GHG emissions

since their manufacturing was not taken into consideration. Additional transportation emissions

include the use of machinery for planting and harvesting plants for cattle feed, the transport of

cow manure around the fields, and the tillage and ploughing of the fields.

With regards to the transport of the cattle before and after slaughter, this audit only accounted for

transportation from the cattle complex to the Abattoir Poirier slaughterhouse (approximately 36

km) and the transport of the meat from the Abattoir Poirier to MFDS locations (approximately

53 to 54 km depending on the cafeteria location).

13 Ibid.



14

Inputs

This component of the food audit was the least specific due to the vast complexity of factors

associated with fertilizer and herbicide greenhouse gas emissions. These emissions come from

the extraction of resources for the creation of these inputs, their manufacturing, transportation

through the supply chain, and their application. With respect to the growth of cattle food,

nitrogen fertilizer was used for both the cow pastures and for the growth of corn while boron

fertilizer was used to assist with alfalfa growth. Dual Gold or Dual Magnum and Banvel 2

herbicides were also used with corn growth, and Roundup herbicide was used for soybean

production. Future audits are needed to map out fertilizer and herbicide supply chains in order to

understand the GHG emissions associated with the production of their respective food products.

Facility Energy Requirements

Like the water and waste sections above, this portion of the audit analyzed both the Cattle

Complex and Abattoir Poirier. According to Pulse, McGill’s energy dashboard, the Macdonald

Cattle Complex uses approximately 763,000 kWh/yr.14 Within the cattle complex, the lights, the

milking machines, the ventilation system fans, the washing machine used for cleaning workers

clothes, the water pump for the scraper (excrement removal system), propane for heating the

staff area, and cattle feed processing account for most of the energy used in the complex. The

processing of cattle feed is further subdivided into the energy needed for silos, electric

conveyors, the electric total mix ration machine, and the gas powered feed carts. It must be

noted, however, that exact energy use for each activity listed has not been quantified since the

complex only has a meter installed for record energy usage for the building as a whole.

For the slaughterhouse, energy is needed to power the lights, the electric machine for removing

cowhide, the electric saw for cutting the cow, the fridges where beef is kept, the washing

machine that cleans workers’ clothing, the water pump for wastewater removal, and the fans for

the ventilation system. Additionally, natural gas is used to heat the slaughterhouse during the

winter months to ensure the water pipes do not freeze.

14 "McGill Energy Dashboard." Pulse Energy, 2013 (https://mcgill.pulseenergy.com/#/overview).



15

3.3 Conclusion Even in this simplified beef supply chain, there are many factors that contribute to greenhouse

gas emissions. Nonetheless, there are several benefits of purchasing beef from the Macdonald

cattle complex supply. Transportation distances can be presumed to be significantly shorter than

those associated with other beef farms, the traceability is greatly simplified, and due to the

farm’s association with McGill, specific changes to the supply chain would be easier to

accomplish after the completion of further research.

In the future, MFDS aims to support student projects that will quantitatively identify local beef

suppliers whose supply chains emit a minimal amount of greenhouse gas emissions. This

includes quantifying this section of the greenhouse gas audit into carbon emissions as well as an

exploration of emissions from other beef suppliers that McGill Food and Dining Services

purchases from. With regards to Macdonald Campus, research will be completed to further

understand emissions from the university’s supply chain including the emissions associated with

waste, energy and water use in their complex.



16

4. Waste 4.1 Methodology An effective waste audit methodology was determined after discussing each cafeteria’s waste

procedures and operations with staff members. While the methodology was slightly modified

depending on the waste management systems of each cafeteria, the general audit procedures can

be summarized in five basic steps:

Materials and Equipment

• Gloves (sharp resistant) • Closed toed boots • Long pants and sleeves and/or full body protective suits • Hang scale • 2 different coloured garbage bags • Recycling totes borrowed from Building Services

Step 1: Waste collection

• Two days before the waste audit took place; letters were printed and given to cafeteria

staff highlighting the steps they must follow (See Appendix 1.1).

• Staff was asked to collect the cafeteria’s waste over a 24-hour period (starting from when

the cafeteria opened until it closed).

• Staff was informed to use two different coloured garbage bags: one colour for post-

consumer waste (student waste) and a different colour for pre-consumer waste (kitchen

waste). Note: the waste auditors provided garbage bags to staff.

• Staff was asked to bring the waste to a designated area and place it in the recycling totes

that had signs reading “DO NOT TOUCH, FOR MFDS WASTE AUDIT.” These

recycling totes were borrowed from McGill building services.

• The next morning waste auditors collected the recycling totes and pushed them to the

cafeteria’s garbage room to start sorting through the waste.

Step 2: Waste Characterization

• Step 2a: The waste was separated into the two main categories: post-consumer and pre-

consumer based on the colour of the garbage bag. Post and pre-consumer waste were

audited separately to analyze the difference between the amount of recyclables, food



17

waste, and non-recyclable waste found in these waste streams.

• Step 2b: Post-consumer waste was audited first.

• Step 2c: One garbage bag was weighed at a time with the hang scale and its weight was

recorded on an Excel spreadsheet.

• Step 2d: The bag was opened and its contents were separated into the identified

categories: glass, cardboard, metals, plastics, food waste and non-recyclable waste.

• Step 2e: After the bag contents were sorted through, food waste and non-recyclable

waste from that bag were weighed. This allowed the auditors to determine what portion

of the total weight was made up of food waste and non-recyclable waste.

• Step 2f: In many cases the amount of recyclables retrieved from each bag was negligible

in terms of weight. In some cases, there was a significant amount in volume but the

individual recyclable items had negligible weights. Therefore, the recyclables retrieved

from each bag were placed together and weighed at the end after all bags in the post-

consumer category were sorted through. As a result, the total amount of recyclables

within post-consumer waste was determined rather than the weight of recyclables in each

bag. Steps 2c to 2f were repeated for each bag.

• Step 2g: Once all the post-consumer bags were sorted through, the different recycling

categories were weighed with the hang scale: all plastics were weighed together, all

metals, all cardboard, and then all glass. In the end, there was a weight for each bag and a

weight for food waste and non-recyclable waste, as well as, a total weight of recyclables

retrieved from post-consumer waste.

• Step 2h: The same process (steps 2c to 2h) was used for pre-consumer waste.

• Step 2i: Once all bags were sorted through, food waste and non-recyclable waste were

put in the dumpster and the collected recyclables were put in recycling bins.

Step 3: Recycling Measurement

• In addition to the recyclables retrieved from post and pre-consumer waste, recyclables

that would normally go into recycling bins were available to measure on the day of the

waste audit.

• To measure the total weight of their recyclables, each recycling bag was weighed



18

separately. Then all bag weights were added together to determine the total weight of all

recyclables in the recycling stream.

• Each bag was then sorted through and each recycling category was removed: metals,

plastics, paper, and glass.

• Each of these categories was weighed with the hang scale to determine the total weight of

each recycling category: plastics, glass, metals and paper.

Step 4: Compost Measurement

• Compost was not always available to measure during the waste audit since staff in each

cafeteria did not collect and place it aside.

• If compost was not collected in the cafeteria the waste auditors spoke to staff members

that collect the compost on a daily basis to provide an average weight of compost over a

24-hour period.

• If compost was collected, the composting bags were often too heavy to measure with the

hang scale. As a result, one fifth of the composting contents were removed from the bag

and weighed. This recorded weight was then multiplied by 5 to determine the weight of

one composting bag and was then multiplied by the total number of composting bags to

calculate the total weight of all composting over a 24-hour period.

Step 5: Cardboard Box Measurement

• The waste auditors did not always obtain the daily number of cardboard boxes the

cafeterias recycled on the day of the waste audit. During the audit, cardboard was either

not provided by staff or collected by the waste management company the day before.

• During the BMH audit, however, the auditors found an average weight of a cardboard

box (approximately 1.58 kg).

• Where boxes were not available, waste auditors asked staff members the average number

of cardboard boxes the cafeteria uses in a day. Then, the number of boxes was multiplied

by the average weight (1.58 kg) to determine the total weight of cardboard that the

cafeteria uses in 24 hours.



19

4.1.1 Calculations

All Greenhouse gas (GHG) calculations are derived from pre-determined emission factors from

the US Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Waste Reduction Model (WARM).15 Since

Environment Canada has not developed its own detailed waste emission factors, it was assumed

that data provided by the EPA was exchangeable with Canada’s waste emissions due to country

proximity and waste management strategies. It must be noted that the emission factors below are

based off an earlier GHG audit of McGill’s Thomson House and are highly dependent on each

stream’s final destination once it leaves the cafeteria.16

Table 1: Waste Emission Factors

Waste Stream Status Emission Factor (tCO2-e/ton waste)

Biological Treatment- Composting -0.20 Food Waste Landfill, Nat'l Average (US) 0.71 Recycling -5.41 Mixed Metals Landfill, Nat'l Average (US) 0.04 Recycling -0.28 Glass Landfill, Nat'l Average (US) 0.04 Recycling -1.53 Mixed Plastics Landfill, Nat'l Average (US) 0.04 Recycling -3.51 Mixed Paper Board Landfill, Nat'l Average (US) 0.32 Recycling -3.10 Corrugated Box Landfill, Nat'l Average (US) 0.38 Recycling -0.2 Mixed Garbage Landfill, Nat'l Average (US) 0.11

Using the emission factors in Table 1 above, the carbon equivalent of each kilogram of weight by

waste stream was converted into “net emissions,” to represent waste’s current carbon footprint.

In addition, the “potential GHG reduction” results indicate the amount of emissions that could be

reduced if each collected stream had been recycled or composted rather than sent to landfills.

15 Ibid. 16 Bourdages, Line. "Sustainable Thomson House: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Audit." Montreal, Quebec: McGill University, 2013.



20

Net Emissions Calculation:

(quantity sent to landfill in tons of waste) × (emission factor for landfill stream + emission factor for recycling stream) + (quantity sent to recycling in tons of waste) × emission factor for where the quantity of waste is actually going

Example: Net Emission of food waste (sent to landfill) in CS

Collected: 25kg food waste to composting 38kg food waste to landfill

Emission Factors: Compost (biological treatment): -0.2 tCO2-e/ton waste Landfill (nat’l average, US): 0.71 tCO2-e/ton waste

Calculation: 25 × 10-3 in tons waste) × (0.71tCO2-e/ton waste + -0.2 tCO2-e/ton waste) + (38 × 10-3 tons waste) × 0.71tCO2-e/ton waste = 0.040 tCO2-e/day

Potential GHG Reduction Calculation: (quantity of waste sent to landfill in tons of waste)

× emission factor for the recycling stream Example: Potential GHG reduction of food waste (sent to landfill) in CS

Collected: 25kg food waste to composting

38kg food waste to landfill Emission Factors: Compost (biological treatment): -0.2 tCO2-e/ton waste Landfill (nat’l average, US): 0.71 tCO2-e/ton waste Calculation: (38 × 10-3 tons waste) × -0.2 tCO2-e/ton waste

= -0.008 tCO2-e/ton waste/day = Or, a reduction of 0.008 tCO2-e/ton waste/day

Once both the net emissions and the potential GHG reduction for each stream were calculated,

the results (in tons) were added together to determine the total carbon emissions for all cafeterias.

Then, these results were multiplied by 242, the approximate amount of days in 8-months

(average school year) to determine the yearly carbon emissions associated with waste in

residence cafeterias. Seasonality was not taken into consideration in this section of the report

since not all cafeterias operate at full potential during the summer and produce a negligible

quantity of waste compared to the school year.



21

4.2 Results

The four residence cafeterias generate approximately 312.08 tons of waste (including

composting and recycling) every year. According to Figure 3 below, it was initial estimated that

RVC generates the most waste at 106.63 t/yr, followed by BMH at 98.81 t/yr and NRH at 78.91

t/yr. CS, the smallest residence cafeteria, generates the least amount of waste at 27.73 t/yr.

Figure 3: Total Waste Collected

Waste in McGill’s residence dining halls can only be disposed of through recycling, compost, or

sent to a landfill. Figure 4 below outlines the initial quantity and approximate percentage of

waste sent to each category. The amount of waste intended for the landfill includes all pre-

consumer and post-consumer recyclables and food waste that were not redirected into the

appropriate category.

27.73

106.63 98.81

78.91

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Carrefour Sherbrooke Royal Victoria College

Bishop Mountain Hall New Residence Hall

Initial Total Waste Collected (t/yr)



22

Figure 4: Total Initial Waste Destinations The amount of landfill waste recorded for NRH, however does not accurately represent the

actual quantities typically generated since it serves more than the 630 students in its residence

and is comparable in size to BMH. It can be assumed, therefore, that the ratio of recyclables to

waste should be similar in NRH, if not larger. This discrepancy is because NRH was audited

during the exam period and may not have been operating at full potential. In addition, the

recyclables were not available when the audit took place since they had already been collected

when auditors arrived. Consequently, the head chef was asked to estimate how much recycling is

produced during a normal, fully operating day (96.05 kg), which accounts for the uneven

recycling to waste data.

Based on this data, Figure 5 and Figure 6 below assume that the ratio of recyclables to landfill

waste collected in NRH is identical to BMH. Since this cafeteria was audited during the exam

schedule, these figures depict the ratio of waste that should have been generated at NRH in

comparison to the actual collected waste in CS, RVC, and BMH. When assuming it is operating

at full capacity, NRH disposes of an additional 73.03 tons of “mixed waste” per year and

significantly increases the initial results. All further results include these assumptions.

17.79

42.79

58.71

47.21

3.90

15.44

11.35

23.24

6.05

48.40

28.75

8.47

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

CS

RVC

BMH

NRH

Total Inital Waste Destinations (t/yr)

Land!ll Recycling Compost



23

Figure 5: Estimated Total Waste Collected

27.73

106.63

98.81

151.94

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Carrefour Sherbrooke Royal Victoria College

Bishop Mountain Hall New Residence Hall

Estimated Total Waste Collected (t/yr)

17.79

42.79

58.71

120.23

3.90

15.44

11.35

23.24

6.05

48.40

28.75

8.47

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CS

RVC

BMH

NRH

Estimated Waste Totals for NRH (t/yr)

Land!ll Recycling Compost

Figure 6: Estimated Waste Totals for NRH



24

Due to these assumptions, Figure 5 above indicates that NRH generates the most amount of

waste at 151.94 t/yr and sends the largest quantity to the landfill at 120.23 t/yr. CS, on the other

hand, generates the least amount of waste but, according to Figure 6 sends over 60% of what it

collects to the landfill. Following NRH, RVC produced the second largest quantity of waste at

106.63 t/yr but is able to divert approximately 60% of it to recycling or composting. With

regards to compost, NRH diverts the least amount of food waste and only sends less than 10% of

to compost.

As seen in Table 2 below, the recycling, landfill, and compost sections can be further divided

into streams. Recyclables have been divided into pre and post-consumer waste intended for the

landfill and the recyclables that would normally go into recycling bins. Food waste refers to food

found within pre and post-consumer waste but does not include compost. Although composting

is made up of food waste, it was listed separately because it is not part of pre and post-consumer

waste as it was collected with the intent to go into composting bins. Mixed waste is neither food

nor recyclables but rather soiled napkins, non-recyclable coffee cups, or packaging.

According to Table 2, food waste makes up the largest recorded weight for the four cafeterias at

113.69 t/yr followed by compost at 91.67 t/yr. It must be noted that the estimated waste totals for

NRH in this table can also include food waste since the type of the predicted landfill waste could

not be determined nor classified in more specific streams than “mixed waste.” As a result, it is

assumed that food waste is still the largest stream collected.

Table 2: Total Waste Collected by Stream Recyclables in Waste Stream Recyclables in Recycling Stream

Cafeteria Food

Waste

Compost Mixed

Waste

Metals Plastics Paper Glass Metals Plastics Paper Glass Cardboard

CS 9.19 6.05 6.85 1.02 0.34 0.29 0.10 0.02 0.58 0.02 0.56 2.71

RVC 35.71 48.40 4.82 0.07 1.11 1.02 0.05 0.17 0.87 0.22 0.63 13.55

BMH 49.51 28.75 5.66 1.06 1.04 1.16 0.27 0 0.82 0.24 0.73 9.56

NRH 19.26 8.47 96.90 0.27 2.08 0.73 0.99 0.63 2.64 0.82 2.21 16.94

TOTAL 113.69 91.67 114.22 2.42 4.57 3.19 1.40 0.82 4.92 1.31 4.13 42.76

ALL CAFETERIA TOTAL COLLECTED (t/yr): 385.1 t/yr



25

In general, food items weigh more than recyclable and non-recyclable waste since the two latter

streams are usually made up of lighter materials (such as napkins or paper). In terms of volume,

however, recyclables and non-recyclable waste (mixed waste) are much more significant.

Overall, BMH generates the most food waste sent to landfills at 49.51 t/yr followed by RVC at

35.71 t/yr. It must be noted, however, that despite these measures both cafeterias nonetheless

compost the largest amount of food waste (compost category) in relation to their overall food

waste totals (compost category + food waste category).

Figure 7 further demonstrates the makeup of the different waste categories for all cafeterias

combined. According to the chart, food waste is the largest component of cafeteria waste

followed by composting, cardboard, non-recyclable waste, plastics, glass, paper and metal.

Figure 7: Total Waste Collected by Stream

113.69

114.22

91.67

42.76

5.53 9.49 3.24 4.50 Total Waste Collected by Stream (t/yr)

Food Waste Mixed Waste Composting Cardboard Glass Plastics Metals Paper



26

Of the total waste collected in all residence dining halls, corrugated boxes had the highest

diversion rate of all streams. Figure 8 below illustrates what percentage of waste streams was

diverted from the landfill to recycling and composting. For instance, 100% of collected

corrugated boxes (cardboard boxes) were recycled rather than thrown out. Although metals did

not make up a significant portion of total waste collected, only 25% percent were found in

designated recycling bins and the rest were collected from waste bins intended for the landfill.

Furthermore, only 45% of total food waste was diverted to composting. As a result it is inferred

that the current composting system is functioning at half-capacity since the remaining 55% of

compostable food waste—mostly post-consumer—is not separated from general landfill waste.

Figure 8: Diversion Rates

Once the waste was collected and weighted, the results were converted into carbon emissions

using predetermined emission factors from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that

varied for each stream collected.17 The data below summarizes the carbon emissions associated

with waste for each residence cafeteria. The calculations are outlined in the following section

and a more detailed list of emissions per stream can be found in Appendix 1.3. It must be noted,

17 "Waste Reduction Model (WARM)." edited by United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2006.

45%

25%

75%

52%

29%

100%

0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Food Waste Composting Rate

Mixed Metals Recyling Rate

Glass Recyling Rate

Mixed Plastics Recyling Rate

Mixed Paperboard Recyling Rate

Corrugated Box Recyling Rate

Mixed Garbage Diversion Rate

Diversion Rates



27

however, that due to the scope of this study the results below only include emissions associated

with waste disposal methods within cafeteria premises. The results do not take into consideration

the larger GHG waste emissions associated with product manufacturing, transport, and inputs

that could alter its overall carbon footprint.

Table 3 outlines the total current GHG emissions for all cafeterias and the potential reduction in

emissions if all collected waste was diverted from the landfill to either recycling or composting

alternatives. In total, MFDS could reduce their emissions by 77.28 tons of CO2 equivalent per

year if all waste was successfully diverted from landfills to recycling or composting.

Table 3: Total GHG Emission Results

Total Waste Collected (tons) PER SCHOOL YEAR (242 days):

385.11

Total Current GHG EMISSIONS (tCO2-eq) PER SCHOOL YEAR (242 days):

8.196

Total GHG Reduction Potential (tCO2-eq) PER SCHOOL YEAR (242 days):

77.28

Total GHG Emissions After Reductions (tCO2-eq/yr)

-69.08

Total GHG emissions and reduction potentials have also been separated by emissions associated

with each audited residence cafeteria. According to Figure 9 below, BMH is the largest GHG

contributor at 22.73 tCO2-eq/yr. NRH, on the other hand, has a negative overall greenhouse gas

contribution at -27.52 tCO2-eq/yr. According to the calculated emission factors, NRH diverts

enough of the solid waste collected during the auditing period to composting and recycling to

have a negligible carbon footprint. It must be noted, however, that the assumptions regarding

overall landfill waste detailed above could not be separated into specific streams with higher

emission factors and can account for this negative value.

Although BMH and NRH did not generate the most amount of waste, they nonetheless have the

largest GHG reduction potentials. In Figure 10 BMH has a reduction capability of 22.54 tCO2-

eq/yr and NRH can reduce its carbon footprint by 30.68 tCO2-eq/yr. These larger cafeterias cater

to approximately 630 students per day in their adjoining residences and are responsible for the

largest share of total GHG impact.



28

Figure 9: Total Current GHG Per School Year

Figure 10: Total GHG Reduction Potential Per School

Note: results only accounts for GHG emissions associated with waste disposal from cafeteria locations. Does not include larger GHG emissions from waste transportation, production, etc.

1.94

11.04 22.73

-27.52

Carrefour Sherbrooke

Royal Victoria College

Bishop Mountain Hall

New Residence Hall

-40

-30

-20

-10

0

10

20

30

Total Current GHG Per School Year (tCO2-eq/yr)

10.27

13.78

22.54

30.68

Total GHG Reduction Potential Per School Year (tCO2-eq/yr)

Carrefour Sherbrooke Royal Victoria College Bishop Mountain Hall New Residence Hall



29

As discussed above, food waste represents the largest category of total waste collected.

Consequently, it is also the largest contributor to net, or total GHG emissions for all cafeterias

combined. According to Figure 11, food waste produces approximately 127.47 tCO2-eq per year,

over 100 tCO2-eq/yr more than the emissions produced by mixed waste, the second largest

emission source. When separated by stream, mixed metals, glass, mixed plastics, mixed

paperboard, and corrugated boxes have negative emissions. These negative outcomes do not

indicate that the current waste management system removes carbon emissions from the

atmosphere but that the prescribed carbon emissions used to calculate this section infers that the

rate of diversion for these streams is high enough to produce a negligible carbon footprint.

Figure 11: Current Net Emissions by Stream (tCO2-eq)

It must be noted, however, that even though the streams listed above have negative results they

are still subject to reduction potentials. In Figure 12 below, all streams except for mixed garbage

and corrugated boxes can still be further diverted and their GHG emissions reduced. Mixed

waste and corrugated boxes do not have a reduction potential since mixed waste cannot be

diverted to composted or recycling and all collected corrugated boxes are currently recycled in

all residence cafeterias.

12.56

-116.31

-3.15

-7.14

-0.93

-4.31

127.47

-120 -70 -20 30 80 130

Mixed Garbage

Corrugated Box

Mixed Paperboard

Mixed Plastics

Glass

Mixed Metals

Food Waste

Current Net Emissions by Stream (tCO2-eq/yr)



30

Figure 12: Emissions After Potential GHG Reductions

According to Figure 13, the largest GHG reduction would come from food waste. That is, 42%

of all total potential GHG reductions are associated with food waste. Effectively diverting this

stream from landfills to compost could lead to significant decrease in overall emissions.

Figure 13: Where GHG Reductions Would Come From

0

0

-11.21

-7 -0.39

-13.09

22.74

-120 -70 -20 30 80 130

Mixed Garbage

Corrugated Box

Mixed Paperboard

Mixed Plastics

Glass

Mixed Metals

Food Waste

Emissions After Potential GHG Reductions (tCO2-eq/yr)

Reduction Potential

42%

24% 1%

13%

21%

Where GHG Reductions Would Come From

Food Waste Composting

Mixed Metals Recycling

Glass Recycling

Mixed Plastics Recycling

Mixed Paperboard Recycling



31

4.2.1 Discussion of Results As seen in tables above, there were significant amounts of un-soiled recyclables found within pre

and post-consumer waste. While recycling systems are set up at the cafeterias, recyclables were

still found in the waste despite these systems. Mixed waste, or non-recyclable waste was mostly

made of elements that cannot be recycled or composted and could not be spared from the

landfill. The majority of food waste, especially pre-consumer food waste, could easily be

composted rather than directed to the landfill. Kitchen food waste often consisted of compostable

products that were going into the garbage even though a composting system was available. For

instance, the waste auditors found garbage bags full of fruit peels and coffee grinds, which are

compostable and could instead be rerouted into the existing composting system. Net emissions

associated with food waste are the highest at 127.47 tCO2-eq/yr or 0.527tCO2-eq/d and has a

potential GHG reduction of -22.74 tCO2-eq/yr or 0.094tCO2-eq/d, significantly larger than any

other collected stream. In addition, Figure 8 indicates that the current composting rate of food

waste is only at 45% and that composting at full potential could account for 42% of GHG

reductions in the cafeterias. Consequently, changes in the current composting system could lead

to the largest improvement in the cafeterias’ carbon footprint.

The full breakdown for each bag of pre and post-consumer waste divided by each cafeteria can

be found in Appendix 1.2. The tables show the weight of the different waste streams found in pre

and post-consumer waste: food waste, non-recyclable waste, and recyclables. It does not,

however, include recyclables that were going to be recycled, but rather those found within the

cafeteria waste intended for the landfill.

In total, although all four residence cafeterias only produce 8.196 tCO2-eq per year, McGill Food

and Dining Services has the potential to reduce its carbon footprint by 77.82 tCO2-eq per year if

all collected waste streams were diverted towards composting and recycling rather than landfills.

In doing so, McGill Food and Dining Services would emit a total of -69.08 tCO2-eq per year, a

negative emission rate, significantly reducing its overall carbon footprint.



32

4.3 Limitations of the Study

To begin, several days should have been observed for a more precise total weight of waste

generated. Ideally, an entire week of waste should have been audited and then divided by seven

to determine the amount per day. In addition, certain periods of the year may be busier in

cafeterias than others and the amount of waste generated throughout the year may not have been

fully obtained.

As previously discussed, due to the lack of information on compost, cardboard boxes, and

recyclables for certain cafeterias, assumptions and estimations were used to determine the weight

of these categories. As a result, there may be differences between the estimated amounts and

actual amounts. It must also be noted that there were liquids in some garbage bags and when the

bag was opened, some of the liquids leaked out resulting in a slightly inaccurate measurement.

A hang scale was also used to weigh the waste, which was subject to human error. When reading

the weight on the scale, it is possible that some of the weights were read incorrectly. In addition,

the hang scale could only measure up to 25 kg. During the BMH waste audit, the waste auditors

encountered garbage bags that weighed more than the scale could measure and therefore their

true weights were not determined. As a result, they were recorded at 25 kg—the maximum

weight on the scale—since it is certain that they weighed at least that if not more. It was

determined, however, that this accounted for approximately 0.001% of all collected results and

was not prevalent enough to significantly alter results.

Lastly, the results from the two Aramark cafeterias, NRH and CS, did not reflect accurate

cafeteria waste quantities. In CS, many of the students do not eat their meals on site and dispose

of their waste in the residence rooms instead of in the cafeteria’s waste station. Due to these

behavioural patterns, all post-consumer waste could not be recorded during the audit. In addition,

the quantity of waste collected in NRH was not large enough for the cafeteria’s size and the ratio

of recycling to landfill waste in BMH was applied to NRH. Since both these cafeterias are not

directly operated by MFDS, the differences in management practices need to be taken into

consideration when reviewing the results.



33

5. Water 5.1 Methodology The methodology for the water audit was developed by a student auditor and completed for

course credits. Similar to the two previous audits, the methodology for the water audit can be

summarized in four basic steps:

Step 1: Inventory List

• An inventory list of all water consuming or storage machines was gathered for each

cafeteria and kept in an Excel spreadsheet.

• Companies were contacted for any machines that directly used water.

• Based on the available company information, flow rates were collected for the machines

and converted into an amount of water measured over time (L/yr).

Step 2: Flow rate List

• When company flow rate information was not available, the data was gathered using a

bucket and stopwatch. A two-litre bucket was most often used to measure the quantity of

water collected and the time for the bucket to fill was measured with a stopwatch. This

method was repeated over three times to acquire an average for each sink or hose.

• For each flow rate measurement, the same bucket and stopwatch were used as well as the

same person operating the stopwatch. It was assumed the hot- and cold-water taps would

yield the same flow rate. As well, the flow rates were measured on a worst-case scenario in

which they were turned to their extent in order to measure.

• Any noticeable dripping taps were also timed with the bucket and stopwatch. As a result,

all dripping and leaks were accounted for in the final amount of water used by adding five

percent to the total amount since yearly leaks in every dining hall could be recorded during

the audit.



34

Step 3: Interviews

• The chefs were first interviewed on water usage and methodology recommendations. As

most are experienced with cafeteria water use, they were able to supply some of the water

measurements for meals and cleaning without needing flow rates. Furthermore, the chefs

were able to determine cafeteria operating hours and seasonality.

• If the chefs were unable to give measurements on water used, or if their responses were far

from estimates, the employees involved in water-related activities were interviewed. If the

employees were unsure of the amount, the flow rates of these sinks or hoses were measured

to calculate the amount of water used.

• The interviews also accounted for the amount of water in food preparation. It was assumed

that staff uses the exact same amount of water each time they prepare the same dish.

• It must be noted that the interview format was adapted to the knowledge of each head chef

since some were able to identify the total amount of water used for certain activities.

Step 4: Calculations

• The total amount of water for normal and abnormal days (days the dining hall is not

operating at full-capacity) was computed by determining each cafeteria’s hours of

operation and the average time staff members engage in water consuming behaviour.

• A final five percent addition was added for a worst-case scenario in terms of leakage,

things left running, etc. This percentage was recommended by McGill chemical

engineering professor, Phillip Servio to account for yearly leaks.18 As a result, this five

percent addition was also applied to the three other dining halls to represent the amount of

water associated with leaks and dripping faucets in a year.

• The calculations are explained in more detail in section 5.1.1 of this document.

18 Phillip Servio (McGill Chemical Engineering) interviewed by Erica Anderson, May 2013.



35

5.1.1 Calculations

Seasonality calculations were determined from staff interviews and each cafeteria’s hours of

operation. In addition, all greenhouse GHG calculations have been computed with pre-

determined emission factors from the 2012 Department of Energy and Climate Change GHG

Conversion Guidelines.19 Although these emission factors are specific to the UK, there is

currently no set of general water emission factors for Canada. Consequently, the results in the

section above are only approximations of the carbon footprint in McGill’s residence cafeterias

since the emission factors used have been developed for the UK’s water treatment and supply

methods rather than for Canada’s current system. Nonetheless, it was assumed that these

emission factors would still be beneficial in providing an approximate GHG baseline for water

use in cafeterias.

Seasonality Calculations: Table 4: Total Abnormal Days for All Cafeterias

CS RVC BMH NRH Abnormal Times Days Capacity Days Capacity Days Capacity Days Capacity Thanksgivings 7 75% 3 50% 7 100% 7 100%

Winter Break 12 0% 12 0% 12 0% 12 0%

Spring Break (Reading week) 7 50% 9 30% 7 25% 7 25%

Easter 4 100% 4 30% 4 0% 4 100%

Summer: May 1st – May 31st 31 0% 31 0% 31 0% 31 25%

Summer: June 1st – June 30th 30 0% 30 0% 30 0% 30 25%

Summer: July 1st – July 14th 14 0% 14 0% 14 10% 14 25%

Summer: July 15th – July 31st 17 0% 17 15% 17 10% 17 25%

Summer: Aug. 1st – Aug. 20th 20 0% 20 15% 20 10% 20 25%

Summer: Aug. 21st – Aug. 23rd

3 0% 3 15% 3 100% 3 25%

Summer: Aug. 24th 1 0% 1 15% 1 100% 1 25%

Summer: Aug. 25th – Sept. 2nd 9 100% 9 15% 9 100% 9 25%

Total Abnormal Days: (sum of all abnormal days)

CS 14 RVC 66 BMH 58 NRH 132

19 "2012 Guidelines to Defra/ Decc's Ghg Conversion Factors for Company Reporting." edited by Food Department for Environment, and Rural Affairs (Defra). London, England: Crown, 2012.



36

The amount of abnormal days, or the days that the cafeterias are open but do not operate at full

capacity, is listed in Table 4 above. Once the quantity of abnormal days were totalled in each

dining hall, the ratio of abnormal days to normal days was determined to account for the total

daily water consumption of each cafeteria uses when it is not at full capacity. That is, the amount

of abnormal days was multiplied with its rate of operation and totalled to account for each

cafeteria’s seasonal change in water use. The calculations below are based on the results from

Table 4.

Table 5: Normal days to Abnormal Days

Closed days [dining hall not operating] CS = 128 RVC = 87 BMH = 77 NRH = 12

Normal days [dining hall operating at full capacity] (Closed days + abnormal days) - 365

CS = 223 RVC = 212 BMH = 230 NRH = 221

Normal days to abnormal days [dining hall operating at a percentage of full capacity] Number of abnormal days × percentage of operations

CS = 7(0.5) + 7(0.75) = 8.75 normal days to abnormal days RVC = 50(0.15)+9(0.3)+4(0.3)+3(0.5) = 12.9 normal days to abnormal days BMH = 51(0.1) + 7(0.25) = 6.85 normal days to abnormal days NRH = 125(0.25) + 7(0.25) = 33 normal days to abnormal days

The ratio of abnormal days to normal days is found above, in Table 5. Once this ratio was found,

it was multiplied by the amount of water used on a typical normal day to calculate the water

usage for total abnormal days. The usage for total normal days was then added to the usage for

total abnormal days to determine total water use in a year.



37

Total Water Usage:

1. Flow rate (L/hr) ×Time used per day = Usage (L/d) 2. Usage (L/d) ×Total normal days = Usage for total normal days 3. Usage (L/d) ×Total abnormal days = Usage for total abnormal days 4. Usage for total normal days + Usage for total abnormal days = Total water usage (L/yr)

Once total water usage was determined, final results were then converted into tons of carbon

dioxide equivalent (tCO2-e). For the purposes of this audit, both emission factors for water

supply and treatment from Table 6 were used to estimate the total carbon footprint of water

usage in residence cafeterias. Each emission factor was multiplied by the total usage in cubic

meters per year and then added together to determine the total GHG impact.

Table 6: Water Emission Factors

Activity Unit Emission Factor

Water Supply Cubic meters 0.3441 kg CO2-e/m3

Water Treatment Cubic meters 0.7085 kg CO2-e/m3

Net Emissions Formula:

(Water usage in m3/yr ×emission factor for water supply) + (Water usage in m3/yr ×emission factor for water treatment)

Example Calculation: Amount of water used by the dishwasher (Hobart©) in RVC

Collected: Flow rate (L/hr) = 4,261.2 Time used per day = 8.93 Daily usage (L/d) = 38,066.5 Total normal days: 212 Total abnormal days: 12.9

Emission Factors: Water Supply (0.3441 kg CO2-e/m3) Water Treatment (0.7085 kg CO2-e/m3)

Total Water Usage (L/yr): (38,052.5 L/d ×212 d) + (38,052.5 L/d ×12.9) = 8,941,872.52 L/yr OR 8941.87 m3

Total GHG Emissions (kgCO2-e): (8941.87 m3 ×0.3441) + (8941.872528 m3 × 0.7085) = 9412.21 kgCO2-e OR 9.41 tCO2-e



38

5.2 Results All results are based on staff interviews and measured flow rates. Total water results have been

converted into m³ per year based on each cafeteria’s hours of operation and determined

seasonality.

Figure 14 below outlines the total water consumption for all cafeterias. According to the results,

BMH uses the most amount of water at 21,716 m³/yr followed by NRH at 17,952 m³/yr and RVC

at 16,605 m³/yr. The smallest cafeteria, CS, only uses 2,897 m³/yr. The total water usage

recorded in all residence dining halls was approximately 59,170 m³/yr.

Figure 14: Total Water Consumption for All Cafeterias

Data was further divided into four usage types: meals, cleaning, machines, and leaks for all

residence cafeterias. Table 7 summarizes the data collected while Figure 15and Figure 16 below

outline the water consumption trends for these categories in each cafeteria. CS uses the largest

amount of water for meals at 1,446 m³/yr, which, according to Figure 16, is approximately 50%

of the cafeteria’s total water usage. Unlike the three other dining halls, the staff at CS have

particular meal preparation preferences and fill and heat up a measured 473-L tank and drain

2,897,205.36

16,604,521.64

21,715,807.49

17,952,069.42

0.00

5000000.00

10000000.00

15000000.00

20000000.00

25000000.00

CS RVC BMH NRH

Total Water Consumption for All Cafeterias (m³/yr)



39

what they don’t use at the end of day amounting to a significant overall water use. In contrast,

the other cafeterias take their water from the sinks and hoses as needed which allows them to

only use between 5-10% of their total water consumption on meals.

The largest source of water consumption, however, is from the cafeteria’s water-consuming

appliances. More specifically, this category focuses on the efficiency of the cafeteria’s

dishwashers and compressors. According to the results, BMH has the oldest dishwashers and

compressor system of all audited cafeterias and therefore uses approximately 60%, or 15,701

m³/yr of their total water consumption on machines in general. NRH, however, uses the largest

quantity of their total water consumption on machines at 15,706 m³/yr followed by RVC at 8,943

m³/yr.

In addition, unwanted leakage was taken into consideration by assuming that leaks account for

approximately 5% of total water consumption. This includes dripping sinks, faulty pipes, and

unwanted water loss from outdated infrastructure.

It must be noted that all staff and student bathrooms located in or near the cafeterias were not

taken into consideration for this portion of the audit.

Table 7: Total Water Usage (L/yr)

Usage Typ (in m³)e

Meals Cleaning Machines Leaks Total

CS 1,446 848 456 148 2,897 RVC 782 6,051 8,943 828 16,604 BMH 376 4,552 15,701 1,086 21,714 NRH 577 773 15,706 896 17,952 All 3,181 12,224 40,806 2,958 59,167



40

Figure 15: Total Water by Usage

Figure 16: Percentage of Total Water Consumption by Usage

6,050,796.30

4,551,620.60

8,943,373.50

15,701,204.60

15,706,403.70

0 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000

CS

RVC

BMH

NRH

Total Water by Usage (m³/yr)

Meals Cleaning Machines Leaks

1,445,853.80 847,863.80

6,050,796.30

4,551,620.60

8,943,373.50

15,701,204.60

15,706,403.70

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CS

RVC

BMH

NRH

Percentage of Total Water by Usage (m³/yr)




41

Water usage for machines was further divided evaluate each cafeteria’s dishwashing system.

According to Figure 17, the most water used for dishwashing is in RVC at 8,942 m³/yr followed

by BMH at 8,074 m³/yr and NRH at 8,053 m³/yr. CS uses the least amount at 456 m³/yr due to

the dining hall’s small size and use of non-reusable to-go supplies.

Figure 17: Water Use in Dishwashers Per Cafeteria

Figure 18: Dishwashers v. Other Machines

455,812.00

8,941,872.53

8,074,121.76 8,052,645.31

0.00

2,000,000.00

4,000,000.00

6,000,000.00

8,000,000.00

10,000,000.00

CS RVC BMH NRH

Water Use in Dishwashers Per Cafeteria (m³/yr)

455,812.00

8,941,872.53

8,074,121.76

8,052,645.31

1,501.01

7,627,082.85

7,653,758.48

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CS

RVC

BMH

NRH

Dishwashers vs. Other Machines (m³/yr)

Dishwasher Other Machines



42

Figure 17 above depicts each cafeteria’s total dishwasher water usage in comparison to water use

from other machines. While RVC uses the most amount of water for dishwashers, it does not

have the highest water consumption for all water consuming machines. That is, less than 5% of

all water used by machines is sent somewhere other than the dishwasher. BMH and NRH, on the

other hand, use approximately the same amount of water in other machines as their dishwashers.

50% of total water usage for machines in these cafeterias is used for the dishwashers while the

remaining 50% goes to other machines. This is due to the outdated compressor systems in their

basements used to cool the fridges and air conditioning units. Instead of recycling the water used

in the system, these systems are built so water passes through once and immediately drained.

Once water use was recorded, the results were converted into tons of CO2 equivalent using

predetermined emission factors from the 2012 guidelines produced by the UK Department for

Environment, Food, and Rural Affairs (Defra).20 Unlike the waste audit in the previous section

the GHG emission results of this audit are directly proportionate to water use. That is, the larger

the water consumption, the larger the cafeteria’s total GHG emissions. A more detailed list of

emissions per stream can be found in Appendix 2.

Figure 19: Total GHG Emission by Cafeteria

20 "2012 Guidelines to Defra/ Decc's GHG Conversion Factors for Company Reporting." edited by Food Department for Environment, and Rural Affairs (Defra). London, England: Crown, 2012.

3.04

13.47

22.85

18.89

Total GHG Emissions by Cafeteria (tCO2-e/yr)

CS RVC BMH NRH



43

Figure 19 and Figure 20 illustrate the total GHG emissions by usage in tons of carbon dioxide

equivalent (tCO2-e). Similar to the total water consumption results above, BMH has the largest

GHG emissions at 22.85 tCO2-e followed by NRH at 18.89 tCO2-e and RVC at 13.47 tCO2-e.

The total net emissions for all cafeterias combined are approximately 58.27 tCO2-e.

Figure 20: Total GHG Emissions by Usage

5.2.1 Discussion of Results

According to the results, kitchen appliances are responsible for the most water consumption for

all cafeterias. Outdated dishwashers, in particular, use a substantial amount of water and are run

by staff when they are not always filled to capacity. Following water use by machines, cleaning

is the second most water intensive activity in all cafeterias. That being said, water usage cannot

be substantially decreased due to cleaning and health policies. It must be noted that although this

study has identified the most water intensive uses in all cafeterias, total water reduction

possibilities are nonetheless limited by the cafeterias’ priority to provide a clean and safe space

to eat. As a result, the recommendations for this component of the report are less numerous and

must keep in mind that beyond the larger suggested infrastructure renovations, reducing overall

water use is not the dining halls’ most pressing priority. In addition, all water usage totals can be

found in Appendix 2.

1.52 0.89

2.36

4.79

9.41

16.52

16.53

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

CS

RVC

BMH

NRH

Total GHG Emissions by Usage (tCO2-e)




44

5.3 Limitations of the Study Although this water audit produced detailed results of the amount of water consumed by

residence cafeterias, there were nonetheless a few inaccuracies that must be considered when

reviewing the results.

Due to the lack of water metering in all the audited residence cafeterias, most of the information

collected relied on staff interviews. While staff members were knowledgeable about the quantity

of water used for each task, it must be assumed that the numbers estimated are not precise. In

addition, many staff members gave a range of average water use rather than an exact amount. In

each case, the heavier water use was chosen to estimate total water consumption. As well, the

calculations should be taken not as absolute accuracy as the calculations were mostly in part due

to staff interviews and varying management practices in each cafeteria. This method concludes

that water usage can easily vary with each employee, day, time, machine, year, and level of use,

as none of these are perfectly constant.

When staff was not able to determine water use, the flow rates of sinks and hoses were calculated

using a bucket and stopwatch. Since this technique also relied on staff interviews to estimate the

amount of time each sink was used, the bucket and stopwatch method does not reflect the most

precise measurement of quantity of water used. In addition, all flow rates were recorded on a

worst-case scenario bases and always took the highest measurement when given a range, which

may have also affected results. This includes the 5% addition to all totals to account for leaks,

which does not accurately reflect water consumption.

Furthermore, total water consumption for the compressor system in NRH could not be measured

during the auditing period. As a result, it was assumed that the size of the cafeteria and the

similarity of the equipment allowed the measured results from BMH to be applied to NRH. Since

NRH has two more walk-in fridges than BMH (that has six) the ratio of BMH’s compressors to

the quantity of fridges was used to determine NRH’s water loss from the compressor system

when they are operating at full capacity.



45

6. Energy 6.1 Methodology The methodology for the energy audit was derived from the fall 2012 ENVR 401 report on

energy consuming appliances.21 The methodology can be summarized in five basic steps:

Step 1: Inventory

• Each of the four dining halls was visited to compile a list of energy-consuming

equipment and the quantity and type of lights at each location (see Appendix 3). It must

be noted that some appliances were not recorded since some of the labels with

manufacturing information had been peeled off or were missing from the appliances.

• All appliances that do not use the electricity as an energy source were differentiated

because they require a different emission factor when calculating their GHG emissions.

• For BMH and RVC, the final lists were cross-referenced with the 2012 ENVR 401 report.

• Initial information for the HVAC systems was acquired by touring cafeterias’ mechanical

rooms and from the AutoCAD drawings provided by McGill Building Services. There

was not enough information, however, to accurately calculate total HVAC energy

consumption and its corresponding GHG emissions in the timeframe of the audit. As a

result, only lights and appliances have been included in this report.

Step 2: Consumption Data

• Each cafeteria was visited for a 2nd time and during this visit the equipment lists were

verified for any information regarding energy consumption. This included information

about each individual appliance’s voltage, watts, and amps.

Step 3: Missing Data

• Lists from all four cafeterias were cross-referenced for identical equipment to fill in

missing data. For the equipment that could not be cross-referenced, the auditors

researched the missing appliance’s manufacturing companies online to determine their

consumption data and power source.

21 Cantor et. Al. "A Technical and Behavioral Energy Efficiency Assessment of McGill Cafeteria Operations.” Montreal, Quebec: McGill University, 2012.



46

Step 4: Interviews

• Interviews were set up with the head chef at each cafeteria to gather data with respect to

seasonality and general equipment use (i.e. frequency of use, weekday vs. weekend, etc.)

Step 5: Calculations

• Seasonality for appliances and lights was computed based on staff interviews, the average

operating days obtained in the water section, and each appliance’s estimated hours of use.

6.1.1 Calculations Seasonality Calculations:

Seasonality calculations were determined from staff interviews and each cafeteria’s hours of

operation. The seasonality charts were derived from the water results in section 5.1.1. In

addition, all GHG calculations have been computed with pre-determined emission factors from

Environment Canada that vary for each energy source.22 All calculations were guided by Jerome

Conraud and are based on a previous GHG audit of McGill’s Thomson House.23

Seasonality Calculations: Table 8: Total Abnormal Days for All Cafeterias

CS RVC BMH NRH Abnormal Times Days Rate Days Rate Days Rate Days Rate

Thanksgivings 7 75% 3 50% 7 normal 7 normal Winter Break 12 closed 12 closed 12 closed 12 closed Spring Break (Reading week) 7 50% 9 30% 7 25% 7 25% Easter 4 normal 4 30% 4 closed 4 normal Summer: May 1st – May 31st 31 closed 31 closed 31 closed 31 25% Summer: June 1st – June 30th 30 closed 30 closed 30 closed 30 25% Summer: July 1st – July 14th 14 closed 14 closed 14 10% 14 25% Summer: July 15th – July 31st 17 closed 17 15% 17 10% 17 25% Summer: Aug. 1st – Aug. 20th 20 closed 20 15% 20 10% 20 25% Summer: Aug. 21st – Aug. 23rd 3 closed 3 15% 3 normal 3 25% Summer: Aug. 24th 1 closed 1 15% 1 normal 1 25% Summer: Aug. 25th – Sept. 2nd 9 normal 9 15% 9 normal 9 25% Total Abnormal Days: CS 14 RVC 66 BMH 58 NRH 132

22 "Global Warming Potentials." Envrionment Canada, http://www.ec.gc.ca/ges-ghg 23 Bourdages, Line. "Sustainable Thomson House: Greenhouse Gas Emissions Audit." Montreal, Quebec: McGill University, 2013.



47

The amount of abnormal days, or the days that the cafeterias are open but do not operate at full

capacity, is listed in Table 8 above. Once the quantity abnormal days were recorded, the ratio of

abnormal days to normal days was determined to account for the total kWh/ day that each

cafeteria uses when it is not at full capacity. That is, the amount of abnormal days was multiplied

with its rate of operation and totalled to account for each cafeteria’s seasonal change in energy

use. The calculations below are based on the results from Table 9.

Table 9: Normal days to Abnormal Days

Closed days [dining hall not operating]

CS = 128 RVC = 87 BMH = 77 NRH = 12

Normal days [dining hall operating at full capacity] (Closed days + abnormal days) - 365

CS = 223 RVC = 212 BMH = 230 NRH = 221

Normal days to abnormal days [dining hall operating at a percentage of full capacity] Number of abnormal days × percentage of operations

CS = 7(0.5) + 7(0.75) = 8.75 normal days to abnormal days RVC = 50(0.15)+9(0.3)+4(0.3)+3(0.5) = 12.9 normal days to abnormal days BMH = 51(0.1) + 7(0.25) = 6.85 normal days to abnormal days NRH = 125(0.25) + 7(0.25) = 33 normal days to abnormal days

The ratio of abnormal days to normal days is found above, in Table 9. Once this ratio was found,

the total normal days was then added to the total normal days to abnormal days to determine the

total normal days the cafeteria is operating at full capacity during the year. Then, this number

was multiplied by each energy consuming appliance’s total kW and hours of operation (usage) to

calculate total energy consumption.



48

Total Energy Usage:

1. Appliance Power ( in kW) ×Usage (hr) = Total Usage (kWh) 2. Total Usage (kWh) ×Total Normal Days [full capacity] = Total Energy Use (kWh/yr)

Once total energy usage was determined, final results were then converted into tons of carbon

dioxide equivalent (tCO2-e). For the purposes of this audit, emission factors for each energy

source were considered. That is, emission factors for electricity, natural gas, and steam in Table

10 below were used to estimate the total carbon footprint of energy usage.

Table 10: Energy Emission Factors [Condensed]

Energy Source Unit Emission Factor

ELECTRICITY gCO2-eq/kWh 2.0373

NATURAL GAS gCO2-eq/m3 1889.36

STEAM gCO2-e/GJ 96.64 × 103

Emission Factors Explained:

Emission Factor [Electricity] in gCO2-eq/kWh

GHG intensities × Global Warming Potential Factors = Emission Factor (2 ×1) + (0.0003 × 25) + (0.0001 × 298) = 2.0373 gCO2-eq/kWh

24GHG Intensities 25GW Potential Factor gCO2/kWh 2 1 gCH4/kWh 0.0003 25 gN20/kWh 0.0001 298

Emission Factor [Natural Gas] gCO2-eq/m3

GHG intensities × Global Warming Potential Factors = Emission Factor (1878 × 1) + (0.0037 × 25) + (0.035 × 298) = 1889.36 gCO2-eq/m3

26GHG Intensities GW Potential Factor gCO2/kWh 1878 1 gCH4/kWh 0.037 25 gN20/kWh 0.035 298

24 "Global Warming Potentials." Environment Canada. http://www.ec.gc.ca/ges-ghg 25 “GHG Emission Factors for Electricity in Quebec.” Environment Canada. http://www.ec.gc.ca/ges-ghg/ 26 “GHG Emission Factors for Natural Gas in Quebec.” Environment Canada. http://www.ec.gc.ca/ges-



49

27Emission Factor [Steam] gCO2-eq/GJ *Keep in mind that all steam at McGill is generated through natural gas and therefore the natural gas emission factor is also used.

1. Combustion efficiency × Remaining % after distribution losses = Overall efficiency 26.42 lb/m3 × 80% = 21.14 lb of steam per m3

2. Natural gas emission factor ÷ Overall efficiency of steam = Emission Factor (lb) 1889.36 gCO2 eq/m3 ÷ 21.14 lb of steam per m3 = 89.37 gCO2-e/lb

3. Steam emission factor in lbs ÷ GJ conversion = Emission Factor (GJ) 89.37 gCO2-e/lb ÷ 0.925 ×103 GJ/lb = 96.64 ×103 gCO2-e/GJ

Net Emissions Formula: Energy usage ×Emission Factor [dependent on energy source]

Example Calculation: Amount of energy used by a vegetable walk-in fridge at BMH (Electricity)

Collected: Power (kW) = 6.44 Time used per day (hr) = 8 Total normal days: 230 Total abnormal days: 6.85

Emission Factor: 2.0373 gCO2-eq/kWh [Electricity] Total Energy Usage (kWh/yr): (6.44 kW ×8 hrs) × (230 d +6.85 d)

= 12,202.512 kWh/yr

Total GHG Emissions (kgCO2-e): = 12,202.512 kWh/yr ×2.0373 gCO2-eq/kWh [Electricity] = 24,860.17 gCO2-eq/kWh OR 0.0248 tCO2-eq/kWh

Hours of Operation Assumptions:

Total energy use was determined by estimating each appliance’s total hours of operation at full

capacity based on BMH’s metered energy consumption data on Pulse, McGill’s Online Energy

Dashboard.28 The following hours of operation in assumptions were applied to all dining halls:

Table 11: Hours of Operation at Full Capacity

27 Conraud, Jerome. 2013. 28 "McGill Energy Dashboard." Pulse Energy, 2013 (https://mcgill.pulseenergy.com/#/overview).

Appliance Hrs Appliance Hrs Appliance Hrs Appliance Hrs

Fridges and Freezers 8 Griddles, Grills, & Fryers 3 Fume hoods 6 Warmers 4

Ovens 6 Toasters & Microwaves 3 Dishwashers 6 Medium appliances 4

Steam Kettles 4 Coffee & Ice Makers 6 TV screens 5



50

6.2 Results

All results are based on staff interviews and usage assumptions detailed in section 6.3. Total

energy results have been converted into megawatt hours per year (MWh/yr) based on each

cafeteria’s hours of operation and determined seasonality.

Figure 21 below outlines the total blended energy consumption for all cafeterias. This refers to

total electric, natural gas, and steam energy consumption for appliances and lights converted into

megawatt hours. According to the results, BMH uses the most amount of energy at 1,138

MWh/yr followed by NRH at 1,021 MWh/yr and RVC at 962 MWh/yr. The smallest cafeteria,

CS, only uses 293 MWh/yr. The total energy usage recorded in all residence dining halls was

approximately 3,414.7 MWh/yr.

Figure 21: Total Blended Energy Consumption

All energy consumption was divided by energy usage in Figure 22. The table below indicates

that appliances are the largest source of blended energy consumption in all residence cafeterias.

It must be noted, however, that since these measurements do not include HVAC data actual

energy usage measurements would be much higher.

293.21

962.11

1,137.93 1,021.48

0.0

200.0

400.0

600.0

800.0

1000.0

1200.0

CS RVC BMH NRH

Total Blended Energy Consumption (MWh/yr)



51

Figure 22: Total Blended Energy Consumption by Usage

For the recorded cafeteria appliances, the energy input categories consisted of energy from

electricity, purchased natural gas, or steam generated with natural gas. Figure 23 and Figure 24

outline the total blended energy usage from appliances for each of the energy sources in the

dining halls. According to Figure 23, BMH uses the most amount of energy for appliances at

1,092 MWh/yr, followed by NRH at 985 MWh/yr, RVC at 867 MWh/yr, and CS at 266

MWh/yr.

Appliance energy use has been further divided by energy source. Based on the results from

Figure 24 approximately 75%, or 812 MWh/yr of all energy consumption for appliances in BMH

is from steam-using appliances and 65%, or 574 MWh/yr of all energy consumption for

appliances in RVC is from appliances that use natural gas. In contrast, although CS does not use

a significant portion of energy for its appliance use since over 70%, or 205 MWh/yr of all its

energy use is from appliances that use electricity. Overall, appliances that use on steam and

natural gas as a power source have a much larger contribution to overall energy consumption

than appliances that use electricity from the grid.

265.80

866.90

1,092.40

985.00

27.41

95.21

45.53

36.48

84% 86% 88% 90% 92% 94% 96% 98% 100%

CS

RVC

BMH

NRH

Total Blended Energy Consumption by Usage (MWh/yr)

Appliances Lights



52

Figure 23: Total Appliance Energy Use

Figure 24: Total Appliance Energy Consumption by Energy Source

265.80

866.90

1,092.40

985.00

Total Bleneded Appliance Energy Use (MWh/yr)

CS RVC BMH NRH

204.71

168.27

154.89

504.69

61.00

574.20

480.31

0.00

124.49

812.42

0.00

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

CS

RVC

BMH

NRH

Total Appliance Energy Consumption by Energy Source (MWh/yr)

Electricity Natural Gas Steam



53

In Figure 25 RVC uses the most energy for lights at 95.2 MWh/yr, followed by 45.5 MWh/yr in

BMH, 36.5 MWh/yr in NRH, and 27.4 MWh/yr in CS.

Figure 25: Total Lights Energy Use

HVAC Systems

Although HVAC energy use was not measured during the timeframe of the audit, McGill Food

and Dining Services plans to review and optimize the systems in the short term and assess the

need to update or replace them in the future. MFDS does not need quantified results to assess the

impact of each dining hall’s total HVAC energy consumption and has developed a series of steps

to address each dining hall’s unique system. These recommendations have been developed in

consultation with David Balcombe, the Associate Director of Buildings and Facilities, and have

been included in the complementary Action Plan that accompanies this report.

27.41

95.21

45.53

36.48

Total Lights Energy Use (MWh/yr)

CS RVC BMH NRH



54

Once total energy use was recorded, the results were converted into tons of CO2 equivalent using

predetermined emission factors published by Environment Canada in 2013. Each energy source,

i.e. electricity, natural gas, or steam, required a different emission factor and heavily influenced

the overall carbon footprint of each dining hall. A more detailed list of emissions per energy

source can be found in Appendix 3.

According to Figure 26, RVC has the largest carbon footprint at 104 tCO2-eq followed by NRH

at 70 tCO2-eq, BMH at 23 tCO2-eq, and CS at 13 tCO2-eq. Total GHG emissions associated with

energy use in residence dining cafeterias is approximately 209 tCO2-eq. It must be noted,

however, that these results do not include emissions associated with each dining hall’s HVAC

system. Due to each location’s specific infrastructure, carbon emissions related to HVAC

systems would highly affect the results below depending on whether the HVAC system uses

natural gas, steam, or electricity from the grid as an energy source. A more accurate

representation of the overall carbon footprint associated with energy would require including

each dining hall’s HVAC energy consumption.

Figure 26: Total Energy GHG Emissions

Total GHG emissions have also been separated by usage in Figure 27. As expected, appliances

13.02

103.64

23.15

69.77

0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

CS RVC BMH NRH

Total GHG Emissions (tCO2-eq)



55

are responsible for over 99% of all recorded emissions in all cafeterias. Overall, the carbon

footprint of lights is so minimal that it accounts for less than 1% of total emissions for every

cafeteria. Simply put, the carbon footprint associated with lights is negligible.

In Figure 28, total GHG emissions associated with appliances has been further divided by

energy source. That is, the data below separates emissions relating to energy generated from

electricity, natural gas, and steam. According to the results, over 95% of emissions in all

cafeterias are associated with appliances that use natural gas as an energy source. In RVC,

almost all—over 99%—of its emissions are attributable to natural gas appliances.

It must be noted, however, that steam does not have a large impact in these figures because

emissions from heating (HVAC) have not been included. Had these been recorded, emissions

relating to steam would have been much larger and significantly influence overall results.

Figure 27: Total GHG Emissions by Usage

12.96

103.40

23.00

69.60

0.05

0.19

0.09

0.07

99% 100% 100% 100%

CS

RVC

BMH

NRH

Total GHG Emissions by Usage (tCO2-eq)

Appliances Lights



56

Figure 28: Total Appliance GHG Emissions by Energy Source

6.2.1 Discussion of Results The largest contributors to overall GHG emissions relating to energy are appliances that use

natural gas as their power source. It must be noted that in the final inventory list there were

significantly less natural gas appliances in every cafeteria further demonstrating the significant

impact of natural gas appliances on overall GHG emissions. Most appliances in all dining halls

use electricity from the grid and produce a minimal, even negligible carbon footprint. As

previously noted above, however, all HVAC energy consumption levels and related emissions

have been excluded in this report although they are predicted to be the largest contributors to

every dining hall’s overall carbon footprint since they primary use steam and electricity as an

energy source. That being said, recommendations relating to dining hall HVAC systems have

nonetheless been compiled in the corresponding Action Plan that accompanies this document.

Broader recommendations regarding infrastructure and system efficiency to decrease associated

GHG emissions were identified without data due to the power system descriptions obtained

during the initial cafeteria tours.

12.56

103.00

22.46

68.60

0.45

0.41

1.09

0.00

0.28

94% 95% 96% 97% 98% 99% 100%

CS

RVC

BMH

NRH

Total Appliance GHG Emissions by Energy Source (tCO2-eq)

Natural Gas Grid Steam



57

6.3 Limitations of the Study Although this energy audit produced detailed results of the amount of energy consumed by

appliances and lights in residence cafeterias, there were nonetheless several limitations to the

study that must be considered.

Energy consumption for all appliances in every cafeteria was not recorded due to lack

information. This includes missing or removed labels on the equipment that made it impossible

to determine both equipment energy output and its manufacturer. In addition, the auditors were

not able to calculate the energy output information for outdated equipment since many of the

original manufactures no longer exist. As a result, missing energy information for certain

appliances has been noted in the inventory spreadsheet and must be considered when reviewing

the final results.

It must also be noted that the seasonality calculations are not exact. Due to the large number of

appliances and high variability of equipment use over the course of a typical year, it was not

possible to obtain the exact hours of use for each piece of equipment. As a result, assumptions

regarding each appliance’s hours of operation at full capacity were developed in consultation

with Jerome Conraud, McGill’s Energy Manager, to determine overall appliance energy use in

every dining hall. It must be noted, however, that these measures are not precise and do not

reflect appliance use for every audited dining hall.

Furthermore, missing AutoCAD drawings for certain residence cafeterias did not allow for a

significant amount of recorded information regarding the energy consumption of HVAC

systems. In addition, some of the observed systems run on split mechanical systems and are not

run by single operator. As a result, the auditors were not able to collect all the information

necessary on each power system and these calculations could not be included in the final report.

Date post:	01-Sep-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	vukiet
View:	214 times
Download:	0 times

2013 Greenhouse Gas Audit 1 Results Report m · Following the results of a preliminary student...

Documents