ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH AND SAFETY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE; MINUTES

ENVIRONMENT, HEALTH AND SAFETY EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
ADVISORY GROUP ON THE ENVIRONMENT

MINUTES OF THE MEETING HELD 2.30pm 22 September 2009

Present:
Apologies:
Professor J Petts (Chair)
Mr E Bauer
Mr I Gregory
Mr T Guise
Mr D Harrison
Mr P Larkin
Mrs C Radnor
Dr T C Shields (Secretary)
Dr F Young
There were none
In attendance:
Miss V Pendleton (Minutes)

1. Introductions and membership
The Chair welcomed Mr Tom Guise, the new Vice President for Democracy and Resources from the Guild of Students. All present introduced themselves for his benefit.
Noted: The group appeared to be short of academic members, but this was because some of these had not attended a meeting in some time. Dr Shields agreed to contact Dr Mike Rivett to confirm whether he wished to remain on the group. This would then inform further discussions about academic representation on the advisory group.

2. Minutes (EAG 09.09.1)
The minutes of the meeting held 1 June 2009 were agreed.

3. Matters Arising
a) Review of environmental policy
Noted: It had been intended for the Environmental Policy to be revised to reflect the new University structure in time for approval by EHSEC in June; this had not been achieved but the policy would now be presented to the next EHSEC meeting in early November.
Action: Dr Shields, Mr Harrison

b) Waste and recycling contracts update
Reported: In 2008, the recycling contract had gone to tender and PHS had been appointed to handle mixed recycling and confidential waste collection and recycling. This contract had now been terminated due to performance problems; the company had also tried to raise prices within the first twelve months of the contract. Veolia Environmental Services had been contracted on a contingency basis for twelve months in the first instance, with a possible extension to three years if performance was good. It was noted that Veolia had been a close second in the original tendering process.

Noted: The general waste contract expired at the end of August. This had had to be extended temporarily due to a backlog in Procurement.
Reported: A lot of mixed recycling was carried out behind the scenes by HAS, in particular during major events, using wheelie bins and skips. Eight tonnes of mixed recycling were collected in July and nine tonnes in August. Provision of mixed recycling was now being extended, and a stock of bins had been purchased which were being distributed as of 21 September to the Muirhead Tower and public areas of the library, as part of the bin-less office scheme. A second phase of the scheme would hopefully include bins being positioned across the estate. It was hoped that 60 tonnes less would be going to landfill this year.
Discussed: It was hoped such a scheme would reduce waste to landfill. The space required to collect types of recycling separately on-site, coupled with advancements in technology at MRFs (materials recycling facilities) had led to the decision to used mixed recycling containers. Flyers and posters had been distributed in the Muirhead to inform people about the bin-less office/recycling scheme, and Mr Larkin was happy to circulate these to the group.
Staff response to the bin-less office scheme was largely positive. It seemed the majority of staff were keen to be doing more for the environment. It was clarified that staff could keep their under-desk bins but that these would not be emptied; they would need to segregate their own waste.

Noted: Other areas of the University had expressed an interest in the scheme, and were being approached to match the funding put up by HAS for the bins.
Further noted: The Waste Reduction and Recycling Group (WRRG) had not met for some time. It was intended to resurrect this group, which would include student representation. The representative need not be one of the Guild officers.

Further noted: Duty of care visits to the service provider’s facilities were required for all types of waste. A visit to the clinical waste contractor had recently been carried out. The hazardous waste contract was currently out to tender but once a provider had been appointed, a visit would be carried out.

Further noted: The University had signed up to the Battery Back scheme, which recycles used batteries free of charge. A receptacle had been provided but it was necessary to work out the logistics of how to get batteries from all over campus into the one receptacle. The students were keen to participate as well; as halls are residential property, they are covered by the City Council for purposes of waste collection, and it would not be possible for HAS to collect waste batteries from there. It was agreed that a solution would be for the students to collect the batteries and bring them to the main campus.
Agreed: The environment website to be updated with this information.
Action: Dr Shields
c) Environmental Management Systems
i) BiTC indices (EAG 09.09.2)

Noted: Dr Shields had circulated the feedback from the indices. 56 universities, including 13 Russell Group had completed the environment index. There was no league table this year, but universities in the top five for each area had been approached about being named in publicity documentation. The University was in the top five for waste. The University did not score very well in some sections as there is no institutional EMS in place. The Combined Heat and Power facility had achieved 14001 accreditation in June 2009 and this accounts for over 70% of the University’s CO2 emissions.

Agreed: A summary report would be circulated to UEB and if approved it would be put on the website. The group recommended going for the index again. The Sustainability Task Group would decide whether the full Corporate Responsibility indices were completed rather than just the Environmental index.

Action: Dr Shields; Professor Petts

ii) Ecocampus scheme

Discussed: Ecocampus, a scheme which may form the basis for ISO 14001 in universities, was recruiting a new cohort of universities. There was a cost of around £11,000 associated with this, not including resources such as staffing costs. The deadline was in two weeks time. It was agreed that this was not long enough; a full business case would need to be presented to Lee Sanders, the Registrar and Secretary, before the University could make this commitment next year.

Action: Dr Shields

d) Sustainable travel plan update

Reported: The draft plan was now ready and would be presented to the Travel Plan Steering Group on 5 October. A Car Parking Working Group had been set up and had now met three times. A draft proposal from this group would also be ready for the same meeting; as both these documents were lengthy it was possible that the discussions would not be completed that day.
Noted: Professor John Heath was replacing Professor Les Clark as PVC for Estates and Infrastructure. Professor Heath’s job description specifically included environmental impact; it was hoped he would attend the steering group meetings.

Further noted: It would not be appropriate to have student representation on the Travel Plan Steering Group but consultation had been carried out with specified student groups such as the home students. The Guild representatives would let Mrs Radnor know who the appropriate contact was for home students this year.

Action: Mr Guise, Mr Bauer

There had been specific activity in the following areas:
Website

The sustainable travel website was being built and would be ready at the end of October. This would also be the source of information for the Selly Oak Relief Road.

Cycling

There would be four cycling road-shows on campus in October and November. These would mainly target new students but also safer travel as the days get shorter. New cycle parking had been installed by the Munrow Centre and the next phase would see new stands at the Medical School.

Business travel emissions

Mrs Radnor was working with Monica Guise in HAS on the electric car project.
The Energy Saving Trust was to come and monitor emissions generated from the fleet vehicles using a number of different indicators, to be used as a benchmark. This was a free service which would take about 12 months. The results would feed into the strategy to replace vehicles with more energy-efficient vehicles at the end of the contract.

e) Carbon management update

i) HEFCE consultation
Reported: HEFCE were consulting over a carbon reduction strategy. Some of the proposals would affect our funding if they were implemented.
Discussed: The level of the targets was the key to the document, and these needed to be achievable. The Government had already set challenging targets; these relied on government policy in order to be achievable, for example the decarbonisation of the energy supply.
Agreed: A University response should be co-ordinated through the Sustainability Task Group.
Action: Dr Shields

ii) HECM update
Reported: Updated CO2 figures for 2006_2008 were now available on the environment website. Energy surveys were being carried out at non-residential properties. Figures were going up as buildings such as Mason Hall and the Muirhead Tower came back online.
Noted: Internal audit would be auditing internal carbon management procedures in the coming year.

Discussed: Although fume cupboard flow rates had been reduced, reducing their energy consumption, a constant low flow still wastes energy; if the flow rate was reduced any further this could prove dangerous in certain situations. One solution would be to have intelligent flow using venturi valves, which are very responsive. A number of fume cupboards were reaching the end of their useful life; if funding could be secured, these could be replaced with energy-saving ‘intelligent flow’ cupboards.
Agreed: A business case would need to be drawn up, the group to be updated on progress.
Action: Dr Young, Mr Gregory

iii) 10:10 campaign targets
Reported: The 10:10 campaign had been started by the makers of the film ‘Age of Stupid’, a film about climate change. The campaign asked individuals and organisations to sign up to cut their CO2 emissions by 10% during 2010. There were four areas: grid electricity, on site fossil fuel use, vehicle fuel use and international travel. A number of other Russell Group universities appeared to have already signed up. If a reduction of 3% or more was made, participating institutions could use the 10:10 brand.
Discussed: The specified reduction may not be possible for the University, partly because of the timescale but also because of a number of projects that would be coming online during the timeframe.
Agreed: A paper to be prepared for discussion by the Sustainability Task Group.
Action: Dr Shields, Mr Guise

f) People & Planet Green League Table
Reported: The University had dropped from 28th to 68th. The criteria used changed each year and as a result there are concerns within the sector that the table is losing credibility: For example, in 2008 the University scored full marks (4/4) for waste, while this year it had scored 3/8 points, despite continued improvement in performance. The score for environmental staff had dropped from 12/12 to 2/8 despite the appointment of the new post of sustainable travel coordinator.
Discussed: Although a formal FOI request is made a lot of information is already on the website. The process takes a lot of resource to put together. If all relevant information could be put on website an FOI response would be easier.
Agreed: Dr Shields would circulate an article summarising EAUC’s view on the table.
Action: Dr Shields

g) Guild activities
Noted: The Guild would not be taking part in the Sound Impact awards this year due to the refurbishment works, but they were intending to get hold of a copy of the workbook for internal Reported: This year the Guild would be participating in the studentswitchoff campaign along with the University. This was the third year the University had supported this initiative; there was a cost of £1.50/bedspace, which was covered by HAS.
Further noted: There were a number of other activities/initiatives, including:
· The Ethical and Environmental Forum set up by Miss Calver was to continue, with more frequent meetings
· There would be an Environmental Week in January supported by a ‘get involved’ campaign
· Mr Bauer was supporting a campaign around food procurement on campus, to improve the health and environmental impacts of the University community. It was noted that this was a worthy aim but that the responsibilities for the objectives listed were split between various parts of the University. It would be best to pick one area and target that. The group agreed to let him know if they had any thoughts on the matter.

It was clarified that the University has Fairtrade status, as well as its own monthly farmers’ market selling local produce. Surveys are also carried out in catered residences early in the academic year to determine whether the food being served meets the needs of the students.

4. Annual Report (EAG 09.09.3)
Noted: This was due to go to EHSEC on 3 November.
Agreed: The report would be amended as follows and circulated by email for comments:
· Take out acronyms
· Remove reference to Sound Impact Awards
· Cross-reference with previous plan of action and add continuing actions
· Add Ecocampus business plan
· Add ‘Consider submissions to environmental awards as appropriate’
· Cross-check on any relevant activities from the Travel Plan Steering Group.
Action: Dr Shields

5. Green Impacts project
Reported: This two-year project, based on the Sound Impacts awards, was a behavioural change scheme. Birmingham was one of 20 universities selected to take part. The scheme included a grant of £25,000 from DEFRA to cover the cost of a Greener Living Assistant – a student recruited to carry out some of the audit. The University needed to provide match funding of around £10,000, and to find 15 departments to participate in the scheme. A business case had been submitted to the Registrar and Secretary; it was believed that the scheme would pay for itself.
Noted: This had already been discussed through the Leadership Group for Unified Administration, and Mr Nick Blinco from Alumni Relations and Ms Charlotte Wellington from the College of Social Sciences were involved in helping implement the scheme. There were concerns over communication of the scheme within the governance structure of the University, and duplication of work across the administration.

6. Sustainability Task Group development
Noted: A paper was being written to update the Vice-Chancellor on how the University was dealing with sustainability. A clearer distinction would be drawn between this group and the Sustainability Task Group.

7. Date of next meeting
Noted: The next meeting would take place in mid-December. Dates would be circulated.