Stop Wasting!

Analysis of the Efficiency of the

Waste and Recycling Contracts at the University of Waterloo

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

For: Professor Susan Wismer

Date: Thursday, December 5, 2002

Class: ERS 250-Greening the Campus

 

 

By: Natasha Jailal, Sarah McBrea,

Carolyn Smith, Winghang Wong,

Charlotte Ueta, Michelle Zakrison

 

 

 

 

 

 

Executive Summary

This report examines the environmental and economic efficiency of the garbage and recycling contracts at the University of Waterloo (UW). As the garbage and recycling contracts are to be renewed in 2003, it is important that the system of collection is as efficient as possible. The triangulation method of research was applied in our project in that we gathered data using three different approaches. We conducted visual waste audits, key informant interviews, as well as a literature review. The results of our research have been analyzed and recommendations have been synthesised on how to increase the efficiency of the waste collection system, which can be implemented in the renewed contracts.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the following people for their assistance in the development of this project: Steven Cook, for his environmental consciousness and patience. Specifically, because he approached Patti Cook in hopes that the waste contracts be improved environmentally (and economically); as well, Sandy Kiang, for providing a student’s perspective and aid with this project; Tom Galloway for his assistance with knowledge concerning the waste collection system and Susan Wismer for her guidance in teaching us how to write a good research project. Last but certainly not least, we would especially like to thank Patti Cook for providing an infinite amount of support, knowledge, and advice for this project.

 

Table of Contents

Contents Page

Executive Summary……………………..……………………………………………..…i

Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………..…...i

Table of Contents……………………………………………..…………....................….ii

  1. Introduction………………………………………………………………………...1-6
    1. Problem Statement…………………………………………………………...3
    2. Target Audience……………………………………………………………...4
    3. Purpose……………………………………………………………………….5
    4. Research Objective…………………………………………………………...5
    5. Rationale………………………………………………………………….......5
  2. Methodology………………………………………………………………………6-13
      1. Figure 1: Triangulation method of research completed…………..7
      2. Figure 2: Schedule of Tasks………………………………………8
    1. Literature Review…………………………………………………………..…9
    2. Key Informant Interviews………………………………………………….…9
    3. Visual Waste Audit………………………………………………………..…11
  3. Actors System……………………………………………………………………..…14
    1. Core, Supporting and Shadow Actors……………………………………..…14
    2. Systems Diagram….…………………………………………………………15
      1. Figure 3: Systems Diagram ……………………………………...16
  4. Results and Analysis……………………………………………………………...17-28
    1. Literature Review…………………………………………………………….17
      1. Figure 4: Literature Review Conducted………………………….18
    2. Key Informant Interviews……………………………………………………19
      1. Patti Cook, UW Waste Management Coordinator……………….19
      2. Steven Cook, Manager, Procurement and Contract Services……19
      3. Tom Galloway, Director, Plant Operations……………………...20
      4. Sandy Kiang, 3rd year ERS Student……………………………...20
    3. Visual Garbage and Recycling Audits……………………………………….21

5.0 Boundaries…………………………………………………………………………...29

6.0 Limitations……………………………………………………………………….29-30

7.0 Recommendations………………………………………………………………..31-34

7.1 Waste Management Education………………………………………………31

7.2 Optimizing the Waste Collection System……………………………………32

8.0 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………...34

9.0 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………35

Appendices…………………………………………………………………………...36-37 Appendix A: Interview Request Letter ………………………………………….36

Appendix B: Questions for Interviews ………………………………………….37

Appendix C: Interview Participation Thank you Letter…………………………38

Appendix D: Waste Schedule and Rough Data Template………………….……39

Appendix E: Recycling Container Tables………………………………….…….42

Appendix F: Raw Data from Visual Waste Audit……………………………….44

1.0 Introduction

Next year, in 2003, Stephen Cook, the Manager of Procurement and Contract Services, will be tendering the contracts for the garbage and recycling requirements for the University of Waterloo (UW) (Cook, 2002). This means that Mr. Cook will present various garbage and recycling companies with the criteria that UW has about its waste collection, i.e. what, how and when our waste shall be collected. This is called putting the contract out for tender. The company that can offer the best price to discard our waste will win the contract. Currently, Canadian Waste collects our garbage and Capital Environmental collects our recycling. Two companies are used because in 1997, when the contract was put out for tender, Canadian Waste was able to offer the university the best price for garbage collection and Capital Environmental offered the best price for recycling collection.

This study transpired when Mr. Cook approached Patti Cook, the Waste Management Coordinator for UW and requested that a WATgreen project be completed to research the current system to see if it is as efficient as possible (Cook, 2002). It was the belief of Mr. Cook that since these contracts have not been reviewed since 1997 that the system might not meet the university’s current needs (Cook, 2002). Therefore, when the contracts are renewed, the completed research of this project will provide information on how to perform the most efficient system for the university’s waste collection (Cook, 2002). As the garbage and recycling contracts of the university are major sources of revenue for such companies, they should present a cost efficient proposal to the university in hopes that they will attain the new contract that will in turn be much more environmentally efficient.

For the purposes of this project, we have defined waste as discarded garbage and recyclable materials. Efficiency, in terms of waste collection, has been defined as waste containers that are over 70% full at the time of pick up depending on its content. The system is efficient if there is only garbage in the garbage containers and recyclables in the recycling bins; none that contain mixed waste.

The members of this project conducted research by the triangulation method of research by means of literature review, key informant interviews and most importantly, visual waste audits. The literature review and the key informant interviews provided much qualitative data. The literature review consisted mainly of examining previous WATgreen projects. Our key informant interviews were conducted with representatives who are knowledgeable about the waste collection system at the university. The audits were performed on all of the outdoor garbage dumpsters and recycling bins of UW buildings except for select buildings on North Campus, which include the Columbia Greenhouses, Bauer Warehouse, Columbia Ice Field and the Brubacher House. This was completed in order to analyze the efficiency of the system by means of the contents as well as the volume of the waste in these bins to gain qualitative and much quantitative data.

The literature studied solely provided background information on our project, and therefore did not need to be analyzed. The waste audit data was analyzed by calculating statistical information from the raw data. This included the use of mean calculations and minimum and maximum values. In our examination of the key informant interviews, we compared and contrasted this with the quantitative data gathered from the visual waste audits to evaluate whether or not the information was consistent.

This report concludes with recommendations that we developed as to how the system can be improved in order to reduce the carbon dioxide emissions caused by the trucks that transport our waste as well as the releases of greenhouse gases from landfill sites and the cost of waste collection fees that the university is paying.

1.1 Problem Statement

The issue presented in this study is the inefficiency of the waste management practices of UW. This is significant in that if the system becomes more economically efficient in terms of money being paid to collect our waste, we will also be reducing our impact on the environment. There are many economically and environmentally concerned staff, faculty and students on campus who wish to see UW reduce its economic burden as well as its impact on the environment, respectively.

The less waste that UW produces; the less frequently our waste will need to be collected. If this happens, our economic costs will be reduced because UW pays a fee for garbage collected by weight as well as the frequency and amount of bins being emptied. This will, in turn, reduce the negative environmental impacts of waste collection such as carbon dioxide emitted from the trucks that drive to campus and transport our waste to a landfill and recycling centres. This would also reduce the amount greenhouse gases emitted by landfills, which including carbon dioxide. Therefore, by reducing the amount of waste going into the landfill sites, the amount of carbon dioxides would also be reduced (Miller, 1998).

There are also hopes by the environmental conscious population on campus that one day the university will be compliant with the guidelines of the Kyoto protocol, which state that we should emit 10% less greenhouse gases then we emitted in 1990 (Cook, 2002). Therefore, by reducing the amount of traveling of these trucks, the amount of the emissions, that UW is indirectly causing, would decrease. This would further our goal of being "Kyoto compliant" (Cook, 2002). The university is continually seeking out means of reducing its expenses and environmental impact. Therefore, if the efficiency of the waste system was increased, both economic and environmental concerns will be improved.

1.2 Target Audience

The most important audience for this study is Stephen Cook. He, along with those mentioned earlier, is concerned with the impact that UW is making on the environment. After Mr. Cook has been presented with the results of this report, he can then ask the bidding garbage and recycling companies who can remove our waste using the most environmentally and cost efficient method that has been suggested in this report.

This study will also be of interest to Patti Cook as she is UW’s Waste Management Coordinator and is therefore responsible for continually improving the university’s waste management practices. Furthermore, this project will also have an effect on those who work in the Grounds Section of Plant Operations. For example, if the schedule of the waste collection is altered, Plant Operation employees will be directly affected by changes in the operational procedures.

 

1.3 Purpose

The purpose of this study was to determine the environmental and economic efficiency of the current garbage and recycling collection systems and contracts at UW.

1.4 Research Objectives

Our main objective is to research the following question. "Is altering the current garbage and recycling collection system at the University of Waterloo beneficial?" This process is considered beneficial if the system is found to be inefficient in terms of economic cost and environmental sustainability.

Other objectives are as follows:

  1. To gain knowledge of the current garbage and recycling contracts.
  2. To examine current practices through a series of data collection using the triangulate method of research.
  3. To determine if current practices of waste management are at the economic and environmental standards desirable for UW.
  4. To propose suggestions that will make the new contract more efficient than the current one, if required.

1.5 Rationale

WATgreen is an organization initiated in 1990 by students, staff and faculty intending to increase the sustainability of the University of Waterloo campus (WATgreen pamphlet). In accordance with the vision of WATgreen that states that "we envision UW transforming itself into a showcase of sustainability, a true ecosystem in harmony with its environment", this study will aid in reducing UW’s impact on the environment by reducing our waste and carbon dioxide emissions (Cook, 2002). If the garbage can be reduced by using methods such as promoting reducing, reusing, and then recycling and if the number and frequency of garbage collection by trucks decreases, the amount of emissions that UW is indirectly creating will be reduced and the university will have become more environmentally sustainable.

2.0 Methodology

An inductive approach was taken to collect and analyze the data used for this research project, meaning that conclusions were not made concerning the efficiency of the waste contracts until thorough research was completed and analyzed. We attempted to gather information that would aid us in understanding the nature and effectiveness of the current garbage and recycling contracts. As previously mentioned, there were three primary data compilation techniques used in this study, which include direct observation by means of visually auditing waste bins, secondary data collection through literature review as well as key informant interviews (Palys, 1997) (See Figure 1). Furthermore, we also organized our tasks in a large chart so that the responsibilities and deadlines for each member of the group was clear (See Figure 2).

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1: Triangulation method of research completed

Task Group Members Involved

Research Study Design (to be completed by October 20th, 2002) All

Summary Carolyn

Introduction to research design Michelle

- What is the general situation Michelle

- Problem statement Michelle

- Brief general review of literature about problem Natasha

Purpose of study Wing

Research question and objectives Wing

Conceptual framework and theoretical approach Charlotte and Sarah

Boundaries of the study Wing

Literature review Natasha

Methods Michelle and Wing

The research team Carolyn

Appendices Michelle

- Bibliography Michelle Natasha

- ORE application form All

Editing and submission Carolyn

Interviews

Initial interview with Patti Cook (September 26th, 2002) All

Further interviews with Patti Cook Carolyn and Wing

(October 17th, October 25th, November 13th)

Interviews with Steven Cook (October 28th, November 14th) Michelle

Interview with Sandy Kiang (October 10th, October 1st) Carolyn and Wing

Interview with Tom Galloway Michelle

Interview with Western University waste management coordinators Natasha

(During the week of November 11th)

Data Collection

Audits (between October 28th and November 15th) All (see figure 1)

Current contract information (Received October 3rd, continually Michelle and Carolyn

referred to)

Analysis of audits and recommendations (Week of November 11th) All

Presentation and Final Report

Presentation organization (Week of November 18th, in conjunction with report) All

Presentation of material (November 28th or December 3rd) Michelle, Carolyn, Wing

Report (November 18th to November 29th, in conjunction with presentation) All

Information included in Presentation and Final Report (Completed by November 29th)

Executive Summary Natasha

Analysis of information Carolyn and Charlotte

Recommendations All

Boundaries and limitations Wing and Carolyn

Editing and submitting Michelle

Figure 2: Schedule of Tasks for each group member

2.1 Literature Review

In order to look at the waste management system on the UW campus, we decided to research this topic and look at past studies for guidance. The literature review was thus completed. The process focused on researching different topics such as waste management, recycling, regional waste management initiatives and other university programs. These subjects were beneficial to the members of the group completing the audit as it gave an insight into relevant topics. We also studied previous WATgreen projects to gain information that would relate specifically to on-campus waste management initiatives. This portion of the research focused on the internet and books as sources of information.

2.2 Key informant interviews

Secondly, in order to find out who is involved and how their knowledge might contribute to our research conclusions, we conducted several key informant interviews. Through interviews with experts — that is to say people that are considered to be knowledgeable, in this case, about the garbage and recycle contracts and the issues surrounding the contracts — we gained valuable information regarding the processes of the garbage and recycling pick-up schedules and efficiency. We would have been unable to gather such data by interviewing the average UW student as they would not be able to answer questions concerning waste management at UW and therefore would be of little use in our research study. Those selected for an interview were based on their knowledge about the university’s waste collection system. Patti Cook directed us to these contacts, who include Steven Cook, as he was the person who requested this research be carried out and Tom Galloway, Director of Plant Operations, because he is knowledgeable about the contracts and the waste collection system. Sandy Kiang, a 3rd year Environment and Resource Studies (ERS) student was also interviewed as she has very recently written an extensive report about the current UW waste contracts and is quite knowledgeable about the system. Patti was also interviewed, as she is the most knowledgeable person on campus about UW’s waste management system. The requests for interviews were issued in the form of a letter to describe the purpose of the study to the participants (Appendix A).

These key informants were interviewed with a set of standard questions approved by the Office of Research Ethics. We also attempted to contact the waste management contacts at the University of Western, but we were unable to reach them. We would have found it useful to find information on a similar size system and identify whether this other system was more or less efficient than that of UW. Furthermore, we had also wished to interview David Lee of Canadian Waste and Julie of Canadian Environmental to get outside opinions concerning the efficiency of the system. However, due to time constraints of this project, we were unable to complete these interviews.

Methodology of interview questions chosen

The interviews were conducted in a question/dialogue answer scenario. Therefore, the largest amount of facts that the interviewee was able to provide was obtained because their responses were not limited (Palys, 1997). The interview questions were compiled using some of the information that had been obtained through the literature review. After reviewing the type of information and the results obtained during the waste audits, questions were raised about the general waste system.

The questions asked were mainly concerned with the interviewees’ perceptions of the efficiency of the system and their thoughts on how the system could be improved (See Appendix B). The interview questions inquired about the participants’ affiliation with UW and attempted to incorporate questions that would be open-ended, which would allow the interviewees to go into as much detail as they felt necessary. This also allowed for a snowballing effect of asking questions and gaining further information on the waste and recycling system of the University of Waterloo. The interviewees were also thanked for their time in a letter of appreciation (See Appendix C).

Methodology of Interview Analysis

These interviews were analyzed by each of the six researchers in order to decrease the amount of bias of information being interpreted by one person. As there was a combination of staff and student representatives interviewed, possible biases were taken into account. We analyzed the responses to our questions by examining whether or not all of these key informants felt that the system is efficient or can be improved. We compared these views with our data from the waste audits in terms qualitative data from the opinions of the efficiency of the system vs. the data collected that quantitatively indicates the efficiency.

2.3 Visual Garbage and Recycling Audits

The most important method used to determine the efficiency of the current garbage and recycling contracts was through direct observation by means of a visual waste audit. All of the UW outdoor garbage and recycling containers were visually audited, in accordance with the process outlined in "A Guide to Waste Auditing on Campus: From Planning to Report Writing" (Cook, 2002). There were some buildings that we did not audit due to their distant location on North Campus. These include: Bauer Warehouse, Brubacher House, Columbia Ice Field, as well as the Columbia Greenhouses (Cook, 2002). Each researcher was responsible for conducting waste audits on different sections of campus. The buildings were divided up in terms of physical proximity so that it would be convenient for the researchers to collect data in a relatively short amount of time (See Appendix D and E).

It was decided that the last week in October and the first two-week in November would be the three-week period in which we would conduct these waste audits. On Monday, October 28, Wednesday October 30, and Friday November 1, each of the six researchers will audit their respective locations that have garbage pick ups scheduled. Not all sites are picked up five days a week; therefore, not all sites will be audited the first week. The next week, on Tuesday November 5 and Thursday November 7, this process will be repeated for the locations that have pick ups scheduled for Tuesdays and Thursdays. The last week, the garbage bins were audited everyday day from Monday, November 11 to Friday, November 15, 2002. Furthermore, as the recycling containers are only emptied on Fridays, we audited the recycling containers on Friday November 1, November 8 and November 15. The residences recycling containers are under a different contract and are therefore outside of our boundary. As a result, we did not consider them in our study. It was advised by Patti Cook that the removal of the garbage and waste containers usually occurs in the late morning (Cook, 2002). As the researchers usually have classes in the morning Patti agreed to ask the garbage and recycling companies if they would be willing to remove our waste from Monday through Thursday at 2pm and Friday at 1pm in order for us to do our inspections prior to the pickups to gain accurate data (Cook, 2002).

This method of research was a quantitative approach, by which the main concerns are the actual numbers and figures. Statistics become very important in attempts to answer contract questions and concerns that the university may have in its constant attempt to discover ways in which costs can be lowered.

While auditing, we will be using the sign system of coding (Palys, 1997). We simply observed the amount of waste found in the garbage and recycling containers within the each container given a certain amount of time intervals between pick-ups. We recorded the estimates of fullness for each the garbage and recycling container in terms of percentage. This data was then analyzed by calculating statistical information from the raw data. This included the use of mean calculations and minimum and maximum values. This information made it possible to find out which buildings needed a new contract and which were efficient the way they are. For example, if a building had a maximum value of 90% and an average of 70%, the system is very efficient. Whereas if there is a building where the maximum is only 30% and the average is 25%, the system needs to be changed. The maximum values are important because the contracts need to work for the days in which there might be a substantial amount of garbage. Depending on the week, the amount of garbage in the bins may vary. Therefore, we looked at the maximum value and ensured that that was the main number used in determining the efficiency of the system.

 

3.0 Actors System

Core Actors: (Parties that are directly involved in weaving the outcome of a
particular situation and/or people that would be directly affected
by end result of whatever decisions that are made.)

Supporting Actors: (Supporting actors are parties that are not as actively involved in a system as core actors are.  They may influence the outcome of a proceeding.  Their presence or absences, however, will not determine rather negotiations and actions will continue or not.  

Shadow Actors: (Parties that are not directly involved with an issue but have significant effect on the decisions that are made by the core actors.)

3.1 Systems Design

The actions of the students, staff and faculty of UW all have a direct influence on the garbage and recycling contracts as it is these people who create the university’s waste (See Figure 3). After the waste is discarded into the indoor garbage and recycling containers, the Plant Operations Grounds staff collects the garbage from the numerous academic and administrative buildings on campus. In residences, "House Moms" as well as students collect the garbage and recycling. (The term House Mom refers to the ladies who clean the Village 1 and 2 floors everyday.) Students living in Mackenzie King Apartments, Columbian Lake Townhouses and UW Place gather their own garbage and recycling and discard it in outdoor waste containers. In the residences with food service outlets, the staff that works there also discards the kitchen waste. This includes organic and non-organic waste as well as recycling, including cardboard.

Contracts go through the UW Procurement and Contract Services, managed by Stephen Cook.

UW recycles five main materials that include cans, PET plastics, clear glass, newspapers and fine paper. There are two different contracts for recycling, Genor picks up fine paper and Capital Environment picks up the clear glass, PET plastics, cans and cardboard. Garbage is collected by Canadian Waste daily and recycling is collected by Capital Environmental every Friday. As for the residences and affiliated colleges, recycling materials are picked up by the region.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 3: Systems Diagram

4.0 Results and Analysis

4.1 Literature Review

As mentioned earlier this process was divided by researching topics such as waste management, recycling, regional waste management initiatives and other university programs (See Figure 4). Some of the literature found was very informative as they answered some questions that we were planning to ask in interviews whereas other sources went over data and information of which we were already aware of. This data found was compared and contrasted in order to find the advantages and disadvantages of certain management models over others and the information gained from them was applied to the current audit.

The websites were very helpful in providing information on the previous studies conducted at the University of Waterloo. The main website referred to was the Solid Waste Management at the University of Waterloo (Cook, 2002.). From this website, we were able to look at previous projects which incorporated waste management into their topic. Most of the projects viewed had smaller spatial scales than what we studied. This information illustrated that there were many waste management studies completed that mostly examined singular buildings or areas on campus.

There was an on-campus waste audit project completed by Waterloo students in 1993 (Wright, 1993.). This project had different temporal and spatial scopes than in our project. The temporal scope for this project was over a two-month period with studies being completed weekly (Wright, 1993.). Also, this earlier project focused on the types of waste at UW and waste reduction, whereas the study we are undertaking is focusing on how to improve the actual contracts which will hopefully help to decrease the carbon dioxide emission of the vehicles which pick up our waste.

Many of the previous studies examined the topic of waste management with very limited spatial scales whereas our project covered a larger spatial scope by investigating the entire campus. Also, many studies looked at different aspects of waste management. The projects were based on determining ways to reduce waste, such as in the "Waste Audit on Campus" project (Wright, 1993.).

Related Topic

Source (**Refer to Bibliography for complete reference**)

Information Gained

Recycling

  • University of Waterloo, WATgreen Projects: Recycle it Right, Reducing the Use of Disposable Cups on Campus
  • Information on recycling trends on certain areas of campus, Beck Hall and Tim Horton’s in the Modern Languages building
  • Listed various actors involved in recycling and their positions within the recycling system (Recycling It Right, 2001.)

Waste

Management

Case Studies

  • University of Waterloo, WATgreen Projects
  • Journal: Long-term planning of waste management system in the City of Regina
  • Suggestions and plans on waste management
  • Long term goals on large scale
  • Management plans should take into account dynamic and uncertain characteristics of a waste system (Huang et al., 2001.)
  • Small-scale studies, which will serve as baseline data (Crabb et al., 1998.)
  • Regional Waste and Recycling

    • Region of Waterloo
    • Various recycling facts (size of blue boxes available) (Regional Municipality of Waterloo, 2002.)

    Other University Waste Projects

    • University of British Columbia
  • Litter initiatives (Envolve Communications, 2002.)
  • Public opinions and ideas on waste management (Envolve Communications, 2002.)
  • Transporting waste off campus is a University job, no apparent contract with independent company
  • Figure 4: Literature Review Chart

     

    4.2 Key Informant Interviews

    4.2.1 Interview with Patti Cook

    Patti Cook is very knowledgeable on the waste and recycling contracts of the UW because she is the waste management coordinator. She was able to provide much useful information on how the university has dealt with waste management currently and in the past. In general, considering the limited budget, Mrs. Cook feels that the waste management system is relatively efficient. There is, however, room for improvement. Because of the many different pick-up companies, the waste management is not as efficient as having one company dealing with all the pick-up. Unfortunately, much of the problems are only issues that can be addressed if the budget was significantly increased.

        1. Interview with Stephen Cook, Manager of Procurement and Contract Services

    Stephen Cook also feels that the university’s contract and waste collection system is efficient. He also said that in 1997, when the contracts were renewed previously, the system was improved considerably. Until that time, the pick-up trucks collected the garbage from each bin, everyday, regardless of the amount of garbage it contained. This is how the companies generate revenue as they are paid every time that the bins are lifted. The contract renewed in 1997 was based around a schedule according to the need of frequency of pick-up by each location. He also said that the current contracts now included a clause that said that the companies should act as environmentally responsibly as possible.

    4.2.3 Interview with Tom Galloway, Director of Plant Operations

    Tom Galloway also felt that the system was quite efficient. One suggestion that he had was the creation of an updated environmental policy of the one that Stephen Cook sent out as a Memorandum in 2000. Mr. Galloway felt that reduction should be the solution to improving the university’s waste collection system.

    4.2.4 Interview with Sandy, 3rd year ERS Student

    Sandy feels that the garbage collection is very efficient and ranked it 8 on a 10 point scale. She is unsure about the efficiency of the recycling system but generally feels that it can be improved. There also needs to be emphasis put on garbage reduction. There is a lot of unnecessary waste being produced and it is important to reduce what is being disposed of before trying to worry about where the material is going. Also, implementing a composting system on campus, or at least for a few buildings, would help divert much of the waste going into filling the garbage bins.

    Ideally, one contract would be beneficial for both the school and the environment. Fewer trips may be made reducing emissions as well as the school would save money because it is being picked up by only one company.

    A major suggestion that was made with regards to education was that there should be representatives from each faculty and from the students in residence. They could form a committee responsible for distributing information about the effectiveness of recycling to faculty, staff, and students. This would help ensure that the information is getting out to the people on campus and that they learn the importance of recycling.

    4.3 Visual Waste and Recycling Audit

    Each group member did a waste audit on a small section of the University of Waterloo campus. Each section was analyzed separately and general statements were made regarding the current waste and recycling situation for the campus in order to make recommendations for the entire campus (See Appendix F for the Raw Data that was analyzed).

    Natasha Jailal audited the first section of the campus. These buildings include Columbia Lake Townhouses, Optometry, University Club, Klemmer Daycare and the Student Life Centre. The averages between the buildings varied extensively from 20% full at University Club to 105% at the Klemmer Daycare. The bins at Columbia Lake Townhouses were emptied two times a week but were never over 60% full. Tuesday had the most filled bins with the mean value of 49%. No recycling meant that there was more cardboard in the garbage bins, which added to the percent fullness. This system is very inefficient with regards to improving costs on waste pickup as well as improving environmental effects with a recycling program.

    The bins at Optometry were picked up five days a week and had an average percent of 77.5% full. This system is much more efficient because the bins were sometimes nearly full. There were however, instances where the bins were empty. Because the waste program must be set up so that on the days where there is a substantial amount of waste, the system is generally efficient. With regards to the recycling, the bins were not very full and there is constant rearrangement of the bins. For example there were 5 recycling bins present during one week, while there were only 3 bins the following week. Recycling pickup once a week for Optometry is efficient because there is no need for further trips, but if the recycling is picked up once every two weeks, the bins would be overflowing and could start to attract wildlife.

    University Club’s waste is collected twice a week. This is not efficient in terms of cost for the university because the average percent for both pickup days were 22% and 20%. The recycling is a much more efficient system because the bins were more full especially the cardboard, which averaged 85% full. Recycling is only needed to be picked up once a week for this building.

    The Student Life Centre uses a compactor that compresses the garbage. This unfortunately made it difficult to estimate the approximate fullness of the bin because it was difficult to open it. Under the advice of Patti Cook, it was just assumed to be full. The recycling bins had an average percent of between 85% and 100% full. This means that this system is very efficient.

    Klemmer Daycare is the last building that was done for this section of campus. The garbage is collected once a week but by pickup time on Wednesday, the bins were always overflowing. The average was 105%. There is no recycling at this building therefore, some of the garbage filling the bin is in fact, recyclable.

    Sarah McAlister did the waste and recycling audits for the second section of campus. This included UW Place, Modern Languages, Dana Porter, and Needles Hall.

    At Eby Hall and Beck Hall in UW Place, the garbage bins have a compactor therefore, similar to the Student Life Center, the bins were considered to be full. There is also a normal garbage bin at the buildings, so these results will be analyzed. The average percent for Eby Hall and Beck Hall is 30.5% full. The maximum was 40% full. Therefore, this system is not efficient because the bins are not over 50% full when it is time for pickup. There is also cardboard in the recycling bins, which adds to the amount of waste. With regards to the recycling at these two buildings, the university is only responsible for cardboard. The average percent for the cardboard recycling was 73% full. The maximum average was around 105% full. The cardboard recycling is very efficient because the bins are fairly full at pickup time.

    Wilmot Court, another section of UW Place had a maximum amount of 100% full. For cardboard recycling, the average was 77% full with a maximum of 100% full. Both the recycling and waste systems for this building are efficient.

    Waterloo Court has an average amount of garbage of 45% full and a maximum amount of 50% full. This system is not quite as efficient because the garbage is not very full when it is picked up. The cardboard recycling, however, is efficient where the average is 77%full with a maximum value of 100% full.

    Wellesley Court has an average waste percent of about 38% and a maximum value of 50% full. Similar to Waterloo Court, this system is not very efficient. The cardboard recycling is again, quite efficient. The average pickup amount is 80% with a maximum of 100%.

    Finally, Woolwich Court has an average amount of garbage of 40% full with a maximum of 100% full. With the maximum of 100% full, this system is efficient because there are days in which the bins can be quite full. The cardboard recycling is also efficient. The average fullness of the container is 85% with a maximum value of 100%.

    For Modern Languages, the garbage bins range from 60% to 100% full. Daily pickup for this building is efficient because of the high percentage of daily garbage in the bins. The cardboard recycling was always overflowing by the time it was removed. This suggests that this system may need improvement by adding another bin or a larger bin. The average was 95% and there was a day where the amount was 120%. Recycling at this building was efficient where the maximum value is 60% and the average is around 30%.

    Dana Porter Library’s waste is removed three times a week. This is efficient because the garbage container has an average of 60% and a maximum value of 85%. The cardboard recycling has an average of 67% with a maximum of 120%. This system is fairly efficient, except on the occasional time when the bin exceeds 100%, and this was mostly due to the fact that the cardboard had not been broken down. For the rest of the recycling, the average was around 33% full with a maximum value of around 90%. This system is again very efficient.

    At Needles Hall, the bins are emptied three times a week. This is efficient because the average amount of garbage is 57% and the maximum amount is 90%. There was some recycling found in the garbage. The recycling bin percentages are quite low for this building. The clear glass and cans bins were not used at all. The cardboard was used and had an average of 65% and a maximum value of 90%. This makes this system quite efficient. The other recycling bins had an average of 22%. This makes this system not efficient at all.

    WingHang Wong audited Village One, Ron Eydt Village, Fed Hall, and McKenzie King Village. She found that Mondays’ garbage bins are generally full. For the other days in the week, Village One is almost always above 50% full. There are only seven visits when any of the three bins are less than 50% full. Of these seven observations, five of them were made on two different Fridays when there were good reasons to believe that the pick-up have already taken place.

    For Ron Eydt Village, the average percentage of full for the garbage bins at the North turn and South turn is 47.2%. However, this data includes four outliers for the two Fridays when data was taken most likely after the pick-up truck has already come. If those four data were not included into the calculations, the average rises ten percent to 57.2%.

    As for McKenzie King Village, other than Mondays, the percentage of fullness for the two bins located at either end of that residence has always been under 55%.

    Fed Hall, which is open on the weekends, has Monday and Friday pick-ups. The data collected ranges from being 15% full to 200%.

    Carolyn Smith did the third section of campus, which included BFG building, Biology 1, Chemistry 1, East Campus Hall, Hagey Hall, and RC Hall. The recycling system was efficient for all buildings. For Hagey Hall, BFG, and Chemistry 1, the recycling bins were sometimes removed for several days. This creates a problem because in all of these locations, the recycling was thrown in the garbage bins. This decreases the efficiency of both the recycling and garbage because the recycling bins are empty, and the garbage bins are fuller than they should be.

    In terms of garbage, all buildings had an efficient system except for East Campus Hall North. This system is poor because the garbage is never over 50% full and there is a substantial amount of cardboard recycling in the garbage bins. This causes more pickups than necessary.

    Charlotte Ueta audited the engineering buildings, Carl Pollack Hall, Mathematics and Computers, Davis Centre, Police, General Services Complex and Earth Sciences and Chemistry buildings.

    Due to on-campus construction, access to the waste receptacle area was not possible for engineering buildings 2 and 3, and Physics building. Therefore these buildings were not be included in the audit and could not be analyzed for the purpose of this report.

    Earth Science and Chemistry building had two waste bins, both, which contained less than a 100% of waste, although there was over 50% of waste in both bins during the auditing period. However, despite the relatively high output of waste by the building, it is unnecessary to use both bins even though one bin has not been completely filled first. Although this does not reduce the amount of trips made by the trucks to campus to pickup waste, by trying to reduce the number of bins used, the waste pickup personnel require less effort and time. As for the recycling, there were cans and clear glass recycling bins present on site. The can recycling bins were never over 40% full and averaged at 20.5% full. There are two possibilities that could make this system more effective, either reduce the number of trips made by the pickup trucks or to reduce the number of bins from 3 to 2 instead. Clear glass recycling bins reached a maximum of 40% and averaged 14.1% full. As suggested with the can recycling bins, the number of trips can be reduced or bins can be removed to make the system efficient.

    Waste at Carl Pollack Hall is picked up five times a week. There is only one bin present at this building and the maximum level reached was 90% and the average level was 55%. The system is efficient as it is because the bin is always at least 30% full on pickup days. However, making pickup every other day instead of having waste picked up everyday could make this system more efficient. Mondays and Tuesdays were generally fuller than the other 3 days so a day in the middle of the week can be eliminated from the pickup schedule to reduce the costs of having the truck to come everyday. Can recycling at Carl Pollack Hall reached maximum level of 60% and averaged at 28.8%. Generally, out of the 3 bins that are located at the building, only 2 bins are used and even then are not filled up entirely. The same applies for the clear glass recycling bins. Both bins are never full and most likely only one bin will suffice for this building. Newspaper recycling bins reached maximum level of 60% and averaged at 36.6%. On two weeks out of the three during the auditing period, the percent reached by combining both bins was 90%; therefore two bins are necessary just in case one bin is not enough.

    There was only one waste bin at the Police building and this is sufficient for their needs. There are only two pick up days for this building but one pickup during the week would suffice because the bin has never been full during the auditing period. The average level was 38.3%. During week one there was no garbage in the bins but only furniture pieces and paint cans. There was only one can recycling bin present and was never over 20% full. Since materials in the waste bins did not belong in there as well as the fact that it was never over 70% full, the system is inefficient. The cardboard pick-ups, however, were constantly over 50% full, making this system somewhat efficient.

    Davis Centre has an eatery in the building so the amount of garbage that is produced is great and there are two bins present at the building. One out of the two bins is always over 50% full and the other bin is either empty or less than 50% full. There are can recycling, clear glass recycling and cardboard recycling at Davis Centre. Due to the eatery that is located within the building, there are always over 50% of cans and glass bottles in the bins. The cardboard recycling bins are generally full. However, some of the boxes have not been taken down therefore adding to the level of waste.

    There are two bins located at the General Services Complex building. One bin is picked up on Mondays and Fridays where the other bin is picked up every weekday. Between the two bins, one is always less full than the other making it inefficient for waste pickups. In one of the bins, there was scrap metal found in all three auditing weeks. There are cans, news, and clear glass recycling bins were located at the General Services Complex. All the bins were over 50% full therefore making all of the bins necessary and efficient. The cardboard recycling bins were always over 90% full, reaching a maximum of 110%. However, the cardboard boxes were sometimes not taken down exaggerating the percentages.

    At the Mathematics and Computers building, there are two waste bins. On Fridays at least one of the bins is generally full whereas the other bin is under 50% full. This means that both bins are necessary so that there is no overflow of waste. However, during the middle of the week, both bins are less than 50% full. There is clear glass, cans and newspaper recycling bins located at the building. The amount of clear glass recyclables is relatively low compared to the other recyclables. There is over 40% of cans present when it is pickup time and at least 40% of newspaper present.

     

     

     

    5.0 Boundaries

    The physical boundary of analysis is the property of the University of Waterloo. This includes the academic buildings on campus, the affiliated colleges and the residences including the Columbia Lake Townhouses and UW Place.

    The time period under which garbage auditing data would be gathered is a three week period between October 28th, 2002 and November 15th, 2002. Other information, such as literatures used and interviews, has been gathered throughout this semester.

    The people contacted were people who were involved and or knowledgeable on the waste and recycling procedure of the University of Waterloo.

    6.0 Limitations

    Several limitations were encountered when the researchers completed their garbage auditing data. First of all, the auditing was done within a three weeks period in the fall term, information about the winter and spring terms cannot be known. Data gathered in the fall term would likely be significantly different than data that would be gathered in the spring term, since fewer students would be in residences and less students on campus in general.

    A second limitation regarding time was the time that the garbage and recycling trucks came to campus. Although efforts were made to let the pick-up people know about the auditing and therefore, had them try to come later in the afternoon, it was not always the case. On certain days, we the researchers got to the garbage and recycling bins, they have already been emptied.

    Also, because of the far location of the buildings Natasha had to audit, instead of going in the morning, she would go the night before. This means that she was not able to account for any garbage that were being put into the bin in the morning had there been any.

    There were also other limitations that were not temporal. Some of the garbage bins, such as the one at South Campus Hall and the one at the food service area of Village One were too large for the researchers were not able to look inside. From a distance, WingHang could see the garbage inside the bin of the Village One food services area only if they were over fifty percent full. For the other times, she resorted to asking the cafeteria men and ladies how much garbage they had thrown inside the bin already that day and they would give her an estimation. Therefore, any data for that garbage bin under fifty percent was gathered not through observation but estimations of those who worked in the food court.

    Lastly, due to construction, some of the bins were located behind fences that the researchers were not allowed to pass through. For those particular locations, data could not be gathered.

     

     

     

     

    7.0 Recommendations

    The recommendations that we have developed are mainly based on waste audit data collected as we found the quantitative data very concrete. Observing the six sections of the university campus, general recommendations can be made no only that apply to each certain area, but can be applied to the entire campus as well. For each of the six areas, the auditors who were responsible for their separate sections have come up with similar recommendations for improving environmental and cost efficiency.

    7.1 Waste Management Education

    A recommendation mentioned by all of the auditors was education of waste and recycle management. Effort should be put on educating people the negative effects of producing excessive amounts of waste on the environment and economy. The increased amount of waste produced has an effect on the costs to have pickup trucks come on campus. Trucks have a negative impact on the environment because of gas emissions from burning fuel. Such effects include release of noxious fumes that are harmful to the earth’s atmosphere, soil compaction and erosion as the trucks drive over roads, and runoff from the roads just to name a few. Such information should be made aware to people so that they are conscience of the amount of waste they are producing and the potential negative effects of doing so. There should also be a reminder to let people know what should be recycled and what can be thrown into waste bins. In certain instances, inappropriate objects have been found in dumpsters. For example, paint cans were found in waste containers at the Police building and scrap metal was found at General Services Complex building.

    Recycling and composting also reduces the amount of waste that ends up at dumpsites. Such waste management techniques should be stressed so as to reduce negative environmental impacts. Various composting techniques can be researched to see which one is suitable for the University of Waterloo. Recycling should be encouraged to make people aware of the importance of trying to reduce the amount of waste produced. Recycling programs could be set up where people can donate old clothes and furniture, instead of throwing it away in waster dumpsters.

    7.2 Optimization of Waste Collection System

    Another recommendation could be made on the number of unnecessary pickups by trucks at certain locations. By reducing the number of pickups made by trucks, environmental and economic costs can be reduced, making it efficient. Such buildings that can do with less scheduled pickup days include; East Campus Hall, Columbia Lake Townhouses, and UW place. A suggestion could be made to have a central pickup location for the villages, thus reducing the length of trip the trucks have to make to go to each separate residence.

    The number of waste dumpsters or recycling bins at certain buildings could also be reduced so that less effort and time is needed by the truck operators. In some instances, where there were too many bins, none were filled to capacity but each one was filled to less than 50%. Trucks would have to spend more time dumping bins that are less than half full instead of emptying bins that are fuller. The current company that is employed by the university charges for every bin that is picked up, so by reducing the number of bins, costs can be reduced. This recommendation applies to the Earth Science and Chemistry, Davis Centre, and Mathematics and Computers buildings.

    However there is the opposite case of where more bins and dumpsters might be required to meet with the demand of waste disposal. This can be seen at such buildings as Optometry, Mackenzie King Village, and Modern Languages, where sometimes, the garbage dumpsters and recycling bins would be overflowing by the time of pickup. Overflow could have potential negative environmental effects such as attracting wildlife to mainly human occupied areas. Increasing the dumpster and recycling bin sizes is more environmental friendly than increasing the number of pickups made by trucks. This is because emission from trucks is harmful to the environment.

    Although this could potentially not apply to waste and recycling audits every time they are conducted, on-campus construction effected the auditing data (awk). Construction prevented Engineering buildings 2 and 3 as well as Physics from being audited. The companies that have to travel to campus in order to make pickups could have encountered some sort of interference where they might have had to relocate the bins or come at special times. When there is construction on-campus, arrangements should be made to ensure safety of the pickup personnel so that they are not endangering themselves on constructions sites.

    Currently the university is employing two separate companies to pick up the waste and recycling. The university could employ one company to do both so that there are not unnecessary trucks coming in on different schedules. There would only be one set of trucks that need to make trips to the campus, reducing gas emissions.

    These recommendations can be applied to certain sections of the University of Waterloo campus to make the waste and recycling systems more efficient.

    Furthermore, at some buildings, the cardboard boxes have not been broken down, causing the bins to overflow and making the trucks to make unnecessary trips to campus. If the cardboard boxes are broken down so that more could fit in the bins, the number of trips made can be reduced.

    8.0 Conclusion

    This research project was carried out with the intention to determine and
    improve the efficiency of the waste and recycling system at the University of
    Waterloo.  Through a series of literature reviews, key informant interviews and visual waste auditing, the researchers found that there is room for improvement within the
    system.  A set of recommendations was suggested by this waste audit group to
    increase the proficiency of future waste collection system.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    9.0 Bibliography

    Cook, S. Procurement and Contract Services Waterloo: University of Waterloo. http://www.adm.uwaterloo.ca/infopur/ Accessed October 19, 2002.

    Cook, P. Personal Interviews. September 28-November 29, 2002.

    Crabb, M., A. Olfert, E. Piva, E. Joudrey, J. Fox, and M. Schlag. 1998. Ron Eydt Village-Food Waste Audit. University of Waterloo. http://www.adm.uwaterloo.ca/infowast/watgreen/projects/library/w98revfood/index.html.

    Envolve Communications. 2002. UBC Waste Management. University of British Columbia. http://www.recycle.ubc.ca/rwaste/litter.pdf.

    Huang, G.H., N. Sae-Lim, Chen, Z., L. Liu. 2001. Long-term Planning of Waste Management System in the City of Regina — An Integrated Inexact Optimization Approach. Kluwer Academic Publishers. http://80-scholarsportal.info.proxy.- lib.uwaterloo.ca/pdflinks/02091721420622255.pdf.

    Palys, Ted. 1997. Research Decisions Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives. Harcourt Canada Ltd: Toronto.

    Recycling It Right Group. 2001. Recycling it Right! Sorting it out at Beck Hall. University of Waterloo. http://www.adm.uwaterloo.ca/infowast/watgreen/ - projects/library/s01beckhall/beckhall.html.

    Regional Municipality of Waterloo. 2002. Recycling. Regional Municipality of Waterloo. http://www.region.waterloo.on.ca/web/region.nsf/c56e308f49b- feb7885256abc0071ec9a/de7ad93e0a73f4ff85256b060061de0a!OpenDocument.

    University of Waterloo. 2002. Solid Waste Management at the University of Waterloo. University of Waterloo. http://www.adm.uwaterloo.ca/infowast/

    Solidwastemgmt.html

    University of Waterloo. 2002. Reduction and Recycling - History and Statistics. University of Waterloo. http://www.adm.uwaterloo.ca/infowast/history.html

    WATgreen Homepage. http://www.watgreen.uwaterloo.ca/main.asp Accessed Wednesday, October 2, 2002.

    WATgreen Pamphlet. 1994. University of Waterloo: Waterloo.

    Wismer, S. 2002. ERS 250: Greening the campus. University of Waterloo: Waterloo.

    Appendix A: Interview Request Letter

    Faculty of Environmental Studies

    University of Waterloo

    Date

     

    To Whom It May Concern:

    An undergraduate study of the effectiveness of the University of Waterloo waste collection system is being conducted. The research group contains five Environmental and Resource Studies students in Professor Susan Wismer’s Greening the Campus (ERS 250) class. Plant Operations would like the auditing group to find ways to decrease cost and promote environmental sustainability on campus with regards to the waste management program.

    The student researchers would like an interview (either by phone or by e-mail). They are especially interested in your knowledge of the waste collection system at the institution you are associated with. The interview should not take more then thirty minutes of your time. The students would like to learn about how waste is collected on university campuses and how the system could become more efficient.

    Participation in this interview is voluntary. You may decline to answer any questions that you do not wish to answer and you can withdraw your participation at any time. It is important for you to know that any information that you provide will be confidential.

    This study has been reviewed and received ethics clearance through the Office of Research Ethics at the University of Waterloo. If you have any comments or concerns resulting from your participation in this study, please feel free to contact Dr. Susan Sykes, Director, and Office of Research Ethics at (519) 888-4567 ext. 6005 or by email at ssykes@uwaterloo.ca.

    Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact the student research team by email at wasteaudit_grp@yahoo.ca or contact Professor Susan Wismer at 519-888-4567 x5795 or by e-mail at skwismer@fes.uwaterloo.ca.

    Thank you for your consideration.

    Sincerely,

     

     

    Natasha Jailal, Sarah McAlister, Carolyn Smith,

    Charlotte Ueta, Michelle Zakrison and Winghang Wong

    Waste Audit Group

    University of Waterloo

    Faculty of Environmental Studies

    Appendix B: Questions for Interview

    1. Please describe your association with the University of Waterloo.
    2. What are the general waste management practices for this institution?
    1. What is your role in these practices?
    2. a) How efficient is the waste management processes in place and how would you define efficiency?
    3. b) Using a scale of 1-10, with 1 as being very little and 10 as very much, how efficient do you think the current garbage and recycling pick-up system is?

    4. Do you feel that cost efficiency and care for the environment is an existing relationship under the current garbage and recycling contracts?
    5. Do you think that there is any way to alter the garbage and recycling contract so that, in the future, the pick-up of the UW’s waste could be more environmentally friendly as well as economically efficient?
    6. What are possible improvements you feel could be made or have been made to this system?
    7. Are there any unusual or interesting agreements within the waste contract between the affiliated institution and the waste management companies?
    8. Is there anything else you would like to discuss with regards to waste management that was not touched upon?

    Any other Comments or Notes:

    Thank you for your time. Please read this feedback letter over and if you have any questions, please feel free to email our group or advisor. The contact information is provided on the letter.

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Appendix C: Interview Participation Thank You Letter

    Faculty of Environmental Studies

    University of Waterloo

    Date

    Dear Participant,

    We would like to thank you for your participation in this study. As a reminder, the purpose of this study was to find ways to make waste disposal more sustainable at the University of Waterloo, by reducing cost as well reducing the number of dump trucks on campus.

    The data collected during interviews will contribute to a better understanding of how Plant Operation (waste disposal) works and how we can make this more sustainable (more economical as well as better for the environment). Once data is collected and organized, it will be presented to the ERS 250 class later in the semester. It will also be available online as part of the WATgreen projects. If you require more information about this topic or have any concerns or questions, please feel free to contact the research group by email at wasteaudit_grp@yahoo.ca. Please feel free to contact the supervising adviser, Susan Wismer by phone at 519-888-4567, Ext., 5795, or by email at skwismer@fes.uwaterloo.ca.

    As with all University of Waterloo projects involving human participants, this project was reviewed by, and received ethics clearance through, the Office of Research Ethics at the University of Waterloo. Should you have any comments or concerns resulting from your participation in this study, please contact Dr. Susan Sykes in the Office of Research Ethics at 519-888-4567, Ext., 6005.

    Thank you very much for your participation.

    Sincerely,

     

     

    Natasha Jailal, Sarah McAlister, Carolyn Smith,

    Charlotte Ueta, Michelle Zakrison and WingHang Wong

    Waste Audit Group

    University of Waterloo

    Faculty of Environmental Studies

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Appendix D: Waste Schedule

     

     

     

     

     

    Waste Schedule 2002:Charlotte

    Building

    Size

    Frequency

    Notes (Fullness and Contents)

    Total

    Change in

    Cubic yards

    C1 (ESC)

    3

    M W F

    CPH

    6

    M T W H F

    12

    POLICE

    2

    T F

    2

    DC

    6

    M T W H F

    12

    6

    M T W H F

    12

    RCH

    4

    M T W H F

    8

    E2

    6

    M T W H F

    12

    E3

    4

    T

    2

    T

    GSC -circle

    4

    M F

    -wall

    4

    M T W H F

    8

    MC

    6

    M T W H F

    12

    6

    M T W H

    2nd bin not always required

    12

    PHY

    4

    T H F

    4

    SCH

    6

    M W F

    Waste Schedule 2002: Sarah

    Building

    Size

    Frequency

    Notes (Fullness and Contents)

    Total

    Change in

    Cubic yards

    DP LIB

    6

    M W F

    ML

    4

    M T W H F

    8

    NH

    4

    M W F

    UWP -Beck Hall

    C3

    T F

    one compactor bin dumped

    C3

    T F

    each time (not2)-alternating

    3

    T F

    service of compacting bins

    -Eby

    C3

    T F

    one compactor bin dumped

    9

    C3

    T F

    each time (not2)-alternating

    9

    3

    T F

    service of compacting bins

    3

    -Wilmot

    6

    T F

    6

    T F

    -Wellesley

    6

    T F

    6

    T F

    -Waterloo

    6

    T F

    6

    T F

    -Woolwich

    6

    T F

    6

    T F

    Waste Schedule 2002: Natasha

    Building

    Size

    Frequency

    Notes (Fullness and Contents)

    Total

    Change in

    Cubic yards

    BMH

    4

    M W F

    CIF

    4

    W

    OPT

    4

    M T W H F

    8

    SLC

    C6

    M T W H F

    36

    UC

    4

    T F

    CLT

    4

    T F

    4

    T F

    4

    T F

    4

    T F

    CDC/HMN (PAS)

    4

    W

    Waste Schedule 2002: Carolyn

    Building

    Size

    Frequency

    Notes

    Total

    Change in

    Cubic yards

    BFG

    4

    W

    B1

    2

    W

    B1/B2

    4

    M W F

    second bin at B1/B2 dumped

    4

    W

    when necessary

    C2

    3

    M T W H F

    6

    ECH -north

    4

    M T W H

    4

    -south

    4

    M W H

    HH

    4

    M T W H F

    8

    Waste Schedule 2002: WingHang

    Building

    Size

    Frequency

    Notes (Fullness and Contents)

    Total

    Change in

    Cubic yards

    FED HALL

    4

    M F

    MKV -east

    3

    T F

    3 yd bins on castors-1 bin

    -east

    3

    M H

    in each time serviced

    -west

    3

    T H

    alternating

    -west

    3

    M W F

    3

    V1 -FS area

    6

    M T W H F

    12

    V1-West

    8

    M T W H F

    16

    V1-East

    8

    M T W H F

    16

    REV-FS area

    6

    M T W H F

    36

    REV-N turn

    6

    M T W H F

    12

    REV-S turn

    6

    M T W H F

    12

    Waste Schedule 2002: Michelle

    Building

    Size

    Frequency

    Notes (Fullness and Contents)

    Total

    Change in

    Cubic yards

    ES1

    4

    M T W H F

    8

    4

    M T H

    second bin as required

    HS

    4

    PAS

    4

    M T W H F

    Taken out for construction march 02

    20

    MHR

    4

    T F

    REN

    4

    M T W H F

    8

    CGR

    3

    M W F

    STJ

    6

    M T W H F

    12

    STP

    6

    M W F

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

     

    Appendix E: Recycling Container Tables

    Recycling 2002 Notes: Michelle

    ES1

    9x cans, 8x clrglass, 2x news

    1x2

    HS

    PAS

    2xcans, 2xclrglass, 1xnews

    1x2

    MHR

    REN

    1x4

    CGR

    STJ

    1x4

    STP

    1x6

    Recycling 2002 Notes: WingHang

    Building

    Recycling Container Type

    OCC Container

    FED Hall

    2xcans, 4xclrglass

    1x2

    MKV east

    East

    West

    West

    V1 FS area

    1x6,1x8

    West

    1x4

    East

    1x4

    REV FS area

    1x4, 1x6

    N turn

    1x6

    S turn

    1x6

    Recycling 2002 Notes: Carolyn

    Building

    Recycling Container Type

    OCC Container

    BFG

    1xcans, 1xclrglass, 1xnews

    1x4

    B1

    B1/B2

    C2

    5xcans, 3xclrglass

    1x8

    ECH

    1xcans, 1xclrglass, 1xnews

    1x4

    1x colglass

    HH

    2xcans, 2xclrglass, 1xnews

    1x2

    RCH

     

    Recycling 2002 Notes: Charlotte

    Building

    Recycling Container Type

    OCC Container

    C1

    5xcans, 3xclrglass

    1x8

    CPH

    11xcans, 8xclrglass, 3xnews

    1x4

    DC

    Police

    E2

    E3

    GSC

    7xcans, 1xclrglass, 3xnews

    1x6

    MC

    3xcabs, 4xclrgalss, 1xnews

    1x4, 1x8

    1xcolglass

    PHY

    1xcans, 1xclrglass, 1xnews

    1x3

    Recycling 2002 Notes: Sarah

    Building

    Recycling Container Type

    OCC Container

    LIB

    2xcans, 2xclrglass, 1xnews

    1x6

    ML

    2xcans, 2xclrglass, 3xnews

    1x3

    NH

    1xcans, 2xclrglass, 1xnews

    1x4

    Beck hall

    Eby

    Wilmot

    Wellesley

    Waterloo

    Woolwich

    Recycling 2002 Notes: Natasha

    Building

    Recycling Container Type

    OCC Container

    BMH

    2xcans, 1xclrglass

    1x3

    CIF

    OPT

    1xcans, 1xclrglass, 2xnews

    1x2

    SLC

    2xcans, 5xclrglass, 1xnews

    1x8

    UC

    1xcans, 1xclrglass, 3xnews

    1x4

    CLT

    CDC/HMN (PAS)