Summary

This report is a WATgreen project that dealt with diverting food waste from landfills by the University of Waterloo. Five point nine tonnes of food waste is generated by UW weekly (Cook, 2001), thus there is a clear opportunity for the University to not only save economically by diverting this waste, but to also act as an environmental steward. Several methods of food waste diversion were assessed, including five methods of composting and one method of food processing. The feasibility of each is discussed and compared using a list of criteria relevant to the UW waste management system. The cost calculation of each method was also compared to the current landfill system used by UW. Based on these criteria, a program with Kaster Processing, a food waste processing business located west of Kitchener, appears to be the most feasible option when compared to windrow composting, in-vessel technologies, backyard and vermicomposting methods, and the Worm Gin. A pilot program at the Village I cafeteria beginning in September of 2001 is recommended as a means to test the proposed Kaster Processing solution.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ………………………………………………………………………………………………5

    1. Problem Statement ……………………………………………………………….…………11
    2. Purpose ………………………………………………………………………………………11
    3. Research Question and Rationale ……………………………………………..………….11
    4. Audience ……………………………………………………………………………………..12

2.0 Conceptual Framework ………………………………………………………………….……………13

2.1 Systems ……………………………………………………………………………………….13

2.1.1 Environment……………………………………………………………………….13

2.1.2 Scale……………………………………………………………………………….14

2.1.3 Type………………………………………………………………………………..14

2.1.4 Nesting……………………………………………………………………………..14

2.1.5 Boundaries………………………………………………………………………...14

2.2 Systems Description …………………………………………………………………………………..15

2.2.1 Knowledge Flow ………………………………………………………………….15

2.2.2 Material Flow ……………………………………………………………………..16

2.2.3 Systems Rationale …………………………………………………………….…16

3.0 Methodology and Data Collection ……………………………………………………………………17

3.1 Biases and Assumptions ……………………………………………………….…………...17

3.2 Literature Review …………………………………………………………………………….18

3.3 Interviews ………………………………………………………………………………….19

3.3.1 On-campus Interviews ……………………………………………….………….19

3.3.2 Key Informant Interviews ………………………………………………………..19

3.4 Questionnaire ………………………………………………………………………………...20

3.4.1 Pilot Study...……………………………………………………………………….21

3.4.2 Coding……………………………………………………………………………..21

3.4.3 Rationale for Questions………………………………………………………….21

3.4.4 Limitations ………………………………………………………………………..22

3.5 Cost Calculation………. ……………………………………………………………………..23

3.5.1 Landfill……………………………………………………………………………..23

3.5.2 Backyard Composting……………………………………………………………24

3.5.3 Vermicomposting…………………………………………………………………25

3.5.4 Worm Gin………………………………………………………………………….25

3.5.5 Windrow……………………………………………………………………………26

3.5.6 In-Vessel…………………………………………………………………………..28

3.5.7 Kaster Processing………………………………………………………………...29

4.0 Results…………………………………………………………………………………………………..31

4.1 Lit Review……………………………………………………………………………………..31

4.1.1 Backyard Composting……………………………………………………………31

4.1.2 Vermicomposting…………………………………………………………………32

4.1.3 Worm Gin………………………………………………………………………….32

4.1.4 Windrow…………………………………………………………………………...33

4.1.5 In-Vessel…………………………………………………………………………..33

4.2 Interviews…..………………………………………………………………………………….35

4.2.1 Backyard Composting……………………………………………………………36

4.2.2 Vermicomposting…………………………………………………………………37

4.2.3 Worm Gin………………………………………………………………………….37

4.2.4 Windrow…………………………………………………………………………...37

4.2.5 In-Vessel…………………………………………………………………………..38

4.2.6 Kaster Processing………………………………………………………………..39

4.3 Questionnaire Results………………………………………………………………………..41

4.3.1 Results……………………………………………………………………………..41

4.3.2 General Insights…………………………………………………………………..42

4.4 Cost — Calculation…………………………………………………………………………….43

5.0 Discussion and Conclusions ………………………………………………………………………….44

5.1 Criteria for Analysis ………………………………………………………………………….44

5.1.1 Central/On-site……………………………………………………………………44

5.1.2 Land Use Footprint……………………………………………………………….44

5.1.3 Appropriate Scale of Design…………………………………………………….45

5.1.4 Development of Technology…………………………………………………….45

5.1.5 Special Circumstances…………………………………………………………..45

5.1.6 Consumer: Level of Education………………………………………………….45

5.1.7 Consumer: Level of Participation……………………………………………….46

5.1.8 Consumer: Level of Sorting……………………………………………………...46

5.1.9 Staff: Level of Training/Education………………………………………………46

5.1.10 Staff: Labour Required…………………………………………………………46

5.1.11 Campus Projects/Programs……………………………………………………46

5.1.12 Current Cases…………………………………………………………………...47

5.1.13 Cost: First Year………………………………………………………………….47

5.1.14 Cost: Subsequent Years………………………………………………………..47

5.1.15 Cost: Per Tonne…………………………………………………………………47

5.2 Discussion …………………………………………………………………………………….52

5.2.1 Backyard Composting …………………………………………………………...52

5.2.2 Vermicomposting ………………………………………………………………...52

5.2.3 Worm Gin …………………………………………………………………………52

5.2.4 In-vessel ……………………………………………………………….………….53

5.2.5 Windrow ……………………………………………………………….………….53

5.2.6 Kaster Processing ………………………………………………………………..53

5.3 Conclusions …………………………………………………………………………………..55

6.0 Recommendations …………………………………………………………………………………….56

7.0 Glossary ………………………………………………………………………………………………..58

8.0 Sources Cited..…………………………………………………………………………………………60

9.0 Appendices ……………………………………………………………………………….……………62

9.1 University of Waterloo Map …………………………………………………………………62

9.2 Campus Composting Code Sheet …………………………………………………………63

List of Tables and Figures

Tables

Table 3.1: Interview Source Information ……………………………………………………………...20

Table 3.2: Criteria for Similarity to UW Waste Management System ……………………………..26

Table 3.3: Windrow Cost Calculation Chart for MC Model ………………………………………....27

Table 4.1: Comparison of College Composting Programs ………………………………………….34

Table 4.2: Cost Calculations …………………………………………………………………………...43

Table 5.1: Comparison of Composting Methods……………………………………………………..48

Figures

Figure 1.1: Worm Gin Composter ………………………………………………………………………6

Figure 1.2: Windrow Composting on North Campus 1 ……………………………………………… 7

Figure 1.3: Windrow Composting on North Campus 2 ……………………………………………… 7

Figure 1.4: In-Vessel Composter at Whitby Hospital ……………………………………………….. 8

Figure 1.5: Kaster Processing Bins at Fed Hall ……………………………………………………… 9

Figure 1.6: Backyard Composter Outside ES Building ………………………………………….….10

Figure 1.7: Abandoned Composter Outside St. Jerome’s University ……………………………..10

Figure 2.1: Visual Interpretation of the Conceptual Framework …………………………………...13

Figure 6.1: Village 1 Cafeteria Scraping Station ………………………………………………….… 57

Figure 6.2: Food Waste Disposal Holes …………………………………………………………….. 57

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.0 Introduction

Environmental Stewardship is the responsibility of humans for being caretakers of the earth (UCAR, 1994). This concept relates to waste management, since we have a responsibility to take care of the waste that we produce. Thus, composting is an important tool for managing food waste.

The group members involved in this project are second year Environment and Resource Studies students attending the University of Waterloo who share a common interest in the welfare of our environment as well as the state of the University. We are all concerned about how UW manages waste and the negative implications that our wasteful society has on landfills. Therefore, we feel that by reducing the amount of food waste on campus, the University will be contributing to the health of our environment as well as setting an example as an environmental steward for other universities and institutions to follow.

WATgreen, established in 1990, is a program run by the University of Waterloo to improve campus sustainability. Concurrent with the creation of WATgreen was a second year Environment and Resource Studies (ERS) problem-solving course that focused on ‘greening the campus’. Combining this course with WATgreen allowed the actual greening of the campus initiative to no longer be solely an administrative objective, but let students and faculty become integrally involved. ERS students and faculty now had the chance to do class projects and relate them to the campus system. In 1991 a course devoted to WATgreen commenced (Cook, 2001). The course, now known as ERS 250: Greening the Campus and the Community, is the reason that this report was completed.

Currently, there is no comprehensive environmentally friendly food waste removal program on campus. A campus composting system (large or small scale) seems feasible, but previous attempts to implement such programs have continually encountered barriers and have had minimal success (Cook, 2001).  Previous on-campus composting endeavours include backyard bin systems, vermicomposting, an in-vessel proposal, and composting via windrows at north campus (Cook, 2001).  Another alternative for removing food scraps was through contracting the waste out to a pig farming and food processing operation (Cook, 2001). A new technique that has not been attempted at UW is the Worm Gin composting system.

Figure 1.1: Worm Gin Composter

Further research lead our group to 15 past WATgreen projects about composting, none of which are currently in operation. Asking why such a potentially positive program was not in place sparked our interest. Why has each of the numerous past proposals failed?  Can composting be successful? Can we build upon the past and come up with a working program? We looked into a number of different composting methods to determine what would be the most feasible for the UW campus.

Windrow composting is a process for biodegrading organic material aerobically (Windrow, 1999). The process involves the collection of compostable food waste and forming large rows (consisting of soil and yard waste as well) ranging from 3 to 6 meters high and across. The organic material is left to decompose outdoors, aided by watering and mechanical turning for aeration (Windrow, 1999). Windrow composting for the University of Waterloo currently exists strictly for yard waste. It has been proposed for managing food waste, but existing barriers prevent this from being established. These barriers include the need for government certification leading to increased costs and inconveniences for the University, the need for expensive equipment and manpower, and the potential problems concerning rodents, smell and leachate (Cook, 2001). Each of these barriers has been analysed for this research project to determine if such a composting system is economically and bureaucratically feasible for the University of Waterloo.

Figure 1.2: Windrow Composting on North Campus 1

Figure 1.3: Windrow Composting on North Campus 2

An in-vessel composting unit can be very efficient, requiring minimal labour and energy inputs. The initial stage of composting occurs inside the composter at optimal conditions for decomposition. The composter rotates the food waste internally and in this process allows necessary oxygen in to aerate the compost. Some in-vessels require additional materials (i.e. leaves, sawdust, etc.) to absorb the excess moisture created during the decomposition process. Once the initial decomposition is complete, the compost needs to be cured (for 2 to 4 months) in order to create a useful end product (Gould, 1993).

The previous attempt by the University of Waterloo to implement an in-vessel composting program occurred in 1994 when a student involved in the Greening the Campus course took the initiative. The project, whether by lack of research or poor assumptions, failed to have an in-vessel composter placed in the Village II cafeteria. The unit that was proposed, which cost over $9,000, was discovered to have mechanical flaws causing safety concerns, and emit intolerable odours (Gould, 1994); the unit was never purchased by UW. More technically proficient units were more expensive ranging in price from $15, 000 to $150, 000 (Gould, 1993). The in-vessel unit also needed a large area of land to cure the compost material after the initial stage of decomposition. This issue was never tackled by the previous proposal.

Figure 1.4: In-Vessel Composter at Whitby Hospital

A potential solution to the UW food waste issue was looked at in 1999-2000 when a local pig farmer and food processor (Kaster Processing) was contacted. The University set up a contract with Shawn Davidson, the owner, stating that he would pick up the institution’s food waste, which would be placed in wheeled containers outside of the food-outlets on campus (Cook, 2001). The farmer, who would provide UW with these containers, agreed to pick them up twice a week at a fee of $10.00 per container lifted (Cook, 2001). Two of these containers were brought to the university and placed outside of Fed Hall for a trial run, but unfortunately, the company never picked these containers up. Contact between the University and Kaster Processing was soon lost.

Figure 1.5: Kaster Processing Bins at Fed Hall

Due to these past events, Patti Cook decided that the best solutions might be to have multiple small-scale and unique types of composting all over campus to meet specific situations and address specific needs. This solution involved a combination of vermicomposting and backyard composting. Currently, vermicomposting is taking place in less than ten offices around campus (Cook, 2001). When trying to locate these composters for observation, we found that most have been abandoned or are suffering from fruit fly problems, such as in the ES Coffee Shop and at the Turnkey Desk. Many of the backyard composters have been abandoned as well, including the one at Minota Hagey, which had been in operation since 1991 (Cook, 2001). Backyard composters at the colleges were also abandoned due to lack of participation and because the demand exceeded the capacity of the composters (Becks, 2001).

Figure 1.6: Backyard Composter Outside ES Building

Figure 1.7: Abandoned Composter Outside St. Jerome’s University

There are currently 306.8 tonnes of food waste going to the landfill each year -- 18% of University of Waterloo's total waste -- and it costs the university approximately $157,000 to remove this waste (Cook, 2001).  By volume, 18% of the University’s waste is compostable, and thus could be diverted from landfills (Cook, 2001).  As pressure on landfill space increases, the University has an opportunity to reduce its ecological footprint and save money at the same time.  A composting program makes the UW population more environmentally conscious, improves the sustainability of our campus, and promotes our institution as an environmental steward.

1.1 Problem Statement

Through the proposed research, we intended to determine whether a campus composting program was feasible, and, if so, what the solution would be for an effective program. There is currently no food waste diversion program taking place on campus, despite the large amount of food waste being produced (approximately 6 tonnes per week (Cook, 2001)). The importance for a large administrative body to manage its waste in a responsible manner is being demonstrated by the Cities of Toronto and Hamilton through their own proposals for a revolutionary new waste management system, including large-scale composting (Monsebraatem, 2001; "Promising", 2001).

In the same manner as it has with recycling, we proposed that the University take responsibility for diverting its food waste from landfills. This is why a feasibility study was needed for composting.

1.2 Purpose

The purpose of this study was to assess the feasibility of composting on campus. Using a literature review, surveys, interviews, and a cost-calculation analysis, we evaluated ways of introducing an economically viable and environmentally friendly way of disposing of and redirecting food waste on campus.

Implementing a composting program would reduce the amount of landfill space consumed, allow the University to take a greater deal of responsibility for the waste that it produces, and encourage the role of UW as an environmental steward.

1.3 Research Question and Objectives

The Research Question: "Is campus food waste composting feasible?

The research completed these objectives:

1.4 Audience

The general audience for our project is all of the students, staff and faculty at the University. The target for our recommendations are the staff that are involved in any food or waste management system on campus - Food Services and Plant Operations in particular. Patti Cook, Waste Management Co-ordinator, is our primary target since she will be the decision-maker as to whether or not our proposal is implemented.

 

 

2.0 Conceptual Framework

Figure 2.1: Visual Interpretation of the Conceptual Framework



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.1 Systems

2.1.1 Environment

The term 'environment' implies the outside factors that influence the aspects of the systems we studied.  One of these was the government's rules and regulations concerning large-scale composting.  Others include the University's support for our study and for a potentially viable solution, as well as the support and the level of participation by university staff and students in our study.  An additional factor was the amount of education needed for the acceptance of a new program.

Kaster Processing’s willingness to cooperate, his acceptance or refusal of UW's food waste, as well as the Region of Waterloo's landfill and the fluctuating market value of waste presented other outside factors.

2.1.2 Scale

Our project assessed the entire University of Waterloo by dividing the campus into its separate buildings such as the College residences, the Village residences, and all of UW's food venues.  We also focused on the staff and students who frequent the campus.  The Region of Waterloo, as well, played a part in our study since UW's waste is disposed at the Regional landfill.

2.1.3 Type

Our systems included:

2.1.4 Nesting

This study was nested within the Province of Ontario's rules and regulations regarding composting and licensing issues, and the Region of Waterloo's landfill policies and municipal by-laws concerning food waste transportation, storage, and composting.  Other subgroups were nested within the University boundaries including the College and Village residences and the other food venue buildings on campus.

2.1.5 Boundaries

The boundaries for this research project were primarily the facilities and regulations within the University of Waterloo campus and the affiliated colleges. However these boundaries also included off-campus influences depending on the specific solution that was examined (e.g. landfills, farmers, government regulations etc). As in most systems, clear boundaries could not be defined due to the integrated nature of waste management.

2.2 Systems Description

Our knowledge system includes those who have access to and the ability to directly influence the current food waste system.  Two general food waste generators were defined: 1) Food Service employees and those utilising the services.  These people produce the bulk of the campus' food waste, and 2) Non-food services buildings, where staff, faculty, and students bring their own food, producing food waste. A few small-scale vermicomposting projects are currently in place in some buildings; these programs depend entirely on individual effort by students and staff.  Also included was Plant Operations, including custodians who gather waste, which is then transported by contractors to the Waterloo landfill.

2.2.1 Knowledge Flow

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.2.2 Material Flow

 



 

 

The material flow chart describes the actual flow of waste generated at UW. Food waste is either derived from food purchased on campus or brought to UW. At the present time, all of the non-recyclable waste is sent to the Waterloo Landfill including food waste. If a viable food waste removal method was implemented, it would reduce the flow of waste to landfill, while at the same time creating a new flow direction indicated by the "Composted/Removed" box in the above material flow diagram.

2.2.3 Systems Rationale

It was important to determine both the knowledge and material flows that existed in the systems we studied.  The barriers that existed between the various actors and processes became more apparent when both flows were thoroughly understood.  Thus, to better understand the manipulations needed, the system was analysed to produce more efficient knowledge and material flows, making composting an increasingly viable option on the University of Waterloo campus.

3.0 Methodology and Data Collection

This section discusses all of the methods used to collect data. The information obtained and corresponding results are outlined in the Results Section (4.0 Results). The methods used to address the research question were a literature review, on-campus and key-informant interviews, and a questionnaire. We investigated a number of composting methods that could possibly be implemented on campus. A literature review was utilised so that we could get a basic understanding of what composting techniques were available, how other institutions similar to ours have employed these methods, and to discover what has been done on the UW campus in the past. The on-campus and key-informant interviews were held to understand how composting would affect the University’s waste system and to learn specifics about various composting techniques. The interviews involved speaking with UW staff who would be involved in composting if it was implemented, and with experts in the field of composting including manufacturers and owners of specific composting and food waste removal methods. Questionnaires were administered to gauge how well students, staff, and faculty understand composting, the degree of environmental concern felt on campus, and how much education would be required for such a program to be successful.

3.1 Biases & Assumptions

As student researchers, we brought our own biases and assumptions to this study that cannot be disregarded. Although our aim was to be as objective and impartial as possible, these preconceived notions still had an effect on our research. The preconceptions were:

This viewpoint stemmed from our secondary research into the issue

This assumption was tested via our questionnaires and campus interviews.

This assumption was generated from looking at other regions, such as the Regions of York and Peel, and the landfill issues they face (Dykstra, 2001).

This assumption came from researching composting solutions elsewhere and the economic and environmental benefits that have been achieved.

This is seen by viewing the amount of UW’s food waste disposed in landfills.

3.2 Literature Review

The literature review was the first method of research that was used once we chose our research topic. As outlined by Booth (1995), finding and initially reviewing relevant sources should be a research initiative even if the research group has only chosen a "plausible topic" (Booth, 1995). Our literature review consisted of two categories of resources: Campus-related sources and off-campus related sources.

Past WATgreen projects that directly relate to the University of Waterloo’s composting issue were reviewed. These projects have demonstrated the past failures and proposed future possibilities for our campus that became the focus of our study. These projects described the history of the composting programs including the numerous attempts, and the barriers that have been encountered on campus. These projects also contained many recommendations and possible solutions, which formed the basis for our re-evaluation of composting initiatives. The WATgreen projects also provided key data regarding some of the campus’ systems. Since we did not perform a food waste audit, relevant numbers, such as how much food waste is generated per month, percentages of compostable food waste, weight of the waste, etc., were attained through the past projects.

A variety of composting-related material, such as academic journals, books and web sites, were also drawn from. These sources allowed our group to compare and relate the University’s composting methods to composting systems performed elsewhere. Journal articles and books provided credible and reliable information from professionals involved with composting, which may be more reliable than information found in past student WATgreen projects. Information found on the internet offered our group knowledge of what other university’s are doing. We gathered information from the homepages of companies that manufacture or sell compost-related materials. Web site research not only provided relevant information to our project, but contact information from the web also led to valuable key informant interviews — another good source of information. These outside sources have helped us draw insight and parallels to what has happened on the Waterloo campus.

3.3 Interviews

3.3.1 On-campus Interviews

A number of interviews, as listed in Table 3.1, have been conducted with UW staff who are familiar with the current waste management system and of composting initiatives on campus to build descriptive case studies. A snowball method was used to allow those with knowledge to lead us to others who have further knowledge of the systems of interest.

3.3.2 Key Informant Interviews

The snowball sampling method was derived primarily from those interviewed on campus who lead us to others with further knowledge in the area of composting and its associated dynamics (i.e. a representative of the Ministry of the Environment to discuss composting licensing issues). The opinions and experiences of these waste management experts were obtained through interviews both in person and via the telephone and e-mail. Table 3.1 outlines those sources interviewed and other relevant information.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Table 3.1: Interview Source Information

Interview Source Information

Source

Position

Date

Type / Who

Location

On — campus

Patti Cook

UW Waste Management Coordinator

May 15, June 20

Present Group Interview

DC 3611

Jerry Hutten

Plant Operations Representative

July 4

Present Group Interview

Plant Operations Garage

Jeffrey Chalmers

Assistant Director of Food Services

July 6

Present Group Interview

 Tutor House #5

Key Informant

Mike Birett

Region Of Waterloo Waste Management

July 3

Present Group Interview

Regional Waste Management Admin. Office 

Al Eagan

Creator of Original Vermicomposter

 July 9

Email, Jessica

Room 1301, Beck Hall Residence

Ed Boyd

Wright Environmental Representative

 July 11

Email, Kent

20B Westmount Rd. S. Waterloo

Shawn Davidson

Plant Manager, Kaster Farms

July 12

Phone, Carl

Room 310, St. Jerome’s Residence

Frank Peters

Plant Manager, Kaster Farms

July 12

Phone, Carl

Room 310, St. Jerome’s Residence

See bibliography for contact information

The interview questions were aimed specifically towards the field of knowledge of the subjects interviewed.

3.4 Questionnaire

The Questionnaire was administered to 140 people over a two-day time span at the Student Life Centre (SLC) using the accidental sampling method. The SLC was selected because it serves as a neutral eating area for students from all faculties across the campus and has a high number of people during midday. To each participant we explained the basics of our project and read the introduction letter to assure them that full ethics clearance had been attained. As much time as necessary to complete the questionnaire was given to each participant. After completion we asked if they had any questions about the questionnaire. Furthermore, the contact information of Susan Sykes was made available to anyone wishing to address ethical concerns related to Questionnaire.

3.4.1 Pilot Study

A pilot study was conducted previous to the actual administering of the questionnaire to ensure comprehensiveness and lack of error. After 20 pilot questionnaires were administered three corrections were made:

3.4.2 Coding

All participation in the questionnaire was completely confidential. Anonymity was guaranteed, as there was no need for attaining identifying information beyond the participant’s faculty for the purpose of our research.

A code sheet was used for the compilation of the data taken from the 140 questionnaires (see Appendix 9.2).

3.4.3 Rationale for Questions

Our questionnaire consisted of 10 simple questions designed to increase our knowledge in three areas:

  1. Position on Campus: Determining which faculties have the most and least amount of composting knowledge allows us to pin point which areas of the campus should be targeted with educational and promotional material. (see questions 1 and 2) Presumably, for example, students belonging to the faculty of Environmental Studies would be more familiar with the composting process and would thus require less education.
  2. Degree of Knowledge: The main goal of the questionnaire was to determine the degree of education necessary on the campus before implementing a composting system. To do this the questionnaire was used as an aid to measuring the degree of general composting knowledge and of the existing composting systems on the UW campus. In doing so we were able to determine how sufficient current education is on campus composting and make recommendations on improvements. A correlation analysis was also performed between questions 5, testing the participant’s knowledge of what materials can be composted, and 6, whether they have recycled.
  3. Level of Support: The third aspect of the questionnaire was to determine the level of support for composting. Participants were asked whether they thought composting was important, to what degree would they be willing to participate (through waste separation), and whether they would be willing to raise tuition costs to support a composting system.

3.4.4 Limitations

3.5 Cost Calculations

Each of the six food waste disposal systems investigated and the current landfill system were analyzed to determine the total costs involved with each method. Start up costs, maintenance costs, and additional costs (Labour, etc.) were calculated for the seven systems. Start up costs are those required to set up the system before any waste is removed. Maintenance costs included power requirements, food waste bin removals, etc. that are necessary after implementation of the system. Additional costs primarily include labour requirements demanded by the system. The particular costs requirements for each method are outlined in detail below:

3.5.1 Landfill

First, is assumed that labour costs are $18.00/hour for Plant Operations staff and Food Services staff on campus. Approximately 20% of waste on campus is food waste. The University produces 1524 tonnes of waste per year, 306.8 tonnes is food waste. Canadian Waste is the current waste hauler for the University of Waterloo. The current contract with them requires UW to pay $81,000 to remove the waste from the campus. Canadian Waste fronts the cost to dump the waste at the landfill, this tipping fee of $76,200 is then passed on to the University. The tipping fee that UW pays is $50.00/tonne to landfill waste.

$50 * 1524 tonnes = $76,200

$76,200 + $81,000 = $157,200 = Total Maintenance costs

$157,200 * 20% = $31,440 = Maintenance costs for food waste

The total cost to remove waste from UW is $157,200, not including labour. Labour costs to remove food waste (which will be 20% of the total labour) is estimated to be $19,710. This number is based on there being 6 main food outlets on campus, and a _ hour of labour being required to remove food waste in each location every day at the assumed wage per hour of work.

$18 * _ hour * 365 * 6 = $19,710 = Labour costs to remove food waste.

$19,710 * 5 = $98,550 = Total costs for labour to remove all waste.

Therefore, 20% of the costs associated with removing waste are for removing food waste.

$157,200 + $98,550 = $255,750 = Total cost to remove all waste.

$255,750 * 20% = $51,150 = Total cost to remove food waste.

$51,150 = Maintenance ($31,440) + Labour ($19,710)

The costs to tip one tonne of waste at landfill go up 2% per year. Therefore each subsequent year to remove any waste is more expensive than the previous year. (refer to Table 4.2 for summary of costs).

3.5.2 Backyard Composting

Each backyard composters costs approximately $100 and will hold about 75 pounds of food waste. Although the Region gives the units free to residences, the University is considered a business, and thus could not obtain free ones. Waste in the bins takes approximately 6 months to decompose, thus bins would be required for 25 weeks (considering 2 weeks of holidays). For each 1 tonne of food waste, about 30 bins would be needed.

Start up costs:

1 lb. = 0.4536 kg

1 bin = ~75 lbs. = 34 kg (approximately)

1 tonne of food waste = 30 bins

30 bins * 5.9 tonnes @ $100 each = $17,700

$17,700 * 25 weeks = $450,000

Maintenance is approximated at $1000, considering the addition of filler materials and the possible repair or replacement of bins.

Additional Costs are approximated at $2500 for labour to remove full composters, add water and filler when necessary, and turn the soil occasionally.

3.5.3 Vermicomposting

One pound of worms costs about $30 and digests 7 pounds of food a week. Each container costs about $35 and holds 1 pound of worms (Peel Region, 2000). Worm populations double every three months, so cost of worms would go down with time. However, some worms will die, and variable conditions can change the reproduction rate. Estimates will keep the bins at approximately 1 pound of worms each.

Start-up:

1 pound of worm digests 7 pounds a week = 3.18 kg a week per bin

= 1855 containers needed to process 5.9 tons a week

1855 * $35 a bin = $64,925

1 pound of worms digests 7 pounds a week @ $30 per pound = + $55,650 for worms

= $120,575

Maintenance is approximated at $1000, considering the addition of worms, filler materials and the possible repair or replacement of bins.

Additional Costs are approximated at $2500 for labour to remove full composters, add water and filler when necessary, and turn the soil occasionally.

3.5.4 Worm Gin

The unit costs $30,000 to start-up. Maintenance costs a few cents daily in electricity for a 0.2 amp motor plus lights, fans, ventilation, and conveyor belt, and chipper. The unit needs to be hosed off once a month, and approximately one hour a day would be necessary to add food waste into the chipper.

Maintenance costs are approximated at $1000, considering the possible repair or replacement of parts, or the addition of oil.

Additional costs would be for labour. The cost of labour is approximately $7,274 a year for the worm gin, plus the cost of windrowing (which is a necessary step for curing) is $25,725.

3.5.5 Windrow

It was determined that the most efficient way to evaluate the feasibility of a windrow composting system at the University of Waterloo was to find parallel case studies that could serve as models for the UW system. The windrowing system is a complex one which varies greatly from one institutional system to the next. Dynamics of successful windrowing systems depend highly on characteristics of the site. For this reason it was important that these case studies be as similar in geographic and infrastructural characteristics as possible. Through secondary research, Cornell University (CU) and Middlebury College (MC) were selected as two case studies most parallel to the UW system, according to three criteria (see Table 3.3). The windrowing processes of both institutions were analyzed and their systems applied to the UW system. As a result, the most viable UW windrowing system was modeled and a cost calculation performed.

Table 3.2: Criteria for Similarity to UW Waste Management System

Institution

MC *

CU **

Geography

Located in North of NY State

Generally the same climate

Educational Institution

Both post secondary schools

Similar administrative bodies, regulations and expenditure concerns

Waste System Dynamics

Population = 2500 tonnes

Annual Food Waste = 260 tonnes

Population = 19,000 tonnes Annual Food Waste = 700 tonnes

* Middlebury College information attained from Sief, 1999 and Hazen, 1998

** Cornell University information attained from Trautmann, 2000 and Composting Case Studies: Cornell University, 1998

By applying the MC and CU system to the current UW one and through suggestions by Dr. Donna Shaw, lead scientist at the Olds College Centre for Innovation, the type of equipment and process necessary for an efficient UW windrowing system has been proposed and an attempt was made to determine the approximate cost of such a system.

 

 

System criteria includes:

1. Type and volume of feedstock

2. Need to procure amendments

3. Cost of site construction (retention pond, pad (possibly))

4. Equipment and personnel required to maintain windrows and site

5. Collection system for the feedstock

6. Odour control costs

7. Product utilization and/or transportation costs

8. Quality assurance costs (lab test for pathogens and metals)

9. Composting performance equipment (temp probes, oxygen meters, pulper)

Source: Donna Shaw Ph D., Olds College Centre for Innovation

The above mentioned elements of windrow composting do not come with an exact price tag. Most must be taken into account with geographic and climatic factors. Before associated costs can be determined, a proposed system, including site location, must be established. Because no comprehensive analysis of what UW would require is available, we will use the MC model to approximate costs (no cost information was available for the CU system) shown in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3 Windrow Cost Calculation Chart for MC Model

 

Approximate costs

Site Construction

 

$3,000

Purchasing of truck

 

$30 - 40 000

with sealed box

 

 

Roll-off containers (2)

 

$30 000

total (avg)

 

$68 000

Potential Costs

 

Approx. costs

Retention Pond

 

$10 000

De-watering pulper

 

$3,000

Performance Equip.

 

$5,000

(temp/mositure probes)

 

 

Total

 

$18 000

* Cost information attained from Shaw, 2001; Hutton, 2001.

Based on MC costs $43/ton US

$43/ton x 1 ton/.907tonne x $.65 US/ $1 Can = $73 tonne

40% of MC costs is spent on Labour:

0.40 x $73/tonne = $29/tonne (labour)(based on 2 work hours per day)

$73/tonne - $29/tonne = $44/tonne (Maintenance)

Because the UW system is 15% larger, this much more labour has been added

$29/tonne x 0.15 = $4.35/tonne

$29/tonne + $4.35 = $33.35/tonne

15% is added to maintenance costs, accounting for increased use of equipment

$44/tonne x 0.15 = $6.6/tonne

$44/tonne + $6.6/tonne = $50.60/tonne

5.9 tonnes/wk x 52wks/yr = 306.8 tonne/yr

306.8tonne/yr x $33.35/tonne = $10231.78/yr

306.8tonne/yr x $50.6/tonne = $15524.08/yr

Established System Costs

 

Approximate costs

Costs/tonne

 Labour

2 hrs/day

$10231.78/yr

$33.35/tonne

Maintenance

 

$15524.08/yr

$50.60/tonne

Total

 

$25725.86/yr

$83.95/tonne

* Cost information attained from Hazen, 1998.

Labour and maintenance costs are approximated assuming that UW owns all necessary equipment. All start-up and equipment costs are applied. This is important to note because rental fees can be substantially higher than using university-owned equipment.

3.5.6 In-Vessel

Two in-vessel composters were examined as possible solutions. Both composters are products of Wright Environmental. There are three main costs associated with each unit: set up cost, maintenance cost and labour (manpower) cost. The WEMI 3tpd model can take up to 3 tonnes per day of material, whereas the WEMI 600ppd model can take up to 600lbs (material in both models can be up to 70% food waste) per day of material. Outlined in the following charts are the system parameters, particularly costs, of these proposed in-vessels.

Model

Set Up ($)

Maintenance ($)

Labour (manpower)

Additional Costs

WEMI 3tpd

377,420

3, 984.59

1 man/2-3hrs/day

$47,881.86

WEMI 600ppd

66,000

730.00

1 man/1-2hrs/day

$41,329.86

The WEMI 600ppd model can be winterized for an additional $4,000 (which has been included in the set up cost). Maintenance costs are only based on power (kWh/year x .10cents/kWh); water requirements are dependent on other factors that vary, so water costs are not included in maintenance costs. Additional costs include windrow maintenance, labour, site preparation, transportation of unit and training of staff, they are outlined below:

Model

In-vessel Labour

Windrow Maintenance and Labour

Site preparation, Transport, and Training

WEMI 3tpd

$19,656.00

$25725.86

$2,500.00

WEMI 600ppd

$13,104.00

$25725.86

$2,500.00

Model

Energy (kWh) requirements

Dimensions WxHxL (feet)

Water/day required

Leasing option ($/month)

WEMI 3tpd

39,845.98/yr

9 x 12 x 38

Varies

7,600 over 5 yrs

WEMI 600ppd

7,300.01/yr

6 x 8 x 18

Varies

1,289 over 5 yrs

At the end of each capital lease option, the University would pay $1.00 to own the in-vessel. Depending on the location of the in-vessel, the construction of a concrete pad may be required (it is likely that the University would choose a location that does not require a concrete pad to be built).

Model

Cost Calculation

Total ($)

WEMI 3tpd

Capital+Maintenance+Additional=Total

(Total for year 1)

429,286.45

WEMI 600ppd

108,059.86

The costs mentioned above only concern the initial phase of composting that the in-vessel model completes. Once the initial decomposition is finished, a windrow curing operation is necessary. The costs of that operation are outlined in the windrowing section. The costs for the subsequent years of using an in-vessel are calculated by adding maintenance costs and additional costs (refer to Table 4.2).

3.5.7 Kaster Processing

The cost calculation for Kaster Processing is based on the assumption that UW produces 5.9 tonnes of food waste per week (Cook, 2001), which amounts to 306.8 tonnes/year. It is also implied that Kaster’s removal fee is 10.00/bin, and each full bin of food waste weights approximately 200 lbs. Lastly, we are assuming that labour costs are $18.00/hour for Plant Operations staff and Food Services staff on campus.

1 lb. = 0.4536 kg

1 bin = 200 lbs.

200 lbs. * 0.4536 kg = 90.72 kg/bin

1000 kg/90.72kg = 11.023 bins

(approximately 11 bins are needed to hold 1 tonne of food waste)

11.023 bins * $10.00/bin = $110.23 to remove 1 tonne of food waste

Start-up Costs:

N/A for Kaster Processing. It does not cost the University any money to start this program since the food waste bins are provided free of charge

Maintenance/Year:

$110.23 * 306.8 tonnes/year = $33,818.56 to remove UW food waste per year

Additional Costs (Labour):

There are 6 main food outlets on campus (Brubakers, Modern Languages, VI, VII, Dana Porter Café, Davis Centre Café)

We are assuming that it will take a _ hour/day of labour for the Food Services staff/Plant Operations staff to move the bins to the loading areas outside of the food outlets

$9.00 (_ hour of labour) * 365 days/year * 6 outlets = $19,710.00 labour/year

Total: Year 1:

$33,818.56 (maintenance/year) + $19,710 (additional labour costs) + $0.00 (start-up costs) = $53,528.56

Subsequent Years:

Since there are no start-up costs in this method, the price is the same every year. $33,818.56 (maintenance/year) + $19,710 (additional labour costs) - $0.00 (start-up costs) = $53,528.56

Average Cost Per Tonne:

The total cost for removing 1 tonne of food waste from UW with Kaster Processing, labour costs and lift fee included.

$53,528.56 (total cost/year) / 306.8 tonnes (total food waste/year) = $174.47

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.0 Results

4.1 Literature Review

From the literature review, several pieces of data found were relevant to more than one method of composting. Below is a list of that data:

4.1.1 Backyard Composting

Minota Hagey Residence Composting Project (Cook, 2001) was the first WATgreen project dealing with composting. Incidentally, it was also the most successful example of backyard composting on campus. The Minota Hagey composter remained operational until 2000. In 1992, a feasibility study of composting at St.Jerome’s and St. Paul’s colleges was completed (Arsenault, 1992). Composting was piloted at the two colleges, but the pilot was soon after abandoned by both colleges (Becks, 2001). As a result of a rat infestation problem outside the ES composter, the campus composting situation was evaluated in 1994 (Fox, 1994). This evaluation discovered that many of the backyard composters had problems as a result of improper maintenance and education problems (Fox, 1994). With the apparent success of the composting program at St. Jerome’s, a group of students again tried to implement composting at St. Paul’s college (Fagan, 1997). The program does not appear to have been adopted or did not survive for any significant length of time (Becks, 2001).

Backyard composting is used at a very large number of locations in North America. The procedure is so commonplace that very little is written about it. Information about backyard composting is scarce, although many institutions take part in it. University of British Columbia backyard compost at two of its colleges, Green College and St. John’s College ("Campus Compost Project", 2001).

4.1.2 Vermicomposting

In 1994, vermicomposters were introduced to the campus when a group of students tried to implement the composters in several campus offices. The following offices adopted worms at this point: Federation of Students Office, Waste Management Office, Turnkey Desk, and St. Paul’s College (Christian, 1994). A pilot project involving the WPIRG office was also conducted in 1994. In the three week pilot, only 150 grams of material was collected (Fox, 1994). In 1998, the following offices had functioning vermicomposters: Plant Operations, Human Resources, Applied Health Sciences, Career Services, and Waste Management (Eyers, 1998). Vermicomposters were then implemented in two more offices: Earth Sciences and B.C. Matthews (Eyers, 1998).

Berkeley College composts hundreds of tons of food waste annually from the cafeterias and residences through large vermicomposting boxes. The resulting worm castings are sold, but project is funding primarily by grants. ("Berkeley Worms", 2000). The University of Michigan provides vermicomposters to offices and departments on campus, which composts small quantities of food waste (Kazmierski, 1996). Vermicomposting is used for pre-consumer food waste at Johnson College in Vermont. The Medical University of South Carolina uses a Vermitech system to process 100 pounds of cafeteria food waste daily ("Commercial Systems", 2000). Approximately 500 pounds of soil is collected each month and used by the Grounds Department ("Commercial Systems", 2000).

4.1.3 Worm Gin

The Worm Gin is a brand new method of composting (patent pending) that was discovered while undertaking secondary research. The Worm Gin is a medium to large-scale composter that combines aerobic composting with worms (Windle, 2001). The process takes between 5 to 9 days, plus 2 to 3 weeks of curing (Windle, 2001). The Worm Gin has the ability to compost any food waste material and promises to have low odour emissions (Windle, 2001). Since the cost of the system is specific to the volume of waste being processed, we would not know the cost of the system until a waste audit was completed (Windle, 2001). The Worm Gin is in operation at the Sumter County Corrections Facility in Florida and the Seoul Water Treatment Facility in Korea (Windle, 2001).

 

4.1.4 Windrow

There have been few studies of windrow composting on the UW campus by past WATgreen projects. Most of the on-campus information attained as regarding the yard waste removal program on north campus.

Through outside sources including journals and websites that many successful windrowing operations are currently in place. Parallel case studies from Cornell University (CU) and Middlebury College (MC) can be used as models for implementation at the University of Waterloo. CU and MC are considered "parallel" for the various reasons that follow: They are both educational institutions. CU has a similar student population to that of UW, with 19,000 and 20,000 respectively (Trautmann, 2000; Cook, 2001). All three universities are similar in climatic conditions (Hazen, 1998; Trautmann, 2000), and MC and UW produce approximately the same amount of food waste per year (Cook, 2000; Wallace, 1996). While CU uses a fairly standard windrowing system, MC uses the PAWS system, involving passively aerated windrows (Trautmann, 2000; Hazen, 1998). Because these two parallel case studies have similarities with UW, while having effectively implemented different windrow programs, they can be used to mold a windrow program for the University of Waterloo.

4.1.5 In-Vessel

WATgreen projects were the source of literature for material related to in-vessel composting. WATgreen projects illustrated possible barriers and a general idea of the current campus system of waste disposal. Of the projects reviewed, only one focused on implementing an in-vessel composting unit. The project proposed a pilot in-vessel composting project for Village II cafeteria (Gould, 1994). This project was abandoned when the in-vessel unit proposed was found to have mechanical and odour problems. A co-op student considered various alternative waste management solutions in a 1993 project for WATgreen (Gould). Though this project did not arrive at a definite conclusion on the best method for the University, it did recommend that further research be conducted on a combination in-vessel/windrow system. A waste audit report was also reviewed. This project shows the actual flows of waste on the university campus, from where the waste is produced to where it ends up (Wright, 1992).

Literature on in-vessel composting from off-campus related sources was found in academic journals and on the internet. Biocycle was a very informative source of information on various in-vessel systems, but unfortunately the journal did not provide any parallel case studies that UW could model its situation after. A search was performed initially to look for composting programs at other universities and anything related to in-vessel composting.

In our internet search, the webpage for Wright Environmental, a company that manufactures and sells in-vessel composters, was very informative and not only provided baseline data, pictures of the composters and how their patented system works but contact information which led to an informative expert interview (www.wrightenvironmental.com). Scanning the web sites of universities throughout North America, a grasp on who has proposed in-vessel systems and who is using in-vessel systems is attainable. A search for other universities in North America who are presently using an in-vessel system found only Texas A&M (http://www.tamu.edu/) and the University of Massachusetts (http://www.umass.edu/recycle) have in-vessel programs in place, but neither system was adequately described on the web for comparison purposes.

 

Table 4.1: Comparison of College Composting Programs

University

Type of Composting

Details

Amount Composted

Maintenance Costs

Money Saved

Operational Since

Dartmouth College

Off-campus:  formerly windrows, now hi-tech facility, jointly with city of Hanover

Handles all food and compostable waste as well as sewage sludge from Hanover

windrows=20,000 lb. for first 8 months

windrows= Minimal, covered by Buildings and Grounds and Food Services

windrows= net savings of $10,000 for first 8 months

Windrows1992, Composting facility- 1998

Ithaca College (NY)

Off-campus: Pre-consumer waste only; aerated static piles

Computerized temperature controlled off-campus facility

5 tons/week or about 160 tons/year

Initial cost of machinery and setup = $67,000

Not available, but diverts about 13-15% of total waste stream

1993

Johnson College (VT)

Passive pre-consumer waste, vermicomposting. Also, research on post-consumer composting by windrows and aerated windrows

Small holding piles on concrete slabs aerated by pipe; 12 vermi-composting demonstration projects in community

N/A

N/A

N/A

1991

University of Waterloo

Windrows, Wooden Bins, Vermicomposting

N/A

Windrows compost about 10-15 tons/year

N/A

N/A

Windrows since early 1970's wooden bins since 1996

Texas A&M University

off-campus Animal Science facility (with close neighbours), in-vessel composting

7 EarthTubs, 7 Comp-tainers, using animal waste and bedding

N/A

Equipment start-up Cost: ~$350,000

N/A

1998

Tulane University

3+ Large Recycled, Wooden Bins

Proposal Stage

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Cornell University

Off-campus windrows facility

Agricultural waste, and pre- and post-consumer food

4151 tons/year (including 700 tons of food)

Provided from the tipping costs of food removal paid by food service

Product applied to college farm, will reduce tipping fees from food service

1992 for agricultural waste, 1998 for food waste

Middlebury College

Off-campus windrow facility

Wood chips and horse manure mixed with food waste

260 tonnes a year of food waste

Paid for through savings in tipping fees

Humus used by MC and money saved through tipping fees

1996

Courtesy Rice University at http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~envintrn/other_colleges.html

4.2 Interviews

Each interview revealed information that was relevant to all of the methods. Rather than repeating it this information it is outlined below followed by method — specific information obtained from the interviews.

Mike Birett

Jerry Hutten

Jeff Chalmers

à Village debit card system

à Move to pre-packaged food

Patti Cook

4.2.1 Backyard Composting

Over 65 000 backyard composters have been provided to residences by the Region of Waterloo. Surveys have shown that 50% of the composters have remained in operation for ten years or more. The University cannot obtain free composters from the Region because UW is considered a business (Birett, 2001). Patti Cook has also given away numerous composters, but will hesitate to do so in the future because of the number of containers that have been returned or unused (Cook, 2001). Plant Operations does not support further backyard composting initiatives because the method has had so many problems (Hutten, 2001). Backyard composters cause odour and attract rodents if not properly maintained. Most often, interest is lost in maintaining a composter or the initiators leave campus. The colleges had backyard composters operational for quite some time, but the volume of food produced exceeded the capacity of the composters (Becks, 2001).

4.2.2 Vermicomposting

Plant Operations prefers vermicomposters to backyard composters because they cause no odour and do not attract rodents (Hutten, 2001). The Region of Waterloo is considering giving out vermicomposters in addition to backyard composters because they can be used in winter months when backyard composters are often abandoned for the season (Birett, 2001). Patti Cook has given out numerous vermicomposters, but worms will die if not properly cared for (Cook, 2001).

4.2.3 Worm Gin

Correspondence with inventor Harry Windle has filled in further details about the Worm Gin in addition to the literature. Harry cannot give a precise cost for the system until a waste audit is completed and the specific amount of waste to be composted is determined (Windle, 2001). For approximately five tonnes a week of waste, the estimated cost would be $20 000 US (Windle, 2001). The Worm Gin can be built to any scale to accommodate any volume of waste. The Unit would take a floor space of approximately 25 feet by 60 feet (Windle, 2001). No Universities have previously tested this product. Harry referred me to Al Eagen, who he believes has a suitable system.

4.2.4 Windrow

Patti Cook identified that there is an existing yard waste composting system in place at North campus. Patti supports a windrow compost system but says that the need for government licensing will have to be examined (Columbia Street/see Appendix 9.1). As a representative for Plant Operations, Jerry Hutten was able to describe the current yard-waste windrow composting system. Jerry also explained that the University owns close to 1000 acres of land to the North of campus, which makes expanding the windrow system spatially viable.

Mike Birett, with the Region of Waterloo’s Waste Management division, was the third major contributor to the windrow data attained. It was realized through our interview with him that the Ministry of the Environment has the only jurisdiction over windrow composting. He also identified that during the winter, issues such as blending materials, windrow size, and snow clearance face the windrowing process.

In-vessel

Patti Cook seemed to think that an in-vessel composting system could work for the university, but a lack of funding was a major concern. To summarize Mr. Birett, the main problems with in-vessels are capital costs with larger systems, quality control and odour with the smaller systems. Training personnel to run an in-vessel is straightforward, but willingness is crucial. Mr. Birett thought that Wright Environmental is the leading producer of in-vessels in Canada and is probably the most respectable company to deal with for this type of composting. Most mechanical problems that arose 7 years ago are not likely to occur now because of technology development. In-vessel composters can cost as much as $300 million, so it is important to choose a model that is "fiscally responsible" for the school. Mr. Birett agrees with Patti Cook that an in-vessel seems feasible for the University, but the economics of the system is probably the largest hurdle to overcome in achieving implementation.

Food services and Plant Operations seemed equally positive that an in-vessel program could work at the University of Waterloo. Both departments were certain that their staff would be willing to participate. Once again, funding was deemed as the most important issue. Food services also noted that proper education of maintaining an in-vessel would be mandatory so that contamination of food is not a risk.

The expert that has provided the most information on in-vessel composting is the manager of sales and marketing at Wright Environmental, Mr. Ed Boyd. Questions were prepared for him and sent via email, so that if he did not have the information on hand he could retrieve it. Mr. Boyd was provided with information about the campus system (population, waste per month in tonnes, current costs to remove waste) so that he could make an informed recommendation on an in-vessel for the school. Mr. Boyd provided data on several in-vessel models, recommended to the researchers a specific unit and faxed a copy of how the systems work along with case study reports on other Wright composters that are in use.

 

 

4.2.6 Kaster Processing

Patti Cook thinks that working with Kaster Processing again would be a very good idea. The previous attempt with this method occurred in early 2000. But Patti had some concerns that because the pilot project failed last year, it may not work again (Cook, 2001).

Jerry Hutten explained that it would be a hassle for Plant Operations to have to deal with the separate containers provided by Kaster Processing due to space difficulties and the unpleasant odours that may be emitted from the food waste. Jerry feels that it would involve a lot of effort to educate all the Food Services staff as well as the Plant Operations staff on this new system (Hutten, 2001). Even though Jerry feels that this waste management method for food waste would involve a lot of organising and planning, he says that it would be considered.

The Region of Waterloo’s Mike Birett feels that it would be difficult for Kaster Processing to compete with the Regional landfill and the current waste management strategy at UW because of the relatively low cost of landfill disposal. Mike feels that since the University gets a discount on its waste removal (because of the high volume generated), the Kaster Processing solution would be a hard sell to UW’s administration (Birett, 2001).

In speaking with Shawn Davidson and Frank Peters from Kaster Processing, I learned the details behind the business and what was involved in his processing of food waste. Kaster Processing is a pig farming operation as well as a food waste processing plant located west of Kitchener. The farm runs a finishing operation and a food waste processing plant.

Currently, Kaster Processing has 14 trucks in service that pick up food waste from restaurants and businesses across Southwestern Ontario, including about 250 Tim Horton’s restaurants, 50 McDonald’s, 6 Weston Bakery plants, the Frito/Lay Potato Chip company, and about 20 other outlets (Peters, 2001). Each restaurant is given a number of 64-gallon bins (the number depends on the amount of food waste they produce) which are filled with food waste. Once or twice a week the company sends a truck to the restaurant that exchanges the full bins with new clean bins. The food waste gets brought back to the farm where it is dumped into one of two 25,000 litre steam powered pressure cookers which agitates and boils the waste for a regulated amount of time in order to kill all of the bacteria that exists in the food waste. This process is used for food waste that is considered slop or wet organic restaurant waste, which is used to feed the pigs only. Waste generated from restaurants and bakeries, such as donuts from Tim Horton’s or other pure bakery goods, gets dried and crushed into a coarse meal. This nutrient-rich food is then shipped to other plants and used in processed feed for poultry, cattle, and even dog food. Approximately 35 tonnes of wet organic waste from restaurants, and about 600-1000 tonnes of bakery waste is processed every week. Contaminants in the restaurant food waste, such as napkins and paper towels, are not a great concern to the operation (to a degree) since all of the waste is boiled and mixed. Kaster Processing charges $10.00/bin pickup (with a 4 bin minimum).

Shawn Davidson offered an explanation for why the pilot project with UW ended in failure last year. Patti Cook first contacted Kaster Processing in the winter of 2000 to implement a small trial at Fed Hall. Two containers were dropped off outside of the building, but contact was not made to have them picked up (Davidson, 2001). Shawn assumes that part of the blame lies with himself for not giving Patti enough information about the program, and for the lack of education that the employees at Fed Hall received. Since it is up to the staff to separate the food wastes and dispose it into the bins located outside, the staff need to be instructed on how the system works before they will be able to implement it. Foremost, the managers of the food outlets must be educated. It would not be a difficult for Kaster Processing to do pickups at all of the food outlets and cafeterias on campus (Davidson, 2001). Each outlet would require a minimum of 4 bins. Kaster Processing is licensed through Agriculture Canada and follows the government health and safety standards. The operation is inspected twice a year to ensure that the regulations are being followed. Since the boilers kill all of the bacteria present, there has never been bacteria in the pig feed or any concern about Foot and Mouth or Mad Cow disease (Davidson, 2001).

Shawn is certainly willing to speak with Patti Cook again and set up another trial with the university campus. He insists that before his program can work, focus must be put on educating the Food Service staff as well as the food consumers so that the food waste can be properly separated (Davidson, 2001).

 

 

 

 

 

 

4.3 Questionnaire Results

4.3.1 Results

The results to each question are outlined below in the form of percentages:

  1. Are you a:
  2. Student 84% Staff 12% Faculty 4%

  3. What faculty are you associated with?
  4. Math 23% Engineering 10% Arts 31%

    ENV S 16% Science 11% AHS 9%

    (note: the percentages in question 2 are representative of students and faculty only)

  5. Do you live on campus?
  6. Yes 31% No 69%

    3a. If yes, where?

    Villages 19% Colleges 61% Other 20%

  7. How many meals a week do you eat on campus?
  8. None 16% 1 to 5 55% 6 to 10 6% 11+ 23%

  9. Which of the following materials can be put in a backyard composter?
  10. Banana peel 96% Coffee filters 63%

    Tea bag 64% Bagel & cream cheese 29%

    Meat 14% PB & J Sandwich 36%

    Cheese 23% Vegetables 91%

  11. Have you ever composted?

Yes 69% No 31%

6a. If no, if facilities were put in place, would you be willing to separate your food waste in the same manner that you would separate blue box recyclables?

Yes 89% No 11%

6b. If yes, have you composed on campus?

Yes 15% No 85%

6c. If yes please explain:

7. Different types of composting require different types of waste separation. Would you be willing to (Choose one):

67% Separate food waste from non-food waste (napkins, plastic utensils, packaging, etc.)

29% Separate food waste between organic and meats and dairies

4% Not willing to separate waste

8. Do you blue box recycle?

Always 64% Sometimes 11%

Often 24% Never 1%

  1. To reduce the amount of waste that the university sends to landfills, how much, if any would you be willing to add to your tuition costs?

$0.49 - $1.00 2% $0.50 - $1.00 13% $1.01 — $2.00 20%

$2.01 - $3.00 16% More than $3.00 28% None 12%

10. Do you feel that it is important for the University to divert waste from landfills?

Yes 84% No 1% Indifferent 15%

4.3.2 General Insights

 

4.4 Cost Calculations

All cost information calculated in the methods section (see Section 3.5) is summarised in Table 4.1, which represents a summary of how each method of food waste disposal compares against each other using the featured criteria.

Table 4.2: Cost Calculations

 

Start-up

Maintenance/Year

Additional Costs (Labour*, etc.)

Total: Year 1

Total: Subsequent Years

Average Cost Per Tonne**

Windrow

$68,000.00

$15,524.00

$10,232.00

$93,756.00

$25,756.00

$106.00

In-vessel (3tpd)

$377,420.00

$3,984.59

$47,881.86

$429,286.45

$51,866.45

$292.07

In-vessel (600 ppd)

$66,000.00

$730.00

$41,329.86

$108,059.86

$42,059.86

$158.60

Kaster Processing

N/A

$33,818.56

$19,710.00

$53,528.56

$53,528.56

$174.47

Backyard Composting

$450,000.00

$1,000.00

$2,500.00

$453,500.00

$3,500.00

$161.67

Vermicompost

$120,575.00

$1,000.00

$2,500.00

$96,250.00

$3,500.00

$51.86

Worm Gin

$30,000.00

$1,000.00

$33,000.00

$64,000.00

$34,000.00

$123.33

Landfill

N/A

$31,440.00

$19,710.00

$51,150.00

$51,150.00 ***

$172.86

* Labour cost is calculated at $18.00 per hour

** Cost averaged over a ten year period

*** Tipping fees increase by 2% per year

 

 

5.0 Discussion and Conclusions

5.1 Criteria for Analysis

Using the data collected, it was possible to determine what the most feasible food waste management system would be comprised of. Also, we have outlined the limitations present on campus. From this information, we were able to produce a series of criteria (as outlined below) through which we will compare the identified methods of composting. This will enable us to identify what the most feasible method(s) will be.

5.1.1 Central/On-site

Although an on-site composting system reduces transportation costs (Lara 2001), a large-scale central system is preferred for the University. A large-scale system would be most capable of processing the large amount of waste produced by the University and a program easily monitored could be implemented. Also, Plant Operations is more likely to support a central system, since past experience has shown that those who implement small programs often lose interest or leave campus (Hutten, 2001). Abandonment of a composter leads to odour problems, which would attract rodents (Hutten, 2001). With a smaller system, more problems may arise from educational problems due to the dual function of consumers and caretakers. Problems that often arise include the death of worms from improper care and the invasion of fruit flies from improper maintenance of composters. The ideal system for the University would thus be a centrally controlled system.

5.1.2 Land Use Footprint

Although the University campus consists of 1,000 acres, only 300 acres of which is developed (UW, 2001), must of this land lies on the North Campus (Hutten 2001). The issue is that the University cannot cross Columbia Street with food waste without obtaining certification for a waste management facility. This process would be lengthy and expensive, and the University is unwilling to go through the certification and assessment process (Cook 2001). Therefore, the ideal system would take up as little land as possible while the waste is in food form, but could take more land while in soil form, as would be needed for curing.

 

 

5.1.3 Appropriate Scale of Design

Each method of composting is most suited to process a different quantity of waste. For example, the standard backyard composter is most effective for processing a single household’s waste and may take several months to process wastes (enCompass, 2001). In-vessel composters, on the other hand, can be built large enough to process an entire region’s waste in mere weeks (Birett, 2001). The ideal system for the University would be capable of processing approximately 5.9 tons of food waste per week.

5.1.4 Development of Technology

Since composting has been attempted unsuccessfully on so many previous occasions (Cook, 2001), a new solution might serve to renew enthusiasm for composting (Birett, 2001). The University would also have the opportunity to generate new information if a brand new method of food waste management was piloted here. Mike Birett from the Region of Waterloo’s Waste Management Division believes that outside funding could be generated if a new method was adopted, whereas funding is unlikely if the system implemented has previously failed (Birett, 2001).

5.1.5 Special Circumstances

Any unique circumstances which might affect the implementation or success of a composting program.

5.1.6 Consumer: Level of Education

A lack of correct or complete education of the consumer has led to previous failures in composting initiatives (Hutten, 2001; Cook, 2001). Evidence of this deficiency includes the death of worms in multiple vermicomposters and the fruit fly invasions in backyard composter’s resulting from improper maintenance. Survey results show that the campus population is not sufficiently knowledgeable about composting. This is shown by the numerous incorrect answers received when asked which products can be composted in a backyard composter. The preferred system would have a minimal level of education necessary on the part of the consumer or a well-developed educational component as a part of the program.

 

5.1.7 Consumer: Level of Participation

Composting methods with high levels of participation on the part of the consumer are often abandoned when the project initiators lose interest or leave campus (Hutten 2001). A system that requires a small amount of participation on the part of the consumer is preferred.

5.1.8 Consumer: Level of Sorting

Since alternative methods of composting are only able to compost certain materials, the method would not be feasible if consumers are not willing to sort their food waste in this manner. Most survey respondents indicated that they would be willing to sort food waste from non-food waste, but would be unwilling to separate food wastes between organic food and non-organics (meats, dairy, fats, etc.) Therefore, a system that requires a minimal amount of waste separation by the consumer is preferred.

5.1.9 Staff: Level of Training/Education

Training or educating staff expends time and money. Plant Operations is willing to devote only the minimum necessary amount of time to train and educate staff. A system that requires the least amount of time for training would be preferred.

5.1.10 Staff: Labour Required

Although employee availability and funds are limited, Plant Operations is willing to devote the required amount of manpower to operating a composting program (Hutten, 2001). A system that would add minimum or no additional responsibilities for the staff would be preferred.

5.1.11 Campus Projects/Programs

Identify cases where the method of composting is/has been proposed or in operation on campus. Whether the method has failed, succeeded, or been rejected in the past is a possible indicator of the likelihood of implementation for the present. A past failure could also influence the rejection of the implementation by decision-makers (Birett, 2001). A preferred case would have no past failures.

 

5.1.12 Current Cases

Identify cases where the method of composting is currently operating successfully elsewhere under similar conditions. The success of the method under comparable circumstances elsewhere is a possible indicator of the feasibility for the process on our own campus. Preferred examples would be successful programs on campuses or other institutions of a similar size with comparable systems.

5.1.13 Cost: First Year

The first-year of operation, including start-up costs, should not be prohibitively expensive. The costs should be as low as possible, yet keeping characteristics such as quality and safety in mind. Previously, Food Services were willing to fund an in-vessel composting program at a start-up cost of $9315.00 (Gould, 1995; Cook 2001). It might then be approximated that a start-up cost of $10, 000 is reasonable. A preferred system would have first year costs less than the current landfill costs for one year.

5.1.14 Cost: Subsequent Years

Summarizes maintenance costs on an annual basis and is an important factor for calculating the cost per tonne. This may include electricity generation, tipping fees, equipment repairs, etc. Cost should be less than the cost of sending the waste to landfill. This can be calculated by adding up the total cost of the composting program for the year and comparing it to the total cost for sending compostable materials to the landfill, which is $51,150.00(Cook, 2001).

5.1.15 Cost: Per Tonne

The final cost calculation that will influence decision-makers (Cook, 2001). Cost per tonne for composting must be equal to or less than the current cost for landfill food waste disposal of $172.86 per tonne (Cook, 2001). Any system which would cost more than the current waste collection is unlikely to adopted at the present time (Cook, 2001).

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.2 Discussion

5.2.1 Backyard Composting

Benefits:

Some diversion of waste is achieved and consumers get personal satisfaction from composting their own waste.

Drawbacks:

Digests very little food relative to the time, effort, and cost. Is a seasonal solution only, and may attract fruit flies and rodents if not properly cared for. Requires a large amount of attention on the behalf of the consumer, and only certain foods can be added. Only certain foods can be added

Feasibility:

It is unlikely that this system will be implemented. Backyard composting has failed many times previously and decision-makers have negative perception resulting from past problems.

5.2.2 Vermicomposting

Benefits:

Fun and novelty of worms and consumers get personal satisfaction from composting their own waste. Worms can multiply and be shared. Some waste diversion is achieved, and is faster and less odourless than backyard composters. Can be done indoors and all year round.

Drawbacks:

Digest very little food relative to the time, effort, and cost. Requires a lot of maintenance and a consistent source of food or worms will die. Only certain foods can be added.

Feasibility:

There is a small chance for this system to be implemented. Could work on an individual basis, but not a long-term solution.

5.2.3 Worm Gin

Benefits:

Takes all kinds of foods. Can be done on campus in a small area, with low maintenance costs. Testing this new product generates new research information and could be funded.

Drawbacks:

Cost may be prohibitive, but cannot be sure until a waste audit is completed.

Feasibility:

Moderate. If cost is not prohibitive, it could be a good viable option.

 

5.2.4 In-vessel

Benefits:

Meats, dairies and traditional compostable food wastes can all be composted and diverted from landfill. Promotes the university as an environmental leader, as no other university in Canada has an in-vessel system in place.

Drawbacks:

Food contamination risks require a well-trained staff and a well-maintained in-vessel. Requires land to cure the compost product for 4 to 6 weeks (most likely via windrow composting method). Life expectancy of the in-vessel is from 20-25 years.

Feasibility:

The chances of this system being implemented are very low. The initial costs of the proposed in-vessel far exceed the current costs of food waste disposal. The price tag out weighs the positives like minimal sorting required and efficiency with respect to time and labour. Also the current windrowing system on north campus is not maintained with enough frequency to create a rich and stable end product.

5.2.5 Windrow

Benefits:

The process takes place away from the UW campus where issues of smell and rodents are not as prevalent.

Drawbacks:

The need for government licensing and adhering to Ministry of Environment standards adds unwanted responsibility to UW administration. Thus, labour and equipment needs to increase on an already labour intensive system. Depending on the severity of winter, snow removal may increase labour that is needed and if not removed will slow the composting process.

Feasibility:

Feasibility is low because start-up costs are high which makes convincing administration to establish this system very difficult. Also, costs per tonne using the windrow system are greater than landfill costs.

5.2.6 Kaster Processing

Benefits:

The Kaster Processing solution offers a relatively inexpensive way of getting rid of UW’s food waste similar to the current waste removal system. It involves placing the waste in containers outdoors that are picked up by a private collection company. Compostables and non-compostables, as well as a small degree of napkin contamination are acceptable in this program, so no food separation is needed. No startup costs are involved and only a minimal amount of extra labour is required from the Food Services staff.

Drawbacks:

The consumers and Food Services staff must separate the food waste from other waste. Sufficient education is needed to ensure that this occurs. The food waste in the containers may produce a temporary unpleasant odour, since Kaster Processing only picks them up once or twice a week.

Feasibility:

This solution is very feasible since it is almost equal with the cost to the current waste disposal method practiced on campus. The benefits listed above drastically outweigh the few drawbacks involved. Education of the staff is the deciding factor as to whether or not this system will function successfully.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5.3 Conclusions

The research question, "Is campus food waste composting feasible?", was answered through our research. Campus composting is feasible, and the most feasible method of those examined is Kaster Processing. Based on the criteria that were outlined to determine the most feasible method, Kaster Processing fits into the desired system and has no major drawbacks. The benefits are that the program is comparably priced to the current system, with no start-up costs and the potential to save money. Previously, Patti Cook was able to negotiate a reduce per-bin price and it is likely that this could again be arranged. Kaster processing is the easiest to implement because it is based on the same practices as the current waste management system, thus reducing any additional labour for staff. There is a minimum of participation required on the part of the consumer, and a very minimum level of food waste sorting (only food from non-food). Based on the enthusiasm of Patti Cook, Waste Management Co-ordinator, to implement this program, we have provided sufficient evidence to influence decision-makers, thus completing all of the research objectives.

The implementation of the Kaster Processing program would require the education of campus staff, who would be responsible for the placement and removal of the waste bins, and the education of students, who would be responsible for sorting their food waste.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6.0 Recommendations

Based on the decision that Kaster Processing is the most feasible option for food waste management (see 4.4 Conclusions), we recommend that a pilot project be run in the Village 1 cafeteria beginning September 2001. The Village 1 cafeteria is the largest generator of food waste on the entire campus (Chalmers, 2001), and this would be an ideal time to introduce this program, as the students are learning and adapting to many other new procedures and ways of living in the residence. Educational materials should be distributed along with other introductory residence materials, to be placed around the cafeteria. At the scraping station where students discard the waste from their plates into the disposal ‘holes’, alternate bins for food waste would be placed. Presently, the food waste is inserted into the disposal ‘holes’ while the cafeteria staff is working in the kitchen and plates and cutlery are being used. After kitchen hours, when food service is reduced to the grill and prepackaged foods, paper plates and plastic utensils are used. It would be more difficult to implement the separation program under these conditions, therefore it would be best if the food waste bins are removed when the cafeteria staff closes the kitchen.

Education of the staff is central to the success of this proposal. Food Services staff and managers would be responsible for the maintenance of the food bins and their placement outside. Kaster Processing would then be responsible for picking up the bins and replacing them with clean ones. A waste audit should be conducted to more closely approximate the number of bins needed and the amount of pick-ups that will be necessary.

If the pilot is successful and a campus-wide program is proposed, a large educational campaign would be necessary. It would be beneficial to spread the program one Food Services outlet at a time, from the largest waste producers to the smallest.

Finally, annual waste audits should be completed to specifically target areas where Kaster Processing bins could be placed.

Figure 6.1: Village 1 Cafeteria Scraping Station

 

 

Figure 6.2: Food Waste Disposal Holes

 

 

 

7.0 Glossary

Bureaucratic feasibility à The ability for an institution to tolerate given conditions with respect to rules, regulations, laws, facilities and present systems. The easier the application of a condition within the system the higher the bureaucratic feasibility.

Curing à The process of leaving composted materials outside in rows to become more stable.

Compost à The end result of the composting process or the process itself which consists of a mixture of decaying substances, this is then added to soil to improve its quality. The term composting refers to this process.

Compostable Waste à Organic waste generated which can undergo a process of decomposition to produce a nutrient rich substrate to be used in soil fertilisation.

Composter à The container, usually a bin or box in which the compost is held and the composting process takes place.

Economic viability à The ability to achieve economic savings or gains within a specific situation. Increasing economic costs is not considered economically viable.

Ecological footprint à The impact generated by human activity or activity in general on the surrounding environment, and the associated ecological functions. This impact is often related in physical terms in respect to impact per hectare.

Ecosystem à A community and its members interacting with each other and their non-living environment.

Environmental Stewardship à The responsibility of humans as caretakers of the Earth.

External Validity (generalisability) à The degree to which we can confidently assume that the results of ones research equally applies beyond the specific of our study.

Food Waste à All left over organic material, not to be consumed any further.

Landfill à Garbage dump, usually a pit where garbage is dumped and periodically covered with soil (CRFA, 1992).

Lifting Fee à The cost for a waste hauler to pickup and remove garbage.

Net Ecological Benefit à The determination of stress or benefit that an activity has on the overall ecological health. This can be determined through life-cycle analyses and net energy analyses (understanding resource and energy flows).

Non-Compostable Waste à Any waste that cannot be used in composting processes. These can be solid waste of an inorganic nature, or organic waste with qualities that are incompatible with effective compost product (non-vegetative organic waste, waste with contaminants).

Recycling à Reprocessing solid waste so that it may be reused or returned to use in the form of raw materials or products (CRFA, 1992).

Red Wiggler à A type of Red Worm that is used in vermicomposting.  It characteristically decomposes food rapidly.

Reliability à Implies that repeated observation or study of the same phenomenon should yield similar results and conclusions (Palys, 1997)

Solid Waste à Waste materials disposed of in essentially their original form by landfill or incineration (CRFA, 1992).

Tipping Fee à The monetary costs of dumping waste into the landfill, this fee is passed on from the hauler to the University.

Vermicomposting à Composting with worms.

Waste à Any material left after use (CRFA, 1992).

Wet Garbage à Compostable organic material including food scraps, and garden waste.

Worm Castings à The feces generated by worms. A product of vermicomposting. Makes excellent fertilizer.

 

 

8.0 Sources Cited

Acheson, Katherine, et al. "Disposing of the Organic Wastes Produced by the Food Services of Brown University." Brown University. November 1995. On-line at [http://www.brown.edu/Departments/Brown_Is_Green/esproj/owst1195/].

Arsenault, Lyle, et al. "Feasibility Study of Composting at St. Jerome's and St. Paul's College." ERS 285 Project, University of Waterloo, 1992.

Birett, Michael. Waste Management Division, Region of Waterloo. Personal Communication. 5 July ,2001.

Becks, Darren. Personal Communication. May, 2001.

Beaulieu, Patricia, and Chantal Davidchuk. "Waste Reduction at Source: University of Waterloo's Food Services as a Case Study." ERS 285 Project, University of Waterloo, 1994.

Canadian Restaurant and Foodservices Association. "Going Green Without Seeing Red: An Environmental Guide For The Foodservice Industry." Toronto: Canadian Restaurant and Foodservice Association, 1992.

Christian, Jennie, et al. "Implementation of Vermicomposting in Selected Offices on Campus." ERS 285 Project, University of Waterloo, 1994.

Cook, Patti. "Composting at the University of Waterloo." University of Waterloo. 5 July, 2000. On- line at [http://www.adm.uwaterloo.ca/infowast/composting.html].

Cook, Patti. Waste Management Co-ordinator, University of Waterloo. Personal Communication. May, June, July 2001.

EnCompass: Commission for Marketing Recyclable Materials. "Material Profile: Compost." 6 July, 2000. On-line at [http://dnr.metrokc.gov/market/map/cmpst.htm].

Eyers, Jen. "Vermicomposting on UW Campus." ERS 285 Project, University of Waterloo, 1998.

Fagan, Andrea, et al. "Composting at St. Paul's." ERS 285 Project, University of Waterloo, 1997.

Fox, Shari, et al. "Evaluation of Composting Programs on Campus." ERS 285 Project, University of Waterloo, 1994.

Hutten, Jerry. Plant Operations, University of Waterloo. Personal Communications. 3 July, 2001.

Gould, Christina. "Alternative Organic Waste Management Techniques for Village Two." Work Report for the Waste Management Department, University of Waterloo, 1993.

Kaheer, Shahnaz. "Establishment of the Amount of Waste Generated in the Village I Kitchen and Cafeteria as a Result of the New Debit Card System." ERS 390 Project, University of Waterloo, 1994.

Kazmierski, Matt. "Recycling Matters." University of Michigan Plant Operations. April 1996. On-line [www.plant.bf.umich.edu/grounds/recycle/recycling_matters_newsletter/1996_spring.html].

Konig, Carrie, and Grant Whitehead. "Waste Audit of Village I Residences." ERS 285 Project, University of Waterloo, 1994.

Monsebraatem, Laurie. "Garbage Revolution Proposed." The Toronto Star. 19 June, 2001. On-line at [thestar.com].

Palmer, Karen. "The Science of anaerobic composting." The Toronto Star. 20 June, 2001. On-line at [thestar.com].

"Promising city plan to take out the trash." The Toronto Star. 20 June, 2001. On-line at [thestar.com].

Prey, Carl, et al. Observation of University of Waterloo Campus composting sites. June, 2001.

Rigler, Betty. "Identification of Target Areas for Waste reduction at the Village Two Kitchen and Cafeteria." Senior Honours Thesis, Department of Environmental Studies, University of Waterloo, 1991.

Um, Young, et al. "Alternative Methods for Food Waste Reduction on Campus." ERS 100 Project, University of Waterloo, 1991.

University Corporation for Atmospheric Research. "Environmental Stewardship." UCAR Policies and Procedures Manual. December 1994. On-line at [http://www.fin.ucar.edu/hr/polpro/manual/sec1/sec1122.html].

University of Waterloo. University of Waterloo Web Page. On-line at [http://www.uwaterloo.ca].

Windle, Harrry. Inventor of the Worm Gin. Personal Communication. June and July, 2001.

Zaheer, S. "Establishment of the Amount of Waste Generated in the Village on Kitchen and Cafeteria as a result of the new debit card system." ERS 390 Project, University of Waterloo, 1994.