FINAL RECYCLING REPORT FOR THE COMMITTEE ON ... - …



Final Recycling Report

Committee on Sustainability

The College of William and Mary

Tyler L. Koontz and Judi Sclafani

Advisors: Sandra Prior and Rowan Lockwood

Summer 2009

Final Recycling Report For the Committee on Sustainability

The College of William and Mary

Tyler L. Koontz & Judi Sclafani

I. Executive Summary

The purpose of this summer research project was to comprehensively assess the strengths and weaknesses of the recycling program at the College of William and Mary. To accomplish this objective, we researched our contracts and activities with Tidewater Fibre Corporation (TFC), the College’s recycling vendor, and Waste Management, the College’s refuse vendor. Through these research efforts, it became evident that both the recycling and refuse programs at the College were operating with little supervision compared to how many of our peer and Virginia universities actively manage and monitor their programs. For example, within four weeks of research, we were able to recommend a shift from on-call to scheduled recycling service that would save the College approximately $40,000 annually. Furthermore, we found that the College’s refuse program is currently over-serviced by Waste Management, which results in unnecessary costs to the College. Reducing the service frequency by one day a week for one container would result in an additional cost savings of $636.00 per year. Therefore, it is recommended that the College immediately conduct an assessment of the refuse program structure and where applicable reduce the frequency of service.

It terms of measuring the efficiency of its recycling and refuse programs, the College is currently tracking tonnage data, rather than monitoring container volume and number of service calls, which is how TFC and Waste Management charge the College. To address this concern, we have provided both TFC and Waste Management with a method to record container volume data for each pick-up and deliver it to Facilities Management.

In light of these findings, it is strongly recommended that the College, like almost all of its peer institutions, establish a full-time position dedicated to actively managing and monitoring the programs. Our research has proven that a full-time position in addition to a strong institutional commitment is the key to maintaining a successful recycling program.

II. Introduction

This report summarizes our findings and recommendations after comprehensively examining the recycling and refuse disposal programs at The College of William and Mary. The main objective of this project was to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the College’s current recycling program and identify potential cost-efficient actions to strengthen and expand the program campus-wide. We believe our recommendations provide the College administration with clear and measurable actions that will reduce overall recycling and refuse costs and foster increased recycling activity on campus.

Our research tasks included the following six priorities:

1. Examine the current approaches and practices for recycling and refuse at the College

2. Examine recycling programs at peer universities

3. Research recycling vendors in Virginia, Maryland, and North Carolina

4. Explore partnerships with community groups:

i. James City County

ii. York County

iii. City of Williamsburg

iv. Busch Gardens

5. Determine the relationship between solid waste and recycling

6. Develop a map of campus recycling containers

This paper reports on the research activities performed for Priorities 1 through 3, 5, and 6. We did not have sufficient time to address Priority 4 but feel encouraged that there are potential opportunities available through partnerships with the local community. Therefore, included among our results is a recommendation for either the Sustainability Fellow or a fall student intern to explore these potential partnerships. Regarding Priorities 1-3, 5 & 6, we present 23 key findings about the College’s recycling and refuse management programs and 18 corresponding recommendations plus 14 secondary recommendations that will save the College in excess of $40K and will foster more sustainable management of the College’s wastes.

III. Key Findings

The following is a summary of key findings that we identified for recycling which lead to development of our recommendations:

• The College’s recycling contract’s pricing structure is set at an on-call, per pull fee basis whereas the day-to-day management of the contract had defaulted to regularly scheduled pick-ups on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

• The “per pull” fee for 8 pulls per month is more costly than the monthly fee for scheduled service.

• The use of 96-gallon toters requires a different truck for pick up, resulting in additional costs to the College. Moreover, this truck only services the area once a week, limiting expansion of the recycling program in these locations.

• The industry average for pounds of recyclables per cubic yard is 45 lb/yd3. The College’s average is 43 lb/yd3, which indicates there is little space available in existing containers to accommodate more recyclables without an increase in cost.

• On average, ninety percent of materials disposed for recycling at William and Mary actually get recycled. The remaining 10% is non-recyclable contamination that is put back into the refuse stream. TFC recycles 100% of materials that are recyclable.

• The College recycling efforts are better than the industry average for contamination with < 10% from 8 cubic yard containers and < 2% from 96-gallon toters.

• Peer institutions with successful recycling programs attribute their program success to strong senior management commitment even though they know recycling costs can be greater than refuse disposal.

• Peer institutions with successful recycling programs have a full-time position dedicated to managing their institutional program.

• Peer institutions with successful recycling programs assign active roles and responsibilities to Facilities Maintenance and Housekeeping personnel for pick-up and disposal of recyclables.

• Recycling program management at the College is an additional duty assigned to Facilities Management’s Support Services Supervisor and comprises 5% of his assigned duties.

• Availability of collection containers and proximity of TFC disposal containers are the two main challenges for some departments that want to either start or expand a self-sustaining recycling program.

• Facilities Management has a large number of recycling containers in storage at Zable Stadium that can be made available to organizations desiring to establish a self-sustaining recycling program.

• Education is a key factor in improving any recycling program.

The following is a summary of key findings that we identified for the refuse program which lead to development of our recommendations:

• The College is invoiced monthly for refuse fees by lot instead of by service calls, as is the practice at peer institutions serviced by our vendor. By lot invoicing does not allow proactive management of waste activities and subsequent adjustments to frequency of service calls or number and location of waste containers.

• Refuse weighs more than recycling materials making a 1:1 comparison of materials disposed by weight inappropriate.

• The industry average for pounds of refuse per cubic yard is 73 lb/yd3. The College’s average is 41 lb/yd3, which indicates that the College is over-serviced for refuse disposal.

The following is a summary of key findings that we identified for the recycling and refuse programs, which lead to development of our recommendations:

• The College manages recycling and refuse by tracking monthly tonnage; however, the recycling and refuse vendor fees are based upon volume of waste and the number of service calls.

• Reducing tonnage does not directly reduce costs because neither the refuse nor recycling vendor bill by weight of waste.

• College refuse and recycling costs are steadily increasing while refuse tonnage is decreasing and recycling tonnage has plateaued.

• Contract costs are based upon waste volume and the number of service calls. Reducing either or a combination of these two will result in reduced costs.

• Vendor billing assumes full containers therefore good container management is essential to cost effectiveness.

• Both the recycling and refuse contracts stipulate that both TFC and Waste Management will provide the College with monthly tonnage reports. The College is not receiving this data on a regular basis.

IV. Major Recommendations

Based upon the findings noted above in Section III, we recommend the following actions be taken to address findings in the College’s recycling program:

• Facilities Management should change the pricing structure from a “per pull” to “on schedule” when the contract is due for renewal in August 2009. Note: Facilities Management adopted this recommendation effective August 1, 2009.

• The College should consider replacing 96-gallon toters with a 4 cubic yard or 8 cubic yard container at select locations to achieve highest cost-efficiency. (e.g., 96-gallon toters located at the Rec Center and Sorority Court could be replaced with a larger container).

• Facilities Management should make the recycling containers stored at Zable Stadium available to campus organizations that desire to start/broaden a self-sustaining program. Note: Facilities Management agreed to issue these containers on a first-come first-serve basis with the provision that requestors acknowledge that they will be responsible for emptying the containers.

• Consider modifying Custodial Staff job responsibilities to include recycling tasks on a select basis in Residence Halls (i.e., Custodial Staff would empty indoor recycling receptacles located in the common area kitchens, while they are already emptying the refuse receptacles located in the kitchens).

• The College’s senior management should communicate their support of the recycling efforts, by distributing a letter of endorsement to the campus community (e.g., an annual letter could be sent to incoming freshman and transfers during orientation).

• The Sustainability Fellow should facilitate development of recycling education initiatives. (e.g., America Recycles Day, Freshman and Transfer Orientation, RA and OA recycling training, partnerships with student organizations, etc.).

• The Sustainability Fellow or a student intern should explore opportunities available through partnerships with the local community.

We recommend the following actions be taken to address findings in the College’s refuse program:

• Facilities Management should conduct a comprehensive examination of the current service frequency, number and location of containers around campus, and the volume collected per container to identify potential cost savings.

• Facilities Management should track refuse container volume and use this data to determine optimal number, size and placement of Waste Management containers as well as service calls.

• Facilities Management should change their refuse invoicing from “by lot” to “service call.”

• Facilities Management should work in collaboration with the Office of Procurement to alter the current refuse contract to include seasonal service changes (i.e. Service frequency changes during the summer months).

We recommend the following actions be taken to address findings in the College’s recycling and refuse programs:

• Facilities Management should track recycling container volume and use these data to determine optimal number, size and placement of TFC containers as well as service calls.

• To facilitate container volume tracking, Facilities Management should adopt the volume invoice template with modifications specific to the W&M campus. Note: Facilities Management agreed to implement this form and is coordinating with TFC on the details of implementation.

• Facilities Management should conduct assessments of service frequency and pricing to ensure that the College is utilizing the most efficient and cost-effective service level for the Waste Management and TFC contracts.

• The refuse and recycling Contract Administrator(s), in coordination with the Office of Procurement, should ensure that all contract stipulations such as audits and monthly reports are provided in a timely manner.

• Facilities Management should produce quarterly progress reports on recycling and refuse management initiatives, to include results of vendor audits. We recommend that these reports be made available to the Committee on Sustainability.

• Utilizing the cost-savings of this project, the College should hire a part-time or full-time Recycling Coordinator to actively manage the recycling and refuse programs.

V. Priority 1 - Examine the current approaches and practices for recycling

a. Tidewater Fibre Corporation (TFC), The College’s Recycling Contractor

Tidewater Fibre Corporation is based in Chesapeake, Virginia and primarily services the Hampton Roads area. Services offered through TFC include municipal/residential recycling and waste removal. TFC’s recycling facility is located in Chesapeake, Virginia.

Currently, Nineteen 8 cubic yard containers, twenty-five 96-gallon toters and two 30 cubic yard roll off containers, are located on main campus and the Law School.

Effective August 1, 2009, all nineteen 8 cubic yard recycling containers will be contractually scheduled on a twice a week service at a monthly rate. Under this new pricing schedule, locations with only one TFC 8 cubic yard container will cost $105.00 per month. For locations that utilize two TFC 8 cubic yard containers, the College will be charged a special monthly rate of $175.00 for the servicing of both containers. In addition, each 96-gallon toter will cost $20.00 per month for once a week pick up. The $105.00/month and $20.00/month rates were negotiated down from $130.00/month and $26.00/month after the College received a competitive quote from Bay Disposal.

This change to the recycling service will replace the original service schedule, which was managed and billed on an on-call basis. For example, under the on-call service option, the College in 2008 was charged $38.39 per/pick-up request by the College. On average, a single 8 cubic yard container was pulled 9 times a month during the academic year. This would cost the College $345.51 per bin/per month, whereas, with the new service schedule, the cost to the College for twice a week service would be $105.00/month for each 8 cubic yard container. That is an average cost-avoidance of $240.51 per 8 cubic yard recycling container per month at the same pick-up frequency and recyclable volume.

|Type of Container |Service Rate On-Call |Service Rate on Schedule |

|8 Cubic Yard |$38.39 per pick-up/per container |$105.00 per month for twice a week service/ per |

| | |container |

|96-Gallon Toter |$9.35 per pick-up/ per container |$20.00 per month for once a week service/ per |

| | |toter |

|30 Cubic Yard Roll-Off |$122.24 per pick-up |N/A |

Chart 1: On call service rates and scheduled service rates

The figure below portrays the difference in cost for on-call service versus scheduled service throughout 2008. Under the on-call service system that was in place in 2008, the actual total cost for the recycling service during that year was $71,486.75. In contrast, an estimated total cost for 2008 under scheduled service was calculated to be $30,432.20. Therefore, this indicates a total cost avoidance of $41, 054.55. (Refer to Appendix A for charts depicting the complete calculations used to determine this cost avoidance.)

[pic]

Figure 1: Comparison of On Call vs. Scheduled Service in 2008

i. Operational practices of TFC

According to Michael Benedetto, Vice President of TFC:

“TFC certifies that it recycles all materials it collects for which markets exist. This includes recyclables collected at William and Mary. These items and markets include:

Paper: Cardboard, Newspaper and Mixed grades of paper are primarily sent to Asia / China, where they are recycled into new products.  Most paper products are used for packaging goods.

Plastic Bottles:  PET and HDPE bottles are typically shipped domestically to various mills where they are cleaned, ground into flake and turned into small pellets.  PET pellets are turned into new carpet and a synthetic fill for items such as pillows and jackets.  HDPE pellets are turned into new #2 HDPE containers such as laundry containers, dishwashing liquid, etc.

Aluminum Cans are primarily sold to Anheuser Busch where cans are turned into sheet and used to remanufacturer new beverage containers.

Steel cans are primarily sold domestically to mills that will use the steel to make new cans, automotive parts and other steel products.

Glass is typically broken when we receive it and our process typically breaks the remaining bottles.  Mixed colors of glass are beneficially reused by the aggregate industry and blended into asphalt, concrete and other products.  

Any remaining residue is typically brought to the Refused Derived Fuel (RDF) plant in Portsmouth where waste is converted into energy and the energy is sold to the Navy. Through this process, only a small amount of ash residue is eventually landfilled by the Southeastern Public Service Authority (SPSA) in a permitted landfill.”

b. Waste Management, The College’s Refuse Disposal Contractor

Waste Management, Inc. is a publicly owned company based in Houston, Texas. Services offered include refuse and recycling collection disposal services to commercial, industrial, municipal and residential clients.

The College utilizes Waste Management for collection and disposal of non-hazardous solid refuse. According to the contract between the College and Waste Management, the College has fifty-six 8 cubic yard, two 4 cubic yard containers, twenty 96-gallon toters, and one 30 cubic yard roll-off container located primarily on main campus; however, there are dumpsters at the Law School, Graduate Complex, Tennis Center, Dillard Complex, and the Barnes & Noble College Bookstore. (Refer to Appendix B for breakdown of sites)

Waste Management currently services the College on a location-specific scheduled system. For example, Waste Management services three 8 cubic yard containers sites six times a week, six 8 cubic yard containers sites five times a week, and twenty-five 8 cubic yard container sites three times a week. (Refer to Appendix B)

i. Meeting with Robert Clendenin, Waste Management, July 23, 2009

During our overall assessment of the recycling practices and initiatives at the College, it became relevant to examine the general practices and initiatives in terms of refuse collection and disposal at the College. To accomplish this, we contacted Waste Management and requested a meeting with Robert Clendenin, General Manager, to discuss ways that William and Mary could operate more efficiently and sustainability in terms of refuse collection and disposal. The following are the recommendations/suggestions/comments that Mr. Clendenin provided:

– The College is currently being over-serviced. This is based upon the fact that the average weight/per cubic yard for the College’s refuse was 41.00 lbs from January 2009 through June 2009; whereas, the typical industry weight/per cubic yard for refuse was between 73 lbs. In order to reduce costs, the College should monitor refuse accumulation at each container and adjust the service frequency as necessary.

– Where applicable, it is more economical to shift from conventional refuse collection to refuse compaction. Generally when containers are pulled greater than four times per week compaction is a more economical option.

– The College should identify areas in which frequency of pick-ups can be reduced.

– Decrease service frequency over summer and winter break.

– Actively review the contract on a regular basis. Compared to other universities that Waste Management deals with, the College appears to be on “auto-pilot” when it comes to renewing and updating the refuse contract.

ii. Estimated Cost Avoidance for Refuse Service Frequency Change

Based on cost information provided by Robert Clendenin (Refer to Appendix B), an estimated cost avoidance for decreasing the frequency at which the Waste Management 8 cubic yard containers are serviced was calculated. Each additional weekly pull costs $53.00 per container/per month. For example one container serviced three times a week would cost $159.00 per month. If the service frequency on this container were reduced to two times per week, then the cost would be $106.00 each month. That is a total cost avoidance of $636.00 per year for one container. Therefore, if the service frequency of several containers is reduced by one day, then the total cost avoidance per year will multiply by the total number of containers.

c. Departments at the College

i. Dining Services: Point of Contact: Larry Smith

Dining Services has recently hired three sustainability interns, who will be responsible for monitoring and managing sustainability efforts within Dining Services (i.e., implement and manage internal recycling receptacles in the food preparation zones).

In terms of recycling efforts, Dining Services currently utilizes two 8 cubic yard containers at the Sadler Center, two 30 cubic yard roll-off containers at the Commons, and one 8 cubic yard container at the Marketplace.

Recommendations:

- Increased communication between Facilities Management and Dining Services to manage the frequency of pulls on the two 30 cubic yard roll-off recycling containers behind the Commons.

- Facilities Management and Dining Services should conduct further research on installing recycling compactors at select dining facilities. Shifting from conventional container collection to compaction should yield a large cost-savings to the College.

- Dining Services should partner with the Committee on Sustainability to improve general recycling education throughout the dining staff.

ii. Swem Library: Point of Contact: Pat Van Zandt

Swem Library currently devotes 5 student employee hours per week to recycling efforts. The student employees empty recycling bins that are located throughout the building, load the recyclables in a van, and drive them to the recycling dumpster in the Randolph Complex. Currently Swem recycles only paper because they do not have the manpower and resources to handle the increased volume of plastic, aluminum, and glass. The library plans to implement a pilot program during the fall semester to test their ability to recycle these additional materials. Their primary concern is that the indoor bins will fill up quicker than they can be emptied and negatively impact the aesthetics of the building.

Recommendations:

- Place an 8 cubic yard container at Swem so that the library’s recyclables do not have to be driven to the Randolph Complex

- Restructure the recycling program in Swem so that plastics, aluminum, and glass can be accepted

iii. Environmental Health and Safety: Point of Contact: Sandra Prior

The Office of Environmental Health and Safety (EH&S) is charged with numerous tasks; however, one of EH&S’s responsibilities is to manage and safely dispose of hazardous materials and waste. Whenever possible EH&S attempts to dispose of hazardous materials in a sustainable and environmentally conscious manner. For example, EH&S collects and recycles florescent light bulbs, compact florescent light bulbs (CFL), batteries, used oil, unused chemicals, mercury switches, metals, and light fixture ballasts. Additionally, each individual in the EH&S office has a recycling bin at their desk that they are personally responsible for emptying.

Recommendations:

- Increase campus awareness about collection of CFLs and batteries recycling. The EH&S Director recently met with the Sustainability Fellow to address awareness initiatives.

- Research and identify vendors that will accept alkaline batteries for recycling. The EH&S office recently agreed to partner with student organizations, facilitated by liaison with the Sustainability Fellow, to collect and recycle alkaline batteries.

iv. Geology Department: Point of Contact: Rowan Lockwood

Blue recycling bins are located throughout the Geology department and are emptied during the academic year by a student employee and emptied during the summer by the department administrative assistant.

Recommendations:

- Increased education throughout the department about recycling and the specific items that are recyclable

v. Residence Life: Point of Contact: Allison Wildridge

Each dorm room in the residence halls is provided with a blue recycling bin that the occupants are responsible for emptying. There are no recycling bins in common areas because there is no system in place to empty the bins. The recycling program that was in operation before 2002 resulted in recyclables piling up in the residence halls, leading to insect and rodent infestations and fire hazards. This previous problem raised concern over any potential collection sites in common areas. Recycling collection duties historically have not been assigned to the custodial staff, and it is unlikely that they will be in the future due to expressed workload and health and safety concerns.

Recommendations:

- Implement a program to educate students and custodial staff about recycling in order to encourage greater participation in the program

- Introduce recycling services in kitchens in residence halls

vi. Athletics Department: Point of Contact: Betsy Powell and Steve Cole

The Athletics department requested indoor bins within William and Mary Hall to collect recyclables from their offices. The department has the manpower to empty the indoor recycling bins as well as the motivation among individuals in the department to take recyclables from their desks to the central collection site. In addition, they have requested an 8 cubic yard dumpster in order to accommodate the increase in volume of recyclables. They are also very interested in exploring options for recycling at athletic events.

Recommendations:

- Place an 8 cubic yard recycling dumpster at either the loading dock at William and Mary Hall or behind the Rec Center

- If an 8 cubic yard container is placed near the Rec Center, the College should remove the 96-gallon toters that are currently located behind the Rec Center

- Provide the Athletics department with some of the indoor recycling bins that are currently stored under Zable Stadium. Facilities Management oversees the use of these bins and has given the Athletics department and any other department on campus permission to use them as long as the criteria outlined by Dave Shepard are followed. (Refer to Appendix C)

VI. Priority 2 – Examine Recycling Programs at Peer and Virginia Universities

Information was gathered from other universities about their recycling programs in order create a comparison between schools across the country that operate model recycling programs and the operations of the recycling program at William and Mary. An additional motive for contacting other schools in Virginia was to obtain any Virginia Association of State Colleges and University Purchasing Professionals (VASCUPP) contracts and see if any of them contain useful contract language or structure that could be adopted by William and Mary.

In order to survey these other schools, a contact person was identified by searching the university’s website and calling or emailing whomever was indicated as an authority on the recycling program.

i. The University of Virginia: Point of Contact: Sonny Beale (Recycling Superintendent)

The University of Virginia operates their own recycling facility where recyclables are sorted and baled. Once baled, the recyclables are sold at commodity pricing to Sonoco for processing.

In addition to Sonny Beale, who manages the program internally, UVA employs a staff of individuals to collect the recyclables from academic buildings and to perform the baling and sorting duties at the on-campus recycling facility. In addition, they hire 5 - 10 student employees to run the educational aspects of the recycling program.

ii. Christopher Newport University: Point of Contact: Robert Midgette (Senior Associate VP for Auxiliary Services, Chair Sustainability and Environmental Enrichment Committee)

Christopher Newport University’s recycling program is managed externally through a contract with Bay Disposal. CNU was previously contracted with TFC but has recently switched to Bay Disposal because the company offered a bid that was lower than TFC.

iii. James Madison University: Point of Contact: Tony Smith (Manager, Recycling Integrated Waste Management)

JMU manages trash disposal and some of their recycling through Waste Management. The rest of their recycling is picked up by the City of Harrisonburg; however, JMU is reconsidering this arrangement because the city does not provide timely pick-ups.

The Recycling Integrated Waste Management division of Facilities Management manages both the recycling and refuse collection programs internally. There are four full time employees within the Recycling Integrated Waste Management division, including Tony Smith who is the manager.

Sandra Prior made additional contact with JMU to obtain a copy of their VASCUP contract with Waste Management. JMU recently revised their waste contract to make their service more efficient and cost effective. After reviewing the JMU contract, a meeting was scheduled with Robert Clendenin, the Waste Management representative for both the JMU and William and Mary contracts, to discuss the differences between the two. Although JMU has a much greater student population than William and Mary, they have only half as many refuse containers because they have incorporated the use of compactors into their program.

JMU acknowledges that their recycling program is more costly than refuse disposal; however, the university’s president made the commitment to recycling and supports the program because it is the right thing to do.

iv. Old Dominion University: Point of Contact: Harvey Logan (Recycling Coordinator)

ODU’s program is managed entirely internally. Recyclables are collected at a central location where they are sorted and transported by the Recycling Department to vendors located within 5 miles of the campus.

The university’s president strongly supports the recycling program and has set ambitious goals for the recycling coordinator to meet annually. For example, they recently met a goal of recycling 1 million pounds (500 tons).

(Refer to Appendix D for a complete list of universities contacted.)

|Institution Name |Fulltime Recycling |Staffing |Recycling Vendor |Program Description |

| |Coordinator | |Name | |

|University of |Sonny Beale (Recycling |Employees collect recyclables from|N/A |Virginia operates their own |

|Virginia |Superintendent) |academic buildings and perform | |recycling facility where |

| | |baling and sorting duties at the | |recyclables are sorted and |

| | |on campus recycling facility. In | |baled. Once baled, the |

| | |addition, they hire student | |recyclables are sold at |

| | |employees to run the educational | |commodity pricing to Sonoco for|

| | |aspects of the recycling program | |processing |

|Christopher Newport |Robert Midgette (Senior| |Bay Disposal (former| |

|University |Associate VP for | |vendor was TFC | |

| |Auxiliary Services, | |however the were | |

| |Chair Sustainability | |recently outbid by | |

| |and Environmental | |Bay Disposal) | |

| |Enrichment Committee) | | | |

|James Madison |Tony Smith (Manager, |4 Full-time employees |Waste Management |Recycling Integrated Waste |

|University |Recycling Integrated | |(limited amount) |Management division of |

| |Waste Management) | |City of Harrisonburg|Facilities Management manages |

| | | | |both the recycling and refuse |

| | | | |collection programs internally |

|Old Dominion |Harvey Logan (Recycling|2 Full-time employees |N/A |Recyclables are driven to |

|University |Coordinator) |2 student hires | |vendors in the Norfolk area, |

| | | | |all of which are located within|

| | | | |5 miles of the campus. |

Chart 2: Key Universities Contacted

VII. Priority 3 – Recycling Vendors in Virginia, Maryland, and North Carolina

Throughout the project, several recycling vendors that operate in the area around Williamsburg were identified. The goal of this aspect of the research project was to provide Facilities Management and the Office of Procurement with a list of vendors that could potentially submit bids when the recycling contract is up for renewal. These include:

– Bay Disposal* (POC: John S. Rhodes, Account Executive)

– Waste Management (POC: Robert Clendenin, General Manager)

– International Paper

– Republic Services

*A quote received from Bay Disposal in June 2009 was used to negotiate cheaper pricing with TFC during the contract renewal process.

VIII. Priority 5 – Relationship between Solid Waste and Recycling

a. Overview

In order to fully understand the complexities of the College’s recycling program, it is important to understand the relationship between recycling and refuse collection. This task was addressed from several different approaches; however, a crucial component of each approach was acquiring tonnage data from both Waste Management and TFC. With these data, calculations could then be made to determine the cost per ton of recycling versus waste collection.

Initially, some difficulties arose in acquiring those data. Although both the TFC and Waste Management contracts stipulated that the companies should provide the College with monthly lump sum tonnage reports, it appeared that the College had not been regularly receiving this data. Therefore, in order to facilitate this data collection in the future, Waste Management and TFC were informed of this contractual obligation and asked to provide the College with past tonnage reports.

Once these reports were received, it was discovered that there are some potential inaccuracies within the data. The College’s waste and recycling is typically picked up on a “milk run,” which means that TFC and Waste Management do not service the College exclusively. In other words, the truck that services the containers on campus also services other clients in the area; therefore, when tonnages for William and Mary are calculated, the numbers are based on an average for the whole run.

To address this issue, it is strongly recommended that the College conduct at minimum three recycling audits per year. Facilities Management and the Office of Procurement have already incorporated this policy into the Waste Management contract when it was renewed at the end of 2008. In response to this recommendation, Facilities Management and the Office of Procurement have also applied this policy to the TFC contract.

b. Recycling Audit

To initiate this new policy requiring recycling audits, TFC conducted an audit for the week ending on July 17, 2009. The total weight of the materials collected for that week from 96-gallon toters was 700 pounds (0.35 tons), and for 8 cubic yard containers, the weight was 10,180 pounds (5.09 tons).

To accompany the data provided by TFC, we personally surveyed each recycling container on campus prior to pick up to estimate how full they were. In addition, readily visible contaminants were identified and photographed. These data were then compared to data received from TFC during the audit. (Refer to Appendix E).

Overall the recycling audit proved to be a useful tool to analyze the College’s recycling stream. In addition to receiving accurate tonnage information, the recyclables collected were tipped onto TFC’s warehouse floor and examined to identify the amount of contamination. According to TFC, the recycling stream from 96-gallon toters was less than 2% contaminated and the recycling stream for 8 cubic yard containers was less than 10% contaminated. These percentages are relatively low compared to TFC’s average client. The most common contaminants were plastic bags, plastics that are not #1 or #2, and plastics that are #1 or #2 but are not bottle-shaped. TFC’s policy regarding plastic bags is that any material in black plastic bags is considered trash, regardless of whether or not it is filled with recyclables.

The picture below shows examples of some of the commonly found contaminants in William and Mary’s recycling stream.

[pic]

c. Waste and Recycling Cost per Ton

The cost per ton of both waste and recycling was calculated using the data collected from Facilities Management, TFC, and Waste Management. The objective was to determine whether the cost per ton for recycling was cheaper than that for waste. The table below depicts the cost per ton for both waste and recycling for 2008. The values for recycling are given for both the on-call service rate that was in place in 2008 and for the estimated scheduled service rate that has been implemented effective August 1, 2009.

|Waste cost/ton for 2008 |Recycling cost/ton for on call |Estimated recycling cost/ton for scheduled |

| |service for 2008 |service for 2008 |

|$117.08 |$212.62* |$91.02* |

Chart 3: Waste and recycling cost per ton for 2008

*Recycling costs per ton are based on the 2008 annual tonnage of 334.33 tons

However, these cost per ton figures over simplify the bigger picture. In terms of the recycling and waste industry standards, the average weight/per cubic yard for waste (73lbs/per cubic yard) is 30lbs heavier than the average weight/per cubic yard for recycling (43lbs/per cubic yard). Therefore, if one compared recycling and waste tonnage, waste would be significantly heavier than recycling regardless of the actual volume collected.

(Refer to Appendix F for complete calculations)

d. The Significance of Container Volume

In the process of calculating the cost per ton, it was realized that both the recycling and waste industries charge for service by volume picked up and number of service calls instead of by tonnage. For example, a container filled completely with 100 pounds of material would be charged the same amount for pick up as a container filled halfway with 2000 pounds of material.

Historically, the College has only examined the recycling and waste programs based on tonnage information rather than comprehensively examining each program’s efficiency by additionally monitoring how full the containers are at pick up. To address this second variable, it is strongly recommended that the college contractually require that drivers of both TFC and Waste Management trucks document the volume of material in each container. (Refer to Appendix G for proposed volume invoice.)

In summary, container volume is a significant variable that needs to be accounted for because volume drives the number of service calls, which influences the overall cost. Tonnage, however, only drives in part the pricing rate, which affects the overall contract pricing schedule (i.e. the quoted monthly rates for scheduled service). Therefore, we argue that the College should shift from examining the effectiveness of the recycling and refuse programs by tracking tonnage figures to monitoring container volume and the number of service calls. Both TFC and Waste Management have confirmed this line of reasoning and stated that there are only two significant ways businesses can reduce costs for waste and recycling services:

1. Achieve the highest efficiently in terms of container volume collected at pick-up

2. Reduce the number of service calls (i.e., reduce frequency of service)

e. Annual Expenditures vs. Annual Tonnage

As illustrated in Figure 2 on the following page, it is evident that since 2003, annual recycling tonnage has increased. In contrast, annual waste tonnage has decreased. This indicates that there is a potential correlation between the annual tonnages of waste and recycling.

In addition, the graph portrays an overall increase in the cost of both waste and recycling collection since 2003. However, after accounting for the estimated cost avoidance associated with shifting from on call recycling service to scheduled recycling service, the projected annual cost of recycling for 2010 has decreased significantly. Note however, that the total cubic yards serviced for 2010 has not changed from 2009. There is no indication that the cost for waste service will decrease for 2010 because there have been no alterations to the pricing schedule or to the service frequency.

The data used in the graph were compiled from Facilities Management, TFC, and Waste Management. (Refer to Appendix H for a comprehensive breakdown of how the values depicted in the graph were determined.)

[pic]

Figure 2: Correlation between Waste and Recycling Tonnage and Cost

IX. Priority 6 – Mapping of Recycling and Refuse Collection Sites

With the help of Stu Hamilton and the Center for Geospatial Analysis at the College of William and Mary, a map of the locations of all recycling and refuse 96-gallon toters, 8 cubic yard containers, and 30 cubic yard containers was created. In order to accomplish this, the coordinates of each location were recorded on site using a global positioning system (GPS). The coordinates were then imported into Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and dots were placed on a map of the campus to mark the locations. The final map was sent to Phil Zapfel, Committee on Sustainability Fellow, to be placed on the Committee on Sustainability website. (Refer to Figure 3 below)

[pic]

Figure 3: Campus Map of Recycling and Waste Containers

X. Conclusion

In summary, a significant amount of time has been devoted to acquiring data from TFC, Waste Management, and Facilities Management. However, throughout this ten week span, we have gained a comprehensive understanding of William and Mary’s recycling program, identified strengths and weaknesses within the program, explored cost saving opportunities, surveyed several peer universities and Virginia universities recycling and waste programs to compare the College’s program structure, and provided the College with recommendations to manage and address the obstacles in maintaining a sustainable recycling program.

However, the key to operating and maintaining a sustainable and successful recycling program is that the College must make a strong institutional commitment to recycling, environmental sustainability, and stewardship. With a strong institutional commitment, the recycling program has the potential to develop into an archetypical model for other universities.

XI. Appendices

a. Cost Avoidance

The data in the chart below were used to create Figure 1, which compares the actual cost for the previous on call service from TFC with the estimated cost for the scheduled service that goes into effect August 1, 2009.

|8 cubic yards | |96-gallon toters | |30 cubic yards |

|  |

|Total actual invoice cost | |$71,486.75 |

|Total estimated cost for scheduled | |$30,432.20* |

|service | | |

|Total estimated cost avoidance | |$41, 054.55 |

* This estimated cost is based on the actual number of pulls for 2008

b. Waste Management Container Locations

|Lot 1 - Container size - 8 cubic yards |

|W&M Main Campus Building Locations | Number of Containers |Weekly pick-ups |Monthly Rate |

|Tyler/Tucker/Monroe |2 |6 | $635.99 |

|Old Dominion/Bryan Halls |2 |6 | $635.99 |

|Fraternity Complex Student Residence 9AM |3 |5 | $794.99 |

|Yates Hall Student Residence 9 AM |2 |5 | $529.99 |

|Dupont Hall Student Residence 9AM |2 |5 | $529.99 |

|Jamestown Hall Student Residence 9AM |3 |6 | $953.99 |

|Washington Hall |2 |5 | $529.99 |

|Campus Center |1 |5 | $265.00 |

|Marshall-Wythe Law School |1 |5 | $265.00 |

|Zable Stadium |2 |3 | $318.00 |

|Alumni House |1 |3 | $159.00 |

|William & Mary Hall |2 |3 | $318.00 |

|Randolph Complex Student Residence 9AM |3 |3 | $476.99 |

|Botetourt Complex Student Residence 9AM |5 |3 | $794.99 |

|Adair Hall |1 |3 | $159.00 |

|Morton Hall |1 |3 | $159.00 |

|Jones Hall |1 |3 | $159.00 |

|Small Hall |1 |3 | $159.00 |

|PBK Hall |1 |3 | $159.00 |

|Swem Library |1 |3 | $159.00 |

|Student Health Center |1 |3 | $159.00 |

|Millington Hall |1 |3 | $159.00 |

|McGlothlin-Street Hall |2 |3 | $318.00 |

|Admission |1 |3 | $159.00 |

|Facilities Management Shops |1 |3 | $159.00 |

|Grad Complex Residence Complex 9AM |1 |3 | $159.00 |

|Dillard Complex |2 |3 | $318.00 |

|Matoaka Art Studio |1 |3 | $159.00 |

|Sadler University Center |2 |3 | $318.00 |

|Sorority Court Student Residence 9AM |2 |3 | $318.00 |

|McCormack-Nagelson Tennis Center |1 |3 | $159.00 |

|Integrated Science Center |2 |3 | $318.00 |

|Jimmye Laycock Football Center |1 |3 | $159.00 |

|School of Business |1 |3 | $159.00 |

|Lot 2 Container size - 8 cubic yards |

|W&M Main Campus Building Locations | Number of Containers |Weekly pick-ups |Monthly Rate |

|College Bookstore - Merchant Square |1 |6 | $318.00 |

|***Bookstore is billed separately | |

|Lot 3 Container size - 4 cubic yards |

|W&M Main Campus Building Locations | Number of Containers |Weekly pick-ups |Monthly Rate |

|Biology Population Lab |1 |3 | $79.50 |

|Lake Mataoka Amphtheater |1 | #on call | $12.50 |

|Lot 4 Container size - 96 gallon backdoor service |

|W&M Main Campus Building Locations | Number of Containers |Weekly pick-ups |Monthly Rate |

|President's Residence |1 |3 | $18.00 |

|Thiemes House - Human Resources |2 |3 | $36.00 |

|Brown Hall Student Residence 9AM |4 |3 | $72.00 |

|Jamestown Road offices Site 1 |1 |3 | $18.00 |

|Jamestown Road offices Site 2 |1 |3 | $18.00 |

|Jamestown Road offices Site 3 |2 |3 | $36.00 |

|Recreational Sports Center |3 |3 | $54.00 |

|427 Scotland St - Sch of Ed Clarion office |2 |3 | $36.00 |

|Plumeri House - 119 Chandler Ct |1 |3 | $18.00 |

|Young House - 205 Griffin Avenue |1 |3 | $18.00 |

|Bell Hall - 109 Cary Street |2 |3 | $36.00 |

|VIMS CAMPUS - GLOUCESTER POINT, VA |

|Lot 5 Container size - 8 cubic yards |

|VIMS CAMPUS Buiding Locations | Number of Containers |Weekly pick-ups |Monthly Rate |

|Fisheries Science Lab |1 |1 | $53.00 |

|Customer Service Center |3 |1 | $159.00 |

|Seawater Research Lab |1 |1 | $53.00 |

|Raleigh Hall |1 |1 | $53.00 |

|Greate Road - at the beach |2 |1 | $106.00 |

|****VIMS CAMPUS IS BILLED SEPARATELY | |

|Lot 6 - 30 Cubic Yard Roll-off Container |

|W&M Student Residential Areas | Number of Containers |Unit cost |

|move-in/move out Fraternity complex |3 |per pick-up |

|move-in/move-out Yates Hall |1 |per pick-up |

|move-in/move-out Dupont Hall |1 |per pick-up |

|move-in/move-out Landrum Hall |2 |per pick-up |

|Bryan Complex |1 |per pick-up |

|Randolph Complex |2 |per pick-up |

|Botetourt Complex |1 |per pick-up |

|Lot 7 - 30 Cubic Yard Roll-off Container |

|W&M Main Campus Building Locations | Number of Containers |Unit cost |

|Facilities Management Shop |1 |per pick-up |

c. Criteria for use of recycling bins managed by Facilities Management

Date: Mon 13 Jul 15:56:14 EDT 2009

From: "Dave Shepard"

Subject: RE: Recycling questions

To: 

Cc: 

We have really only used the canisters under the stadium if a student group (SEAC, APO) wanted to set up a program.  Whoever wanted to set up a program would need to agree to empty the containers, keep the area they were set up in clean, have the locations approved in advance by Fire Safety, and, provide us with at least two points of contact in case of problems.

I will get you the other information tomorrow for FY 2009.

Dave Shepard

757-221-1205

d. Universities Contacted

|Name |Recycling |Staffing |In-house/ |Housekeeper Assistance |

| |Coordinator/ | |Contract | |

| |Point of Contact | | | |

|Washington |8 cubic yard |< 3/4 full |full |plastic bags |

|Jamestown |8 cubic yard |> 1/2 full |3/4 full |plastic bags, caps on bottles |

| |8 cubic yard |empty |empty | |

|ISC |8 cubic yard |> 3/4 full |full |plastic bags, boxes not broken |

| | | | |down |

|Randolph |8 cubic yard |> 3/4 full |full |caps on bottles, boxes broken |

| | | | |down well |

|Dupont |8 cubic yard |< 1/2 full |1/2 full |boxes not broken down, plastic |

| | | | |bags, Styrofoam packaging |

|Botetourt |8 cubic yard |almost empty |1/16 full |plastic bags, floor buffers |

|Yates |8 cubic yard |over filled |over filled |boxes not broken down, plastic |

| | | | |bags |

|Units |8 cubic yard |almost empty |1/4 full |plastic bags, light bulbs, |

| | | | |pizza box, Styrofoam |

|Rec Center |96 gal |almost empty |1 cart = 1/2 full|boxes not broken down |

|Sadler Center |8 cubic yard |full |over filled |plastic bags, boxes broken down|

| |8 cubic yard |over filled |over filled |boxes not broken down |

|Old Dominion |8 cubic yard |> 1/4 full |1/2 full |plastic bags, boxes not broken |

| | | | |down, caps on bottles |

|Tucker |8 cubic yard |full |full |books, lots of white paper, |

| | | | |some trash |

|Sorority Court |96 gal |most empty, some 1/2 |2 carts = 1/8 |plastic bags, screws, lots of |

| | |full |full |newspaper |

|Brown |96 gal |almost empty |2 carts = 1/8 | |

| | | |full | |

|President's house |96 gal |almost empty |empty |plastic bags and cups |

|Ludwell |8 cubic yard |full |full |plastic bags, boxes not broken |

| | | | |down |

| |8 cubic yard |1/2 full |3/4 full |caps on bottles, plastic bags, |

| | | | |yogurt containers |

|Trinkle |8 cubic yard |full |full |most boxes broken down |

|Grad Housing |8 cubic yard |3/4 full |3/4 full |lots of contamination (dish |

| | | | |rack, trash can lid), boxes not|

| | | | |broken down |

|Law School |8 cubic yard |over filled |over filled |plastic bags, boxes broken down|

|Dillard Complex |96 gal |full |2 carts = full |boxes broken down, very little |

| | | | |contamination |

e. Cost per Ton

The cost per ton of refuse was calculated by dividing the total amount of money paid to Waste Management for refuse collection services during fiscal year 2009 ($164, 778) by the average total tonnage approximated by Bill Sanders from the March 2009 waste audit (1404 tons).

The cost per ton for recycling was calculated using the new estimated cost for the scheduled service, effective August 1, 2009, ($30,432.20), which is based on the actual service frequency for 2008. This cost was divided by the tonnage for calendar year 2008 that TFC provided in their annual recycling report (334.33 tons).

Using the cost per ton values, the cost for recycling and refuse service was calculated under several hypothetical scenarios. The chart below details the costs for each service depending on the percentage of the total waste produced that is sent to TFC for recycling.

|Estimated cost comparison for 2008 |

|Refuse | |Recycling | | |

|Cost/ton |$117.08 | |Cost/ton |$91.02 | | |

| | | | | |

|Waste Percentage |Tonnage |Cost | |

|8 yd |Botetort | | |

| | |Empty 1/4 1/2 3/4 Full | |

|8 yd |Dupont | | |

| | |Empty 1/4 1/2 3/4 Full | |

|8 yd |Fraternity Housing | | |

| | |Empty 1/4 1/2 3/4 Full | |

|8 yd |Grad Housing | | |

| | |Empty 1/4 1/2 3/4 Full | |

|8 yd |Integrated Science | | |

| |Center |Empty 1/4 1/2 3/4 Full | |

|8 yd |Jamestown Residence |Empty 1/4 1/2 3/4 Full | |

| | | | |

|2 cont | |Empty 1/4 1/2 3/4 Full | |

|8 yd |Law School | | |

| | |Empty 1/4 1/2 3/4 Full | |

|8 yd |Ludwell |Empty 1/4 1/2 3/4 Full | |

| | | | |

|2 cont | |Empty 1/4 1/2 3/4 Full | |

|Container Frequency |Location |Disposition |Comments/Notes |

| | |Circle One | |

|8 yd |Old Dominion | | |

| | |Empty 1/4 1/2 3/4 Full | |

|8 yd |Randolph Complex | | |

| | |Empty 1/4 1/2 3/4 Full | |

|8 yd |Sadler Center |Empty 1/4 1/2 3/4 Full | |

|2 cont | | | |

| | |Empty 1/4 1/2 3/4 Full | |

|8 yd |Small (Ukrops Drive) | | |

| | |Empty 1/4 1/2 3/4 Full | |

|8 yd |Trinkle | | |

| | |Empty 1/4 1/2 3/4 Full | |

|8 yd |Tucker/ | | |

| |Monroe |Empty 1/4 1/2 3/4 Full | |

|8 yd |Washington | | |

| | |Empty 1/4 1/2 3/4 Full | |

|8 yd |Yates | | |

| | |Empty 1/4 1/2 3/4 Full | |

|8 yd | | | |

| |Miller Hall |Empty 1/4 1/2 3/4 Full | |

Driver Signature ______________________________ Date: _____________

Customer’s Signature ___________________________Date: _____________

f. Waste and Recycling Correlation

Within this section is the tonnage and budget information that was used to create Figure 3 depicting the correlation between refuse and recycling collection.

Recycling tonnages from 2004 – 2007 are based on data provided by Bill Sanders of Facilities Management, whereas tonnages from 2008 and 2009 are based on data provided by TFC. The total for 2009 is an estimate based on the tonnage data provided for the first half of the year.

All refuse tonnages are based on data provided by Robert Clendenin from Waste Management. The pounds per cubic yard were provided for each month, so in order to determine the total tonnage, the given values were multiplied by the total yardage picked up on campus each month. The only yardage information provided was for 2003 and 2009. Since the biggest difference between these two sets of data was additional cans to account for recently built buildings, the 2009 yardages were assumed to be valid as for the years 2006 – 2009, while the 2003 yardages were assumed valid for the years 2003 – 2004.

|Tonnage |

|Recycling | |Refuse* |

|Year |Tonnage | |Year |Tonnage |

|2003 |0 | |2003 |1920.23 |

|2004 |38.51 | |2004 |1692.23 |

|2005 |94.15 | |2005 |1573.00 |

|2006 |301.29 | |2006 |1458.82 |

|2007 |281.24 | |2007 |1300.75 |

|2008 |334.33 | |2008 |1349.11 |

|2009 |277.48 | |2009 |1024.07 |

*Waste tonnages represent only material collected from 8 cubic yard containers

Furthermore, when the tonnages were calculated using the previously described method, they were based on the assumption that all of the containers are full. However, because the pounds per cubic yard for containers from the College are significantly less than the industry average of 73 pounds per cubic yard, the College’s bins are over serviced, and thus, not full at pick up. To account for this discrepancy, the average pounds per cubic yard for each year for William and Mary’s refuse was determined and then divided by the industry average to determine a ratio. This ratio was then multiplied by the total tonnage for the year. Refer to the chart on the preceding page.

| |Tons/year (based on |Average pounds/ |Industry Average |Container fullness |Tons/year (based on |

| |full bins) |cubic yard/ year | |ratio |fullness ratio) |

| | | | | | |

|2003 |2406.06 |58.26 |73 |0.80 |1920.23 |

| | | | | | |

|2004 | 2,249.66 | 54.94 |73 |0.75 |1693.23 |

| | | | | | |

|2005 | 2,168.32 | 52.96 |73 |0.73 |1573.00 |

| | | | | | |

|2006 | 2,168.73 | 49.10 |73 |0.67 |1458.82 |

| | | | | | |

|2007 | 2,047.87 | 46.37 |73 |0.64 |1300.75 |

| | | | | | |

|2008 | 2,085.59 | 47.22 |73 |0.65 |1349.11 |

| | | | | | |

|2009 | 1,817.06* | 41.14 |73 |0.56 |1024.07 |

*Tonnage for 2009 is estimated from tonnages provided for the first half of the year

Dave Shepard provided all of the expenditure information. The chart below depicts the total expenditures each year for refuse collection services through Waste Management and recycling collection services through TFC. Projected data for 2010 is based on the estimated scheduled service rates that take effect August 1, 2009.

|Expenditures |

|Recycling | |Refuse |

|Year |Cost (thousands) | |Year |Cost (thousands) |

|2003 |0 | |2003 |$137.312 |

|2004 |0 | |2004 |$133.421 |

|2005 |$10.352 | |2005 |$161.175 |

|2006 |$25.215 | |2006 |$152.691 |

|2007 |$28.043 | |2007 |$161.458 |

|2008 |$45.018 | |2008 |$159.071 |

|2009 |$71.086 | |2009 |$164.378 |

|2010 |$30.432 | |2010 | |

g. Authors

Tyler L. Koontz

Tlkoontz@wm.edu

Judi Sclafani

jasclafani@wm.edu

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download