3 rd Annual Waste Audit Results

Transcription

1 3 rd Annual Waste Audit Results America Recycles Day 11/15/2013 Report by Andrea Bourke, 16 Edited by Liz Tomaszewski Friday, November 15, 2013 was America Recycles Day, the day that people become more conscientious about recycling and conserving our finite resources. To celebrate this important day, members of the Student Green Team and other student and staff volunteers sorted through nearly 600 lbs. of waste from four campus buildings: Morgan Hall, Stanford- Riley Hall, Daniels Hall, and Higgins Labs. The original intent was to audit six buildings on campus, but due to unforeseen circumstances, Atwater Kent and the Campus Center were unable to be counted. The event lasted four hours; the auditors averaged one hour per building. In the end we were able to capture a great picture of the status of recycling on campus, including the recycling rates in these four buildings, misunderstandings about what can and cannot be recycled, what waste material was the most prevalent, and even ideas for possible improvements that could be made to the system that will make recycling easier for everyone and ultimately more effective Waste Audit Results

2 What Happened? Students and staff volunteers received pre-audit training to ensure that they knew how to properly lift and sort through the waste without injury. They grabbed gloves, safety glasses, and Tyvek suits and alongside the Student Green Team dug through over 93 bags of waste from Morgan Hall, Stanford-Riley Hall, Daniels Hall, and Higgins Labs. The volunteers separated the bags of trash and recyclables taken from these buildings into ten categories: Trash; Food; Paper; Heavy Paper; Corrugated Cardboard; Water Bottles; Cans, Glass and Plastic; Styrofoam; Liquids and Other. Unusual items that were found in the trash were put aside: a pillow, a floppy disk, a five dollar bill, twenty reusable plastic cups, a SolidWorks book, a purse, a few half-full rolls of toilet paper, and unused plastic storage containers. Before and after sorting, every bag was weighed and recorded, allowing for later analysis. The following charts and explanations are a result of the analysis of the data we collected on Friday, November 15 th, Recycling Rates The following is the formula used for the calculation per building, average, and maximum possible average recycling rates. Total Weight of Correctly Recycled Waste (lbs.) Total Weight of All Waste (lbs.) 100 = Recycling Rate (%) Present Recycling Rates:

3 Then, modifying the above formula to include both correctly and incorrectly recycled waste, the maximum possible recycling rates were calculated for each building. Although the audit was conducted with four buildings and only for one day, and the results could vary widely with time of year and recent events, the results found can still be representative of the community. Maximum Possible Recycling Rates: Comparing the actual audit recycling rate (29.08%) to the maximum possible recycling rate (42.30%), the WPI community has the opportunity to improve its recycling program by 13.22% with today s technology. Material Weights Below are the total weights for all materials sorted on November 15 th, including nonhazardous liquids and other items which could not be placed in any one category (for a list of these items, see the introduction on page one). Looking specifically at the totals for each material (last column), Trash weighed the most (210.4 lbs.) as expected, and Styrofoam weighed the least (4.0 lbs.), mainly due to its low density. Material use will be further broken down by building in subsequent sections. All Materials Waste Audit 2013

4 Comparing this year s waste audit data to last year s data shows an increase in total post-sort of 8% over The Trash, Food, Corrugated Cardboard, Cans, Glass Plastic, Water Bottles, and Styrofoam categories all showed an increase in weight, which may be due to an increase in the population of those buildings surveyed or due to an increase in per capita consumption. The Paper and Heavy Paper showed a reduction in weight from last year, which may be due to marketing efforts to reduce paper. Material Data: Waste Audit Comparison

5 The chart below compares recyclable weights from the 2012 Waste Audit and this year s audit, and although there is not much difference between the totals, the weights have shifted substantially from category to category over the past year. For example, looking at Higgins Labs Paper versus Cans, Glass, and Plastic consumption, a huge reduction in the amount of Paper and Heavy Paper can be seen, as well as a definite increase in the weight of Cans, Glass, and Plastic waste. In 2012, a total of lbs. of paper material (including Paper, Heavy Paper, and Corrugated Cardboard) was sorted in Higgins Labs compared to only 1.2 lbs. of Cans, Glass, and Plastic. This year, only 29.5 lbs. of paper material was sorted and 12.2 lbs. of Cans, Glass, and Plastic were consumed. More paper was used in the residence halls, especially in Daniels Hall with 24.6 lbs. in 2012 and 44.6 lbs. in The Cans, Glass and Plastic consumption in the residence halls stayed about steady, except for in Daniels Hall where consumption increased by 215%. Recyclables: Waste Audit Comparison The trash consumption increased in three out of the four buildings. Higgins Labs total trash consumption increased by 12%, Riley s total trash consumption increased by 13%, and Daniels Hall s total trash consumption increased by 128%. Morgan Hall is the only building that decreased its trash consumption from 83.2 lbs. to 70.8 lbs., a decrease of 15%. There was a total increase in trash consumption in all four buildings from lbs. to lbs., a 25% increase. Trash: Waste Audit Comparison

6 Analysis by Building Our auditors separated the waste into two large categories, trash and recycling, before the sorting for each building began. Then, these two categories were carefully sorted into the ten smaller material categories shown in the tables below to ensure that the two categories did not mix. This was done to find out how much recyclable waste was put in the trash and how much trash contamination was in the recycling. The following charts compare material weights in trash, in recycling, and the percentage of that material found in the trash for each building. The largest problems seem to be Cans, Glass, and Plastic in Higgins Labs, Paper and Heavy Paper in Morgan Hall, Paper and Heavy Paper in Riley Hall, and Heavy Paper in Daniels Hall. Nearly 50% of the Cans, Glass, and Plastic in Higgins Labs are not being recycled, over 80% of the Paper and Heavy Paper in Morgan and in Riley 38% and 42% of Paper and Heavy Paper, respectively, are not being recycled, and almost 95% of Heavy Paper in Daniels Hall is not being recycled. Why is this? From this information it can be assumed that it is more difficult to recycling paper materials in the three dorm buildings and more difficult to recycling Cans, Glass, and Plastic in the one academic building. It is very clear from these charts that there is plenty of room for improvement. Daniels Hall produced the most Trash, Food, and recyclables, but is this due to higher per capita consumption or a larger population? Compared to last year, this year Daniels produced more than twice as much weight in trash and recyclables, and also reduced the ratio of recycling to trash considerably.

7 Water Bottles: Waste Audit Comparison Each water bottle weighs lbs. Therefore, 33 water bottles were disposed of in Higgins Labs, 24 of which were recycled; 130 water bottles were thrown away in Morgan Hall, 106 of which were recycled; 61 water bottles were thrown away in Riley Hall, all of which were recycled; and 191 water bottles were disposed of in Daniels Hall, 175 of which were recycled, for a total of 419 water bottles in one day. Last year, 12 water bottles were collected from Higgins, 133 from Morgan Hall, 118 from Riley, and 117 from Daniels. From this information, it appears that these four buildings are using more water bottles than before. Riley Hall is the only building whose usage decreased by any significant amount. Contrary to what was expected, there were actually more water bottles discovered in the waste audit. The Student Green Team anticipated that there would be fewer water bottles for two reasons: 1) In 2012, right before the audit there was a water main break in Worcester. WPI bought extra water bottles to supply the residential community with clean water during that crisis. We would have thought that this would have caused the disposal of those water bottles during the audit time, but this year we still found more water bottles than last year. 2) The number of locations providing water-bottle filling stations has increased to include not only the Sports and Recreation Center, but also the Campus Center, Gordon Library, Alden Hall, and Salisbury Labs. We expected that more water bottle filling stations would result in less disposable water bottle use on campus.

8 Per Capita For all three residence halls, the per capita consumption rose. Morgan Hall s population increased by 8 students, Riley Hall s increased by 16 students, and Daniels Hall s population increased by only 5 students. There is one reduction to be noted: Morgan Hall s per capita trash consumption is reduced by 0.05 lbs. or 17%. Daniels Hall shows a very substantial increase in Total Waste from 0.35 lbs. of waste per person in 2012 to 0.86 lbs. of waste per person in 2013, an increase of 146%.

9 Room for Improvement - The actual audit recycling rate of 29.08%, which while very good is still 13.22% below the maximum possible recycling rate of 42.30%, which leaves plenty of room for improvement within today s technological capabilities. - There was in increase in water bottle usage per day in these four buildings from a total of 380 in 2012 to 419 in 2013, suggesting that the Water Bottle Campaign needs to be more aggressive in changing student perspectives and in removing plastic disposable water bottles from sale on campus. - The auditors found less Styrofoam than at the 2012 Audit (taking into account polystyrene foam s low density to volume ratio), but still a substantial amount of Styrofoam. In order to improve this rate, tactics could be to promote recyclable packaging in school purchases, avoid Styrofoam use, and replace Styrofoam use in Dunkin Donuts with paper. - The Student Green Team began a campaign at the beginning of the year to ensure that recycling bins are placed in their proper locations on campus. While this campaign is currently in the works, from the results of this waste audit, it is suggested that the focus in residence halls should be mainly on increasing/improving the paper waste recycling. - Through student groups and the Eco-Rep Program, more research should be done to discover real reasons why per capita consumption is still increasing in the residence halls. Surveys, interviews and focused audits can be conducted to collect this information, even though it may be delicate. In order to encourage students to reduce consumption, we need to understand why it is rising in the first place. Is it more product packaging? Is there an increase in buying power? Are we eating more? - It is interesting to note that Morgan Hall s food consumption weight doesn t seem to be affected by living above the dining hall. Daniels had the highest weight in food waste, Morgan Hall had the medium weight, and Riley had the lowest weight of the three residence halls. - It has been noticed that there are few recycling bins next to the trash bins on the grounds. Recycling would be made easier to do on the go if every trash bin on the grounds had a recycling bin next to it. Ideally a recycling container will be located with every trash container. - Auditors noticed that many of the bags of trash from the residence halls were mostly paper towels, from the bathrooms. Compostable paper towels are used across campus. It is suggested that paper towels be collected for composting. This could be a topic for student IQP or MQP. - Very little of the paper used on campus contains recycled content. There is a problem with recycled paper taking in too much water in humid conditions and getting stuck in printers. There is a level of recycled paper (30% or possibly more) that does not get stuck in printers. It is suggested that the school develops a proposal to use more recycled paper across campus, as well as investigates which vendors recycled paper is least likely to jam in the printers. - Many problems associated with recycling are due to people not understanding what can be recycled and where. Single-stream recycling could take away that potential problem by removing decisions and time involved in recycling, making it easier for students and faculty to recycle without thinking.