Waste Audit Cohen Loading Dock. 7 March 2013 Prepared for University of Pennsylvania, School of Arts and Sciences

Transcription

1 Waste Audit Cohen Loading Dock 7 March 2013 Prepared for University of Pennsylvania, School of Arts and Sciences

2 Executive Summary Haley & Aldrich performed a waste audit of Williams Hall and Cohen Hall to improve understanding of: The amount and composition of the Cohen Loading Dock waste stream (which stores waste from both Williams and Cohen Halls) The correlation between waste type and source of generation with regards to function by space. Audits were performed in both buildings during each of the three housekeeping shifts. Key findings of these audits are: 15 different types of trash containers and 1 different types of recycling containers were identified in the two buildings; 2 types of trash signs and 4 types of recycling signs were seen in proximity to trash and recycling containers in Williams Hall and Cohen Hall. 4 different types of recycling signs were seen affixed to recycling containers in Williams Hall and 15 different types of recycling signs were seen on recycling containers in Cohen Hall. No signs were observed attached to trash containers in Williams Hall. One type of trash sign was seen on trash containers in Cohen Hall. 100% of trash signs in common areas in Williams Hall and 45% of trash signs in common areas in Cohen Hall were in an incorrect location or missing; 50% of recycling signs in common areas in Williams Hall and 14% of recycling signs in common areas in Cohen Hall were in an incorrect location or missing; Bags of incorrect color were observed in trash and recycling containers in both buildings during each of the three shifts; and Contamination of trash with recyclables and contamination of recyclables with trash were observed during each of the three shifts in both halls. Similar levels of contamination of trash were observed in Williams Hall and Cohen Hall during each housekeeping shift. A lower rate of contamination of recycling containers was observed in Cohen Hall, especially during the second and third shift. An audit of the Cohen loading dock was also conducted. Key findings of this audit include: pounds of trash (in white bags, 51% of waste by weight) and pounds of recyclable materials in (blue bags, 49% of waste by weight) were stored over the 48 hour period in Cohen loading dock. This equated to 1,230 gallons of trash (57% of waste by volume) and 910 gallons of recyclable materials (43% of waste by volume); The trash stream was contaminated with 59 percent of recyclable material by weight and 70 percent of recyclable material by volume; and The recycling stream was contaminated with 42 percent of non-recyclable material by weight and 52 percent of non-recyclable material by volume. 1

3 1. Point of Source Audit Process Haley & Aldrich conducted an audit at the point of waste generation (i.e. the source ) at Williams Hall and Cohen Hall, replicating and expanding on the gemba ( go and see ) site observations that were conducted at the University level during fall These gemba observations were performed over three non-sequential days during a typical weekday in February 2013 while classes were in session. Observations were completed during four hours of each of the three housekeeping shifts. These gemba observations enabled: An understanding of how the upstream behaviors are contributing to waste at the Williams and Cohen Halls; An understanding of how waste collection containers are currently being used; and The gathering of waste collection data from source and by shift. During the audits, Haley & Aldrich engaged with housekeeping, faculty, staff and other building occupants during the gemba observations. Feedback from these stakeholders was recorded. Findings The gemba observations provided insight on trash and recycling storage, collection and management procedures at Williams Hall and Cohen Hall, as described below. 1. Containers A total of 15 different types of trash containers and 15 different types of recycling containers were identified during the gemba observations in Williams and Cohen Halls. Table 1.1 summarizes the number of different types of containers encountered in each building. Examples of the different types of containers encountered are provided in Appendix A. Table 1.1. Different types of containers encountered in Williams Hall and Cohen Hall Williams Hall Cohen Hall Total * # of different types of trash containers # of different types of recycling containers *Containers of a certain type were observed in both buildings, explaining why the total does not equal the sum of containers in Williams Hall and Cohen Hall. 2

4 2. Signage The same trash and recycling signs were found in both Cohen and Williams in proximity to trash and recycling containers. Two types of trash signs and four types of recycling signs were observed in these buildings in proximity to these containers. In addition, four different types of recycling signs were seen on recycling containers in Williams Hall and fifteen different types of recycling signs were seen on recycling containers in Cohen Hall. No signs were seen on trash containers in Williams Hall. One type of trash sign was observed on trash containers in Cohen Hall. Appendix B provides examples of different types of signage encountered in proximity to trash and recycling containers. Appendix A provides examples of signage attached to trash and recycling containers. Signs were generally observed in common areas such Observation: Several signs provided as hallways, break rooms, study rooms and classrooms, conflicting messages. For example, but not in individual offices. Certain signs were in certain cases, both the recycling attached to trash/recycling receptacles. Other signs signage and trash signage stated were placed on the wall near to the respective that plastic bags should be placed in container. However, when signs were affixed to the the respective container. wall, respective containers were often placed in the incorrect position (i.e. trash container placed under the recycling sign and recycling container placed under the trash Anecdote: An office sign). Several signs were not visible to users, for example they occupant was concerned were on a wall far away from the container, or hidden behind a that office trash was not door or behind other signage. 100% of signs for trash in common always collected on a areas were either in the incorrect location or were missing in daily basis and that this Williams Hall and 55% of signs for trash in common areas were may lead to pest issues. either in the incorrect location or were missing in Cohen Hall. 50% of signs for recycling in common areas were either in the incorrect location or were missing in Williams Hall and 14% of signs for recycling in common areas were either in the incorrect location or were missing in Cohen Hall. Appendix C illustrates examples of signs located in the wrong location. Various different signs were observed for trash and recycling in the Williams Hall and Cohen Hall. In both buildings, certain signs for trash and recycling were missing or in the incorrect location. The absence and/or incorrect location of signage seemed less prevalent in Cohen Hall. Anecdote: A housekeeper was concerned that the 3. Bag color In both Williams and Cohen Halls, white bags should contain trash and blue bags should contain recyclables. As illustrated in Figures 1.1 and 1.2 and Appendix C, bags of incorrect color were observed on trash and recycling containers during each of the three shifts. new trash and recycling bags were not as sturdy as the old ones, causing them to rip. The Solid Waste Management Plan for the University includes a recommendation that FRES investigate and assess alternative bags on the market, and buy them in bulk to then sell back to the schools at a discounted rate (due to bulk purchasing). 3

5 Incorrect color bags were viewed in trash and recycling containers during each housekeeping shift. A total of 18 blue bags were observed in trash containers and 30 white bags were observed on recycling containers. Anecdote: A building occupant was concerned that caterers do not remove their trash when they bring food into the building. Housekeepers do not always take trash out of the building until the next morning. This has led to a pest issue. There is a recommendation in the Solid Waste Management Plan for the University to develop standard Request for Proposals and contractual verbiage for caterers. A requirement for caterers to remove trash could be incorporated into this. 4

6 4. Contamination of bags Contamination of trash with recyclables and contamination of recyclables with trash were observed during each of the three shifts. Figures 1.3 to 1.4 summarize the proportion of trash and recycling containers with contamination observed during each shift. Appendix D illustrates examples of contamination encountered in trash and recycling containers. Anecdote: A building occupant was concerned that some of the recycling containers in common areas are too small, causing building users to misplace recyclables. Anecdote: Certain recycling containers have lids with a long, narrow slit. When recyclables do not fit through the slit, these items seem to be placed on top of the lid or next to the containers. The Solid Waste Management Plan for the University includes a recommendation to create Saturn lids or replace slit lids with Saturn lids so that the visual control aligns with the messaging about single stream recycling. 5

7 At least 63% of trash containers were contaminated with recyclables in both buildings during each housekeeping shift. Less than 40% of recycling containers were contaminated with trash in the two buildings. A lower rate of contamination of recycling containers was observed in Cohen Hall, especially during the second and third shift. Anecdote: A Cohen Hall occupant thought recycling containers and trash containers should be co-located. Trash containers were not provided in certain areas, leading to building users placing trash in recycling containers. A recommendation in the Solid Waste Management Plan for the University is to ensure that all containers are positioned as clusters with one recycling and one trash container next to each other, aligning with this occupant s idea. Anecdote: Several office occupants have purchased recycling buckets from the University or have devised homemade recycling containers. These occupants take their recycling to the larger recycling receptacles provided in common areas. 6

8 2. Cohen Loading Dock Audit Process Following the gemba observation, Haley & Aldrich conducted a one day audit of the Cohen Loading Dock waste stream in February Bags containing trash and recycling were stored at the Cohen loading dock for 48 hours prior to analysis. Each of the trash and recycling bags was then transported from the loading dock to a sorting facility on campus. An analysis of the nature, weight and volume of the Cohen Loading Dock waste stream was performed. Findings The total weights and volumes of the trash and recycling streams at the Cohen Loading dock are illustrated in Table 2.1. The loading dock contained white bags (for trash), blue bags (for recycling) and several black and green bags. It was assumed that the green and black bags originated from special and/or construction projects in the vicinity of Williams Hall and Cohen Hall and therefore do not form part of the William and Cohen Halls waste stream. These bags were however included in the analysis for completeness. Table 2.1. Weight and volume of trash and recycling streams over 48 hour period Trash (no black or green bags) Trash (black or green bags) Recycling Weight (pounds) Volume (gallons) 1, % of the waste stream by weight was trash in white bags (57% by volume) and 49% of the waste stream by weight (43% by volume) was recycling in 48 hour period. Observation: In July November FY13, campus wide, 73% of the waste stream campus wide was trash and 27% of the waste stream was recycling Both the trash and recycling streams contained various types of waste. Waste was categorized according to the waste classification in the waste audit specification provided by the University of Pennsylvania School of Arts and Sciences. Based on a recent conversation with Waste Management, Inc., it is understood that this trash and recycling management provider may be able to recycle paper, plastic and metal containing contaminated materials (e.g. food), depending on the level of contamination. Lightly contaminated paper, plastic and metal were therefore accounted for separately in the analysis and were assumed to be recyclable materials. The composition of trash sampled in white bags is summarized in Table 2.2, based on the weight and volume of the different waste classifications. 7

9 Table 2.2. Composition of materials in sampled white bags (trash) Waste Classification Recyclable? Weight (pounds) Volume (gallons) Trash X Compostable material X Office paper Newspaper Cardboard Waxed, non-recyclable cardboard X Recyclable mixed paper (magazines, glossy, paperboard) Paper towels X Steel/Bi-Metal & Aluminum Glass Recyclable plastics Non-recyclable plastics X Other X Contaminated paper Contaminated plastic Contaminated metal Compostable material and contaminated paper are the largest sources of waste by weight in sampled white bags, representing 23% and 21% of this waste stream respectively. Contaminated paper, paper towels and contaminated plastic are the largest sources of waste by volume in sampled white bags, representing 23%, 17% and 15% of this waste stream respectively. The composition of recycling (blue bags) is summarized in Table 2.3, based on the weight and volume of the different waste classifications. 8

10 Table 2.3. Composition of materials in sampled blue bags (recycling) Waste Type Recyclable? Weight (pounds) Volume (gallons) Trash X 0 0 Compostable material X Office paper Newspaper 2 7 Cardboard Waxed, non-recyclable cardboard X Recyclable mixed paper (magazines, glossy, paperboard) 2 10 Paper towels X Steel/Bi-Metal & Aluminum Glass Recyclable plastics Non-recyclable plastics X Other X Contaminated paper Contaminated plastic Contaminated metal Recyclable plastics and paper towels are the largest sources of waste by weight in sampled blue bags, representing 22% and 18% of the recycling respectively. Recyclable plastics, paper towels and contaminated paper are the largest sources of waste by volume in sampled blue bags, representing 24%, 17% and 17% of the recycling respectively. Both the trash and recycling streams contained contaminated material. The proportions of recyclable materials and non-recyclables by weight and volume identified in the trash are presented in Figures 2.1 and 2.2, respectively. Observation: A number of white bags were themselves contained in blue bags and vice versa. 9

11 The trash stream was contaminated with 59 percent of recyclable material by weight and 70 percent of recyclable material by volume The proportions of recyclable materials and non-recyclables by weight and volume identified in the recycling are presented in Figures 2.3 and 2.4, respectively. The recycling stream was contaminated with 42 percent of non-recyclable material by weight and 52 percent of non-recyclable material by volume. Observation: Paper towels from the bathrooms were observed in both the trash bags and the recycling bags. Contaminated materials (e.g. feminine products) were therefore encountered in the recycling stream. During the point of source audit, a housekeeper mentioned that paper towels are included in the trash, not the recycling. A comparison of the proportions of each type of material by weight and volume identified in trash and recycling are presented in Appendix E. 10

12 Appendices Appendix A - Examples of different types of trash and recycling containers identified in Williams Hall and Cohen Hall Appendix B - Examples of different types of signage encountered in proximity to trash and recycling containers in Williams Hall and Cohen Hall Appendix C - Examples of bags of incorrect color on trash and recycling containers in Williams Hall and Cohen Hall Appendix D - Examples of contamination encountered in trash and recycling containers in Williams Hall and Cohen Hall Appendix E- Comparison of the proportions of each type of material by weight and volume identified in trash and recycling

13 Appendix A Examples of different types of trash and recycling containers identified in Williams Hall and Cohen Hall

14 WILLIAMS HALL TRASH CONTAINERS Photograph 1. Trash Container Type 1. Photograph 2. Trash Container Type 2.

15 WILLIAMS HALL TRASH CONTAINERS Photograph 3. Trash Container Type 3. Photograph 4. Trash Container Type 4.

16 WILLIAMS HALL TRASH CONTAINERS Photograph 5. Trash Container Type 5. Photograph 6. Trash Container Type 6.

17 WILLIAMS HALL TRASH CONTAINERS Photograph 7. Trash Container Type 7. Photograph 8. Trash Container Type 8.

18 WILLIAMS HALL TRASH CONTAINERS Photograph 9. Trash Container Type 9. Photograph 10. Trash Container Type 10.

19 WILLIAMS HALL TRASH CONTAINERS Photograph 11. Trash Container Type 11.

20 COHEN HALL TRASH CONTAINERS Photograph 1. Trash Container Type 1. Photograph 2. Trash Container Type 2.

21 COHEN HALL TRASH CONTAINERS Photograph 3. Trash Container Type 3. Photograph 4. Trash Container Type 4.

22 COHEN HALL TRASH CONTAINERS Photograph 5. Trash Container Type 5. Photograph 6. Trash Container Type 6.

23 COHEN HALL TRASH CONTAINERS Photograph 7. Trash Container Type 7. Photograph 8. Trash Container Type 8.

24 WILLIAMS HALL RECYCLING CONTAINERS Photograph 1. Recycling Container Type 1. Photograph 2. Recycling Container Type 2.

25 WILLIAMS HALL RECYCLING CONTAINERS Photograph 3. Recycling Container Type 3. Photograph 4. Recycling Container Type 4.

26 WILLIAMS HALL RECYCLING CONTAINERS Photograph 5. Recycling Container Type 5. Photograph 6. Recycling Container Type 6.

27 WILLIAMS HALL RECYCLING CONTAINERS Photograph 7. Recycling Container Type 7. Photograph 8. Recycling Container Type 8.

28 COHEN HALL RECYCLING CONTAINERS Photograph 1. Recycling Container Type 1. Photograph 2. Recycling Container Type 2.

29 COHEN HALL RECYCLING CONTAINERS Photograph 3. Recycling Container Type 3. Photograph 4. Recycling Container Type 4.

30 COHEN HALL RECYCLING CONTAINERS Photograph 5. Recycling Container Type 5. Photograph 6. Recycling Container Type 6.

31 COHEN HALL RECYCLING CONTAINERS Photograph 7. Recycling Container Type 7. Photograph 8. Recycling Container Type 8.

32 COHEN HALL RECYCLING CONTAINERS Photograph 9. Recycling Container Type 9. Photograph 10. Recycling Container Type 10.

33 COHEN HALL RECYCLING CONTAINERS Photograph 11. Recycling Container Type 11.

34 Appendix B Examples of different types of signage encountered in proximity to trash and recycling containers in Williams Hall and Cohen Hall

35 SIGNAGE Photograph 1. Trash Sign Type 1. Photograph 2. Trash Sign Type 2. Name of Project Date of Photographs: 15 February 2013 Location Page 1 of 3 G:\38600_Penn\Deliverables\draft 3\Appendix B\2013_0305_appendix_B_Photo_log_ksh.docx

36 SIGNAGE Photograph 3. Recyclables Sign Type 1. Photograph 4. Recyclables Sign Type 2. Name of Project Date of Photographs: 15 February 2013 Location Page 2 of 3 G:\38600_Penn\Deliverables\draft 3\Appendix B\2013_0305_appendix_B_Photo_log_ksh.docx

37 SIGNAGE Photograph 5. Recyclables Sign Type 3. Photograph 6. Recyclables Sign Type 4, Partly Covered by Another Sign. Name of Project Date of Photographs: 15 February 2013 Location Page 3 of 3 G:\38600_Penn\Deliverables\draft 3\Appendix B\2013_0305_appendix_B_Photo_log_ksh.docx

38 Appendix C Examples of bags of incorrect color on trash and recycling containers in Williams Hall and Cohen Hall

39 INCORRECT BAG COLORS Photograph 1. Example 1 of a white bag in a recyclables container. Photograph 2. Example 2 of a white bag in a recyclables container.

40 Appendix D Examples of contamination encountered in trash and recycling containers in Williams Hall and Cohen Hall

41 CONTAMINATION Photograph 1. Recyclable plastic in a trash container. Photograph 2. Non-recyclable material in a recycling container.

42 CONTAMINATION Photograph 3. Recyclable glass in a trash container.

43 Appendix E Comparison of the proportions of each type of material by weight and volume identified in trash and recycling

44

45