University Solid Waste Audit - **See downloads at left**
 

Mike Castillo
Jes Cohen
Rachel Colongelli
Michael Ford
Alesha Herrera

ENVI 490 Solid Waste Group - April 15, 1998
 

Abstract

During the spring semester of 1998 five members of a student-run research project analyzed the solid waste management policies and practices of Rice University. This project was completed as part of the Environmental Engineering 490 class, under the supervision of Dr. Mark Weisner, of the Environmental Engineering and Sciences Department. The research, data collection, and analysis were conducted in two parts, while the recommendations for university implementation, as well as suggestions for work still needed to be done, have all been made together. The first part of the project was a solid waste composition study of the trash produced and disposed of by the University population. This study involved sorting and categorizing trash, as well as assessing the gross poundage of each component. Categories included: food, paper, paper non-recyclable, glass, plastic, plastic non-recyclable, metal and other. This data was then analyzed according to location of trash collection site, type of building it was collected from (academic, residential, or administrative), and dominant trash component. It was found that approximately 40% of what was thrown away could have been recycled. The second part of this project involved the administering of a recycling survey to a random list of electronic mail addresses. This survey was sent out to over 600 students and 180 faculty and staff, and generated 208 and 45 responses, respectively. The survey was designed to assess to what degree people at Rice already recycle, as well as what steps could be taken to increase the frequency with which solid waste is recycled on this campus. Analysis of the responses showed an overwhelming trend of students, faculty and staff not recycling. This study has resulted in a number of policy recommendations that should be implemented throughout the university. These recommendations include, but are not limited to: a university-wide recycling education program, installment of hand dryers in all bathrooms, and encouraged double sided copying.

Introduction

Under the supervision of faculty member Dr. Mark Wiesner, students in the Environmental Engineering 490 course at Rice University designed and completed an independent research project evaluating the environmental systems of the university. In particular, we, the Solid Waste Management Group (SWMG), undertook the task of examining the production, storage and removal of solid waste from campus. We then compared Rice's solid waste management practices to programs from other institutions of higher education. Finally, we created financially feasible proposals for improving the impact Rice University makes on the environment.

During this project, the SWMG completed two independent studies regarding the treatment of solid waste on campus. The first study concentrated on the composition of the waste generated on campus. The other examined the state of the campus recycling program. The combination of these two studies provides conclusive support for different initiatives that could improve Rice’s environmental performance.

Solid Waste Composition Study

Introduction and background
Prior to this semester, a solid waste composition study of Rice University had never been completed. The only data available were those concerning the gross volume of waste transported off campus for disposal. These data included gross volume estimates of solid waste that Rice dumps at a BFI landfill in Houston, as well as specific data concerning the amount of recycled material that Rice handles in the form of glass, metal, and paper. While these data are sufficient for making decisions based strictly within an "end-cost focused" financial framework, our research group found it important to realize the financial potential of reducing waste "upstream" and/or increasing recycling participation. We were interested in the actual composition of what was being sent to landfills. We questioned whether the entire volume of trash that Rice deposited in the local Houston landfill was truly not recyclable. Furthermore, we hypothesized that actual trash composition would vary according to the nature of the building from which the trash originated. As an example, we estimated that trash resulting from the residential colleges would contain more food waste than trash coming from academic buildings.

Methods and materials
To formulate the procedure for testing these hypotheses, we contacted many individuals from both within and outside of the Rice community. We first contacted Mr. Bill Petty from the City of Houston. Incorporating years of experience working with the City of Houston Solid Waste Management Department, Mr. Petty advised us on the appropriate procedure to conduct our study. Furthermore, he educated us on how to proactively alleviate any potential safety hazards through the use of proper safety equipment (Petty, 6 February 1998). Within Rice University, we spoke to Mr. Eusebio Franco Jr., Mr. Bob Truscott, and Dr. Mark Wiesner. Mr. Franco, Manager of Custodial/Grounds for Facilities & Engineering, helped us determine when the study should be performed, informed us of the trash collection schedule, and showed us the central recycling storage area on campus. Furthermore, he loaned us a cart for the day of the study (Franco, 17 February 1998). Mr. Truscott, Manager of Residential Colleges, explained the trash collection system within the residential colleges (Truscott, 15 February 1998). Dr. Wiesner, Professor of Environmental Science and Engineering, provided a "home base" location for the day of the study. He also provided all of the necessary safety equipment (Wiesner, 20 February 1998).

We chose Saturday, 21 February 1998, at 1:00 p.m. to conduct the study. While we knew that trash was collected on Friday afternoon, we wanted a time when we would not be interrupting any other trash collection on campus. We also chose a Saturday in order to avoid disrupting any other experiments in our laboratory in the Abercrombie Building.

Fortunately, Dr. Mark Wiesner arranged for us to use a laboratory that opened to the outside world. Because of this, we could maintain a proper circulation of air and have easy access to the trash bags. The materials used were two fish scales that measured to the tenth of a pound, and trash bags. Food and Housing let us use one of their electric carts to collect the different samples of trash. We chose an assortment of bags from the dumpsters near Lovett College, Hanszen College, the Shepherd School, Fondren Library, the Rice Memorial Center, numerous Athletic Facilities, the Space Sciences Building and Butcher Hall. In all, we collected twenty-nine bags weighing over 280 pounds.

Keeping the sorting process relatively simple, we separated the trash into eight distinct categories. Each category was based on data found from the California Integrated Waste Management Board (Solid Waste Material Type Definitions, 21 February 1998). Categorical definitions are similar to those used in the California studies.

• Food: Any food waste not including liquids.
• Paper: Any paper product that was at one time recyclable. This includes paper that we determined became wet or stained with food after being placed in the trash bin.
• Paper Non-Recyclable: Any paper product not recyclable. This includes but is not limited to paper stained with food residue and wet paper.
• Glass: Any glass product regardless of color.
• Plastic: Any plastic product that could have been recycled at one time prior to refuse.
• Plastic Non-Recyclable: Any plastic product that could at no time have been recycled.
• Metal: Anything made of metal.
• Other: Goods not able to be sorted appropriately. All other goods explained in lab notebook.

While relatively simple, the trash separation process was extremely time consuming. The research team members opened a trash bag and sorted it into eight different trash bags depending on the different contents. After completely sorting all of the trash bags from one site, we would weigh the eight new bags that represented the different sorting categories. During this process, we identified any contents that were considered abnormal and compiled these and the weighing data both in a laboratory notebook and in an Excel worksheet.

Data collected
Figure 1 summarizes the data collected in this study. All results are presented in Appendix A.

Discussion and analysis
Several consistencies in the data are apparent. First is the huge proportion of recyclable and non-recyclable paper. According to Figure 1, these two categories represent approximately 60% of the trash. For the non-recyclable paper, we estimated that approximately 60% were paper towels. The second data trend of notice is the consistency of the amount of food in the garbage between the different buildings. Considering Central Kitchen has a kitchen and food service at each of the residential colleges, it is understandable why the food waste would be high there. However, the implications of similarly high proportions of food waste in the academic building trash are important. It is evident that many faculty, staff, and students eat in the academic buildings and/or dispose of the remnants there.

The most startling discovery, however, was that 41% of our trash could have been recycled at one time. Furthermore, a significant proportion of non-recyclable trash could have been reduced with alternative practices.

It may be of use to compare the results that we obtained recently at Rice with values for trash composition across the country. Figure 2 shows how Rice compares to the City of Houston, State of Texas and the entire United States (Petty, 6 February 1998). According to the chart, Rice compares similarly with these other areas. However, in paper, our composition percentage is much higher than elsewhere. Additionally of note, Rice has no apparent yard waste. This can be explained by the fact that clippings are stored and used as mulch around the campus. Its important to realize how many of the components in Figure 1 can be reduced, reused, and/or recycled before reaching the landfill. Approximately half of the plastic, all of the metal and a significant portion of the glass and paper could have been recycled. Food wastes could be better utilized in a compost pile.

As a final note of comparison, during an average year Rice recycles 375 cubic yards of paper, metal and glass, while it generates around 6000 cubic yards of solid waste (Arch 211/511 Homepage, 21 February 1998). Stated otherwise, Rice recycles approximately 5.8% of its total waste. University of Pennsylvania and Brown, schools of similar size recycle a significantly higher proportion of their solid waste, 30% and 28% respectively (Brown is Green, 16 February 1998).

When examining our data, it is important to take note of the possible sources of errors. There were several factors that we could not control for, such as rainy weather which made the paper soak up water and appear heavier then it actually was. We did not have the capability of generating a sample from every building. For example, we did not get a sample from the Brown and Jones colleges because the trash had already been removed and our sample pool from the engineering quadrangle was limited. However, we tried to control for these things as best we could which, we feel, resulted in a valid set of data on the trash composition of Rice University.

Conclusions for this study
Our study finds a disturbing amount of recyclable material in the solid waste being sent to landfills. Over forty percent of our gross trash included paper, metal, plastic and glass that could have been recycled. Of this segment of recyclable waste, paper is the largest constituent. At a university that provides paper recycling bins in every dormitory room, it seems odd that such a statistic exists. Breaking down the university data even further to separate residential college trash from academic building trash, one finds nearly identical numbers for both divisions. While residential rooms are outfitted with paper recycling bins, no such amenities have been provided to the academic buildings of our campus. Therefore, both a lack of recycling areas (in academic buildings) and a lack of public awareness (in student dormitories) appear to contribute to this problem.

An additional finding of our study involves the composition of non-recyclable paper. This category constitutes nearly thirty percent of the total trash produced. Of this, we found a very large percentage consists of paper towels of the sort used in bathrooms to dry hands. A voluminous amount of waste could be reduced with the elimination of such wasteful practices through the phasing in of hand drying machines.

This research completed the first step in our assessment of solid waste management at Rice University. This study allowed us to quantitatively analyze the composition of that which is being thrown away on campus, and within that, to determine how much of it could have been recycled. What we discovered, and have reported above, was quite disturbing. Furthermore, it confirmed our thoughts that we needed more information in order to understand the reasons behind the lack of recycling among Rice students, faculty and staff. As a research team, we decided that the most effective way to generate and gather this information was to conduct a random survey of the Rice population.

Recycling Survey

Introduction and background information
The purpose of the survey was threefold: first, to determine the current level of awareness of solid waste and recycling issues around campus. The second purpose was to study the current practices of students, faculty, and staff in regards to their treatment of solid waste. Third, we wanted to evaluate alternatives important to the respondents regarding the future of solid waste disposal at Rice. Accordingly, we separated the survey into three succinct sections. The first section of the survey was designed as a fill-in the blank section with questions such as "how much garbage does Rice produce annually?" and "what percentage of the garbage that the Rice community throws could have been recycled?" This part served as an informal "quiz" to test the respondents’ knowledge of solid waste management practices at Rice. The second part of the survey focused on the recycling habits of students, faculty and staff. The questions included such things as whether the respondent recycles paper, plastic, glass or aluminum. We also were curious as to what kinds of cups they used when on campus: paper, Central Kitchen plastic or their own, reusable mugs. The answers to this section were designed to demonstrate frequency of actions, such as never, often or always. Finally, the final part of the survey asked respondents to rate their feelings about certain concrete statements. We asked for input related to the position of recycling bins, and whether they were adequate and/or convenient. We also wanted to gather their opinion regarding the importance of pursuing a change in university policy regarding the reusable mug program and double sided copying. The answers reflected how strong the respondent felt in regards to these statements.

Procedures and methods
After we wrote our initial rough draft of the survey, we consulted Dr. Leona Urbish in the Office of Institutional Research for her and her staff’s perusal. She helped us fine tune the questions and gave us several suggestions for its eventual compilation (Urbish, 24 March 1998). We decided to send it out via electronic mail, which made data compilation more difficult. However, we anticipated receiving a higher number of responses due to the fact that it was easier for people to just respond to an electronic message rather than having to open up a web browser and find the survey on a web page. We never considered sending paper surveys. Additionally, we decided to send out two different surveys: one to students and one to faculty/staff. Both surveys would have essentially the same questions, just modified slightly where appropriate. We also spoke with Dr. Urbish regarding our concern that our responses would be skewed by a higher rate of response coming from people that were already concerned about this issue. Although there was no way to accommodate for this bias, Dr. Urbish urged that it should not hinder the study in any drastic manner (Urbish, 24 March 1998).

We had compiled a list of electronic mail addresses taken randomly from the campus directory of both students and faculty/staff. We sent out approximately 600 student solid waste surveys on Monday, March 30th. On Thursday, April 2nd, we sent approximately 180 surveys to Rice faculty and staff members. We compiled the data into spreadsheets on Sunday, April 5th, although we added later all those responses we received the Monday afterwards. The resulting data was then analyzed the following weekend. Both surveys and follow-up appreciation letters are [at left] in Appendix B.

Data collected
Figures 3 through 6, and Table 1 summarize the data. The survey of students generated 208 responses. The faculty/staff survey generated 45 responses. Furthermore, a large number of surveys were concluded with additional comments from the respondents. A few of these comments were quite memorable, helpful, and even daunting. A compilation of interesting comments is included in Appendix C.

Discussion and analysis
Students and faculty were found to be poorly informed on such things as the annual cost and tonnage of solid waste, amount of material recycled and amount of trash that could be recycled. Some interesting trends were found on the practice of student and faculty recycling. Nearly 35 percent of the students polled report recycling paper only some of the time or less, and 40 percent report recycling cans only some of the time or less. The numbers rise even more dramatically when dealing with glass and plastic. Half of the students polled said that they recycle glass only some of the time or less and over ninety percent report recycling plastic only some of the time or less. Faculty showed similar recycling practices, with the largest difference from students in the category of glass recycling, as over fifty percent of those polled reported never recycling glass. It is surprising that such a large segment of the university has yet to take advantage of the recycling program.

Polling the opinions of students on the present state of recycling found that while most believe bins in the colleges are accessible, over sixty percent felt that academic buildings do not have accessible bins. The majority of students also reported that more bins in both the colleges and academic buildings would be beneficial. On the other hand, the majority of faculty reported that bins in their offices and academic buildings were accessible. However, the majority also reported that more bins were needed. The data uncovered an interesting disagreement between faculty and students on the topic of making double-sided copying more prevalent in university operations. While many faculty and staff members were split on this issue, over eighty percent of the students polled felt that double-sided copying should be strongly encouraged.

Conclusions for this study
In summation, the results of the recycling study support the conclusions from the trash composition study. Notably, data from both surveys suggest students, faculty, and staff do not recycle as often as possible. While a strong majority reports that that more bins would be more beneficial, it is remarkable that the majority of respondents feel that bins are generally accessible at present. Therefore, with accessible bins present but many still not participating in recycling, public awareness should be a focus of any groups wishing to make an impact on this area of the campus.

Our analysis, found in Appendix D, shows that there are great financial incentives for improving the recycling program at Rice as well as utilizing other, more proactive, waste management techniques such as pollution prevention and reducing consumption upstream. Our data support that increasing the amount or paper that the university recycles by 20% would save the University $7750 per year via income from recycled materials and decreased solid waste disposal fees. Finally, we feel that this could be accomplished with minimal costs via a coordinated effort to educate students, faculty, and staff about recycling options at Rice.

Overall Conclusions
Recommendations

After careful consideration of all research results, we make the following environmentally stable, economically profitable recommendations. Though the current recycling program on campus has the potential to be very successful, the students and faculty need to be better educated and motivated about recycling in general. Creating a recycling education program through Food and Housing and enforcing better recycling regulations will reduce the amount of garbage that Rice sends to landfills which saves the University money. Research shows that the largest source of non-recyclable paper waste is paper towels used in campus bathrooms. The installation of air hand dryers and removal of paper towels in bathrooms would reduce this amount by nearly 60%.

Students, faculty, and staff alike want recycling bins that are more accessible in both the residential colleges and academic buildings. Within the colleges, paper, glass and aluminum bins need to be made available on every floor as well as in common areas such as computer labs, TV rooms, study lobbies, game rooms and commons. In the academic buildings, bins need to be made available on every floor as well as in all department offices, graduate student offices, copier facilities and printing stations.

Many schools have started what is called a reusable mug program. When students matriculate into the university their freshman year, they are issued a campus mug that can be used at all food facilities on campus. This greatly reduces the number of non-recyclable paper cups that are used by students every day. Students have expressed interest in this program, which is not only environmentally superior to current policies, but would also save the administration money on paper cup purchases and landfill costs.

Rice University must provide a plastic recycling program on campus. Almost all liquid pre-packaged items sold by the College Food Service are packaged in plastic. The University has a responsibility to provide recycling options for these materials. The large number of #1 and #2 plastic bottles generated on campus daily can easily be integrated into the current recycling program.

Faculty and staff should be encouraged to make double sided copies whenever possible. Most, if not all of the Xerox machines on campus are capable of making two-sided copies even though only a handful are specially designed for this task. It is not feasible to hypothesize that all paper generated will be recycled in the end, so it is beneficial to reduce the amount of paper being used on campus to begin with.

Future work
The environmental systems and studies available on this campus for students to explore are far from complete and there remains much work to be done in the future. Construction and construction waste generated on campus has been a large concern as of late due to number of new buildings completed within the last three years. Though construction waste is the responsibility of the contractor hired to do the job, it would be beneficial to research disposal practices of the contractors that Rice University currently employs and to determine whether a more environmentally friendly contractor can be found in the area (Franco, 17 February 1998).

Central Kitchen food waste is another area of interest. Food waste generated on campus has just recently begun to be studied, but there remains much to research. The reduction of food waste through donation programs, the disposal of this waste as well as the implementation and maintenance of a composting project are all possible topics of study for future environmental classes.

Large plastic cups have been purchased this semester to replace the huge number of non-recyclable paper ones that are used each day (Ditman, 15 April 1998). This improvement can be taken a step further in an effort to decrease the number or Styrofoam cups that are used on campus, especially at Sammy's (a campus eating establishment) and at the Coffee House. The purchase of ceramic, reusable coffee mugs would be a long term solution which is economically profitable and environmentally sound.

This study of the solid waste polices and practices of Rice University produced some very interesting and thought provoking results. The solid waste composition study has presented a new data set which has never before been available to the public. The recycling survey served to enlighten both the administrators and the recipients as to what is and what is not being recycled at Rice. This information gathered and generated is just the first step in a long process of complete overhaul of the solid waste management of Rice University. We challenge others to take this opportunity, and continue to work until Rice University is a model campus for other universities throughout the nation.

Acknowledgements
We would like to take this opportunity to thanks the following people for all of their support and generous help: Dr. Mark Wiesner from the Environmental Engineering and Sciences Department, Dr. Leona Urbish from the Department of Institutional Research, Bill Petty from the City of Houston, Euscubio Franco from Facilities and Engineering, Bob Truscott from the Residential Colleges, and Mark Ditman from the College Food Service. Many aspects of this study would not have been possible without their assistance.

Works Cited

Archi 211/511 homepage. http://www.arch.rice.edu/arch211/report/riceaudit/swvolum1.htm (21 February 1998).

Brown is Green. http://www.brown.edu/Department/Brown_Is_Green/(15 February 1998).

Franco, Eusebio. Personal Interview. 17 February 1998.

Petty, Bill. Telephone Interview. 6 February 1998.

Solid Waste Material Type Definitions. http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/wpe/wcab/chardb/matdefs.html 21 February 1998.

Truscott, Bob. Personal Interview. 15 February 1998.

Truscott, Bob. Residential Colleges Recycling. http://housing.rice.edu/news/recycling.cfm (13 April, 1998).

Urbish, Leona. Personal Interview. 24 March 1998.

Wiesner, Mark. Personal Interview. 20 February 1998