Table of Contents. for paper and cardboard) Left photo: Paired new recycling containers ( round-top for aluminum, glass, and plastics 1-7; slottop

Transcription

1

2 Table of Contents Executive Summary... 3 Recommendations... 4 Acknowledgements... 4 Academic Building Waste Audit Study... 5 New Recycling Container User Survey... 7 Hoosier Café Waste Audit... 8 Preliminary Outdoor Litter Audit... 9 Preliminary Classroom Litter Audit Appendix 1: Graphics Appendix 2: Data Appendix 3: Conducting a Waste Audit: A Standard Operating Procedure Left photo: Paired new recycling containers ( round-top for aluminum, glass, and plastics 1-7; slottop for paper and cardboard) Right photo: The office desk-side recycling container with trash caddy on the side If you are printing this report, please print on both sides of the paper. 2

3 Executive Summary The purpose of this internship was to characterize the waste stream in various parts of Indiana University s Bloomington campus and to measure the effectiveness of new recycling containers installed in all academic buildings during the winter of The Office of Sustainability is committed to finding new ways to increase landfill diversion in an effort to reach their Vision Goal of 4 overall diversion over 2010 levels by Through the use of waste audits, I have analyzed the waste stream of several academic buildings, a dining facility, and outdoor litter, and have made recommendations for fine-tuning recycling programs so as to increase recycling and reduce contamination (e.g., trash in a recycling container). Early waste audits in academic buildings (conducted before the installation of the new recycling containers) showed that 3-6 of trash contents were recyclable, even when those receptacles were located next to recycling containers. Contamination was also high in some recycling containers. Such levels of contamination raise questions about both the effectiveness of the recycling system as well as the amount of awareness among its users. Addressing both of these issues has long been a priority of the Office of Sustainability, as high contamination rates represent missed potential, which must be addressed in order to achieve 4 waste diversion. In general, the new recycling containers in academic buildings are a vast improvement over the previous system. When paired together next to trash receptacles, contamination is substantially reduced. However, this report recommends a few additional ways to maximize the potential of these containers, and supports such claims with data collected during audits. Specifically, the new recycling containers need to be clearly and consistently labeled and paired together with trash receptacles; when they are left alone and unlabeled, there is little improvement over the previous system. The audits also indicate that the desk-side recycling program has been remarkably successful and that a little more communication and education will likely go a long way towards gaining 10 participation. The No Waste website is probably the best medium for this, and should therefore be continually updated and promoted. Littering outside and in classrooms are major issues. Preliminary audits show that outdoor litter is a complex issue that may require a multi-faceted solution. In order to increase recycling and curb littering in classrooms, it is clear that faculty need to get involved. A student who litters inside may be more likely to litter outside; because classroom littering is probably easier to address than outdoor littering, classrooms littering is a low-hanging fruit in the effort to curb overall campus litter. It is also clear that the potential for achieving 4 diversion in dining facilities is well within reach through the redesign of recycling containers and a commitment to user education. By implementing a food-waste composting program and by continuing to replace non-recyclable disposable products with recyclable ones, however, dining facilities are in sight of not just 4, but 10 diversion, or zerowaste. In light of this, dining facilities may be the testing grounds for the rest of Indiana University when it comes time to venture beyond 4. 3

4 Recommendations 1. All waste receptacles should be located next to ( paired with ) containers of other types. Consider making diversion stations the standard, where both types of recycling containers and a trash receptacle are always grouped together. 2. Disposal stations should be visually and spatially consistent, universal, and clearly labeled. 3. Encourage faculty and staff to take active roles in educating students about recycling. 4. Continue to promote proper use of desk-side recycling containers. 5. Continue to build the No Waste web presence. 6. Implement a disposable cup reduction program or policy. 7. Accept glass into the aluminum/plastic recycling stream. 8. Expand food waste composting in dining facilities and pilot a composting program elsewhere on campus. 9. Continue to measure progress towards 4 waste diversion and identify areas for improvement with regular waste audits. 10. Test the effectiveness of labeling trash receptacles as landfill. 11. Label all recycling containers clearly and consistently. 12. Move towards zero-waste dining facilities by implementing waste-reducing purchasing policies and by investing in reusable or recyclable products. Acknowledgements This internship was made possible with the support of many students, staff, and faculty. Meredith Dowling was a truly outstanding mentor; she made my transition into the program swift and effortless despite the project s steep learning curve and continued to help me develop each project component throughout the year. Tom Fallwell and Steve Akers provided dependable logistical and financial support as well as excellent guidance on audit design; Tom Fallwell and many Building Services staff members made the Ballantine Hall and Woodburn Hall audits possible, and Steve Akers coordinated an effective audit of the Hoosier Café. Mike Girvin and many Campus Division staff members were enthusiastic about and helpful with the outdoor litter audit. Dr. Barry Rubin and Barton Willage advised me on statistical design. Bill Brown and Emilie Rex fostered an encouraging work environment in the Office of Sustainability; I appreciate their emphasis on independent and creative project ownership. Over 20 student, staff, and faculty volunteers, who together devoted nearly 80 hours to collecting, sorting, and weighing solid waste, made every audit not just possible, but a success. 4

5 Academic Building Waste Audit Study Purpose To test the effectiveness of new recycling bins and identify additional potential for increasing recycling and reducing contamination in academic buildings. Design The design of this study has been more thoroughly described in the document Conducting a Waste Audit at Indiana University: A Standard Operating Procedure, which can be found in Appendix 3 of this report. The study utilized a difference-in-differences design to uncover any effects of the new recycling bins. Two buildings, Ballantine Hall and Woodburn Hall, were selected based on similarities in function and quantity of traffic. Both buildings were audited in November Throughout the winter of 2011, new recycling bins were placed in Ballantine Hall. Woodburn Hall, serving as a control, was left unchanged. In March 2012, both buildings were re-audited using an identical procedure. Representative samples of trash and recycling containers (10-25%) were randomly selected from classrooms, hallways, and offices using a random number generator. The bags from selected trash and recycling receptacles were collected overnight, and volunteers sorted the contents of each bag into 10 component categories the next morning. Component categories were weighed and recorded for each building strata and waste type combination (e.g., Ballantine Hall classroom trash receptacles). Results Data from all the academic building audits can be found in Appendix 2 of this report. Though the initial (November 2011) audits contained no information about the efficacy of the new recycling bins, the data reveal several insights regarding the academic building waste stream and potential causes of contamination (discussed in the Recommendations section). In general, recycling bin contamination was low. However, the visual estimation technique revealed that paper recycling containers in Ballantine Hall classrooms were significantly more contaminated with trash than recycling containers anywhere else (Figure 1). On average, trash receptacles in Ballantine Hall contained less recyclable material than those in Woodburn Hall (Figure 2). The majority of these receptacles were paired with recycling containers in Ballantine Hall, whereas the majority of trash receptacles in Woodburn Hall were not paired or even near recycling containers. Food waste and disposable cups both constituted significant portions of the waste stream in both buildings (Figure 2), while glass was a minor component. There appears to be an inverse relationship between proximity to receptacles of other types and contamination rate (Figure 3). The second and final round of audits completed the difference-in-differences study. Trash receptacles in Ballantine Hall classrooms and hallways contained 5 less paper material, while those in Woodburn Hall classrooms contained 15 more (Figures 4 and 5). Those same receptacles, however, contained more aluminum and plastic material (Figures 4 and 5). Paper recycling containers in Ballantine Hall classrooms were less contaminated with trash than the previous recycling containers, but were more contaminated with aluminum and plastic (Figure 6). It should be noted that the aluminum and plastic material data from all categories appear to be extremely variable, suggesting problems in measurement or recording. It is possible that some plastic bottles were not entirely drained of liquid before sorting, leading to exaggerated weight measurements. The desk-side recycling containers in Ballantine Hall offices contained 7% trash, 9 paper material, and 3% aluminum and 5

6 plastic (Figure 7). This contrasts heavily with the pre-desk-side container data, which shows that the vast majority office trash receptacle contents were recyclable (Figure 7). Of 16 offices sampled, only one was incorrectly using the blue recycling container as a trash receptacle. Hallway recycling container contamination was very low, but slightly higher in aluminum/plastic containers (Figure 8). Recommendations 1. All waste receptacles should be located next to ( paired with ) containers of other types. The most effective system would utilize a disposal station concept, with each station containing landfill, paper recycling, and aluminum/plastic recycling containers. 2. Disposal stations should be visually and spatially consistent, universal, and clearly labeled. Labeling matters (see the next section of this report for more information). Not knowing the location of recycling containers is a major barrier to recycling. Disposal stations should be located in a logical manner and consistent pattern throughout every building. Ideally, at least one disposal station should be visible from every point of a hightraffic public area. The current layout of public area containers in Ballantine Hall can provide an example of this. 3. Faculty should be encouraged to take active roles in educating students about recycling. Not enough recycling containers are available to place complete disposal stations in every classroom. However, if disposal stations are logically and consistently placed in all major hallways, faculty could make students aware of the proximity of those containers. Faculty members are already key players in setting standards of conduct; they should be encouraged to include waste and litter management in those standards. 4. Continue to promote proper use of desk-side recycling containers. The desk-side program works, and is supported by the majority of office tenants. However, the program has been plagued by a lack of communication since its inception. Additional information resources are needed to increase participation and build the success of the program. 5. Continue to build the No Waste web presence. The website is an efficient tool for disseminating information. However, certain components need to be updated. 6. Implement a disposable cup reduction program or policy. Disposable cups constitute a major portion of the academic building and outdoor litter waste streams. The existing reusable mug and discounted refill programs should be expanded. 7. Accept glass in recycling containers. The amount of glass thrown away in academic buildings is negligible. Concerns regarding the contamination of recycled paper material are real, but the amount of glass is small enough to not cause issues. Signage indicating that glass is not accepted in recycling containers should be updated. 8. Expand food waste composting. Expand the university s capacity for composting and distributing finished material, and consider installing post-consumer food waste collection in appropriate areas around campus. 9. Continue to measure progress and identify areas for improvement with regular waste audits. The standard operating procedure included in Appendix 3 of this report provides a detailed plan for conducting future audits. 10. Test the effectiveness of labeling trash receptacles as landfill. Studies from similar institutions suggest that such labels help students connect action with consequence. 6

7 New Recycling Container User Survey Purpose To assess user perceptions of new recycling containers. Data collected from academic building audits suggest that while the paper recycling containers decrease contamination and increase the amount of paper material recycled, the new aluminum/plastic ( circle-top ) recycling containers have had little effect on reducing aluminum/plastic contamination in trash cans and contain more trash than paper containers. Design Images of the three common types of waste receptacles (trash/landfill, paper recycling slot-top, aluminum/plastic round-top ) were shown in varying order to 25 SPEA graduate students selected at random. Immediately after being shown an image, the participant was asked to describe the materials which the receptacle was intended to collect. Responses were recorded as either having responded correctly, incorrectly, or correctly but the participant hesitated and needed time to think. Results Data from the survey can be found in Appendix 2 of this report. The results of the survey are shown in Figure 9. When shown the image of a standard metal trash can, 10 of survey participants were able to immediately respond correctly. Likewise, 92% of participants responded correctly and without hesitation to the image of the paper recycling container. However, only 32% of participants could immediately indicate the use of the round-top bottle/can recycling container. Almost all participants, however, eventually indicated the correct materials. Only one participant mentioned glass as a recyclable. Recommendations 11. Label recycling containers clearly and consistently. Students are not able to quickly identify the purpose of the round-top aluminum/plastic/glass recycling container. As waste disposal most frequently occurs as a side thought while focused on other actions, the act of recycling must be instinctual; being confused or unsure of how, what, and where to recycle is a major barrier to effective recycling programs. The confusion over the roundtop containers is likely the cause of substantial contamination in those and other containers. 7

8 Hoosier Café Waste Audit Purpose To characterize the Hoosier Café waste stream and identify techniques for increasing recycling and decreasing contamination in dining facility waste receptacles. Design All waste receptacles in the facility were blocked or removed, forcing customers to dispose of waste at a centrally located sorting station, staffed by volunteers. Volunteers asked customers to sort waste into six categories: Landfill material, plastic/glass/metals, mixed paper, corrugated cardboard, food waste and other compostable material. Volunteers educated customers about recycling while they were sorting. Waste from approximately 70 customers was collected over two hours. Results Data from the Hoosier Café Waste Audit can be found in Appendix 2 of this report. The component breakdown of collected waste is shown in Figure 10. Although the plastic/glass/metals category weighed roughly half of what the landfill category weighed, the plastic/glass/metals materials were more than double the volume of the landfill material (implications for needing multiple receptacles). 25 disposable cups were collected. The corrugated cardboard material was nearly all pizza take-out boxes. Students were generally confused about why disposable, plastic utensils were not recyclable, but disposable plates and bottles were recyclable. Despite relabeling the facility s existing waste bins, several customers still threw everything in the bin nearest to them (which happened to be a paper recycling container). 18% of the total waste stream was food waste and compostable post-consumer material. Future directions This audit was co-organized by Madeline Goodman, an undergraduate intern working with Steve Akers. The overall project was her purview, so no further analysis was conducted. However, the results show ample room for improvement in properly labeling recycling containers and demonstrate the need for recycling containers with special lids, openings, or tops. As Figure 10 shows, approximately half of the waste stream is composed of non-recyclable materials, suggesting that with a food waste collection program, the facility would easily achieve greater than a 4 diversion of waste. If this dining facility were to replace non-recyclable plastic items with recyclable versions, and replace disposable cups with reusable or recyclable versions, the landfill portion of the waste stream would be significantly reduced. If they were to also, in addition to the changes just mentioned, collect postconsumer food waste and other compostable materials, the Hoosier Café would effectively be a zero waste facility, without the need for permanent china and a washing system. 8

9 Preliminary Outdoor Litter Audit Purpose To identify major litter hotspots, the composition of litter from those areas, and potential methods for prevention. This audit was intended to be a preliminary overview for the purposes of informing the Liter-Free IU Task Force, led by the Office of Sustainability. Design Litter from the Dunn Meadow/Sample Gates/IMU area, McNutt/Briscoe parking lots, and parking lots west of Indiana Avenue were bagged and labeled by Campus Division staff, led by Campus Manager Mike Girvin. This area was chosen because of its reputation for litter problems associated with weekend downtown activities. Volunteers counted more than 1,000 pieces of litter and sorted it into 27 distinct categories and 85 subcategories. Results Data from the preliminary outdoor litter audit can be found in Appendix 2 of this report. The data are shown graphically in Figures In general, the data seem to suggest that the complexity of litter, or richness, meaning the number of distinct types of item, increases as site distance from the center of campus increases (see figures 11-14, noting how of the 27 categories recorded, some sites contained only 12 or 13 categories, while others contained nearly all of them). Also, litter in parking lots is significantly more diverse than litter in campus green spaces and walkways. 62% of collected items were related to food (disposable cups or straws, expanded polystyrene, food packaging, bottles or cans, some plastic bags). The non-food related litter was mostly composed of various kinds of paper as well as cigarettes. Approximately 9 of items were recyclable (Figure 15). Litter collected from the areas around the IMU was more frequently paper items, whereas litter collected from parking lots on the edges of campus was more frequently plastic/metal/glass items (Figure 16). This may be due to increased newspapers and flyers on campus and increased foodrelated containers from vehicles in parking lots. Future directions This study was preliminary in that it was intended only to provide a quick view into the complexity of the outdoor litter issue. I will be continuing this line of research into the summer of 2012 as part of an internship designing and implementing a campus anti-littering campaign. 9

10 Preliminary Classroom Litter Audit Purpose To characterize the composition of classroom litter and demonstrate the need for an intervention. This study was initialized based on the belief that outdoor litter could only be reduced if indoor litter was also reduced. Anecdotal evidence suggests that classrooms with stadium-style seating have more issues with litter than standard, desk-seating classrooms. This is likely due partly to a stadium mentality (littering is acceptable in sports arenas and movie theaters) and partly to diminished accountability (professors and peers cannot easily see items left on the ground and/or under chairs). Design Six large classrooms with stadium-style seating were selected for analysis. Classrooms were selected based on historical litter problems. Of these six classrooms, two were in Ballantine Hall, two were in Woodburn Hall, and two were in the Kelley Business School. Litter was quantified by walking the aisles of each classroom in the late afternoon to early evening and counting pieces. Pieces were recorded as recyclable paper, recyclable aluminum, plastic, or glass, non-recyclable food wrappers or cups, or other landfill material. Results Data from the preliminary classroom litter audit can be found in Appendix 2 of this report. Averages from several litter counts in each classroom are shown graphically in Figure 16. Room 013 in Ballantine Hall was the most frequently littered classroom. In nearly every room sampled, the majority of litter was recyclable. Considering that most of the items in the non-recyclable food wrapper or cup category were small wrappers, by weight, recyclables also comprise the vast majority of the litter stream. Future directions This study was preliminary in that it was intended only to quickly assess the extent of classroom littering. I will be continuing this line of research into the summer of 2012 as part of an internship designing and implementing a campus anti-littering campaign. However, this study confirms what was already suspected: Littering is a serious issue in classrooms. 10

11 Appendix 1: Graphics Figure 1: Comparison of recycling bin contamination using visual estimation technique (initial audits). 10 1% 7% 3% % 97% 79% 92% 4 2 1% 2% Ballantine Hallway Aluminum/Plastic Ballantine Hallway Paper 14% Ballantine Classroom Paper 5% Woodburn Hallway Paper Landfill Paper Bottle/Can Figure 2: Components of trash receptacle contents in Ballantine Hall (left) and Woodburn Hall (right) (initial audits). These graphs represent a weighted average of classroom, hallway, and office data. Paper 7% Landfill 24% Paper 31% Landfill 28% Newspaper 1 Cardboard 2% Metals 12% Food Waste 13% Cups 8% Other Paper 1 Plastics 7% Glass Newspaper 3% Cardboard 4% Metals Food Waste 9% Cups 13% Other Paper 3% Glass Plastics 16% 11

12 Figure 3: Average contamination rate (proportion of receptacle contents that was improperly placed material, e.g. trash in a paper recycling container) vs. proportion of receptacles in a category that were paired with receptacles of other types (data from all four audits). 8 7 Contamination Rate p < Adj. R 2 = Percent Paired Figure 4: Pre- and post-intervention comparison of classroom trash receptacle contents. Ballantine Pre 72% 14% 14% Ballantine Post 72% 7% 21% Woodburn Pre 65% 15% 2 Woodburn Post 49% 3 21% Landfill Paper Bottle/Can 12

13 Figure 5: Pre- and post-intervention comparison of hallway trash receptacle contents. Ballantine Pre 69% 24% 7% Ballantine Post 76% 12% 12% Woodburn Pre 6 14% 26% Woodburn Post 64% 22% 14% Landfill Paper Bottle/Can Figure 6: Pre- and post-intervention comparison of paper recycling container contents in Ballantine Hall classrooms. Ballantine Pre 4% 94% 2% Ballantine Post 2% 89% 9% Landfill Paper Bottle/Can 13

14 Figure 7: Pre- and post-intervention comparison of office trash receptacles and desk-side recycling containers. Ballantine Pre 33% 63% 4% Ballantine Post (Desk-Side Recycling Bin) 7% 9 3% Woodburn Pre 31% 34% 34% Woodburn Post 45% 47% 9% Landfill Paper Bottle/Can Figure 8: Ballantine hallway recycling containers (pre-intervention data was not collected, and Woodburn Hall data is not comparable). Hallway Paper Post 10 Hallway B/C Post 4% 96% Landfill Paper Bottle/Can 14

15 Figure 9: Results of recycling container visual survey % 68% 2 32% 4% 4% Correct, no hesitation Correct, hesitation Incorrect Trash Slot-top Round-top Figure 10: Results of the Hoosier Café waste audit. Mixed Paper 6% Corrugated Cardboard 3% Plastic/Glass/ Metals 26% Landfill 47% Food waste/ Compostables 18% 15

16 Figure 11: Outdoor litter, Sample Gates to Woodburn Hall area (13 of 27 categories represented) Misc. Other Whole Fast Food Bag Electronic Glass 2% Clothing 2% Non-Fast Food Plastic Packaging Fast Food Plastic Packaging Disposable Cup Straw Disposable Cup Top Aluminum Can 2% Newspaper Flyer/Poster 3% Pen/Pencil 3% Misc. Metal Misc. Plastic 7% Styrofoam Paper Cup 5% Mylar/Snack/Chip Packaging 18% Tissue/Napkin 1 Cigarette Box Cardboard 3% Non-Fast Food Paper 3% Packaging Plastic Cup Plastic Bag 12% Fast Food Paper Packaging Misc. Paper 3 Plastic Bottle Figure 12: Outdoor litter, Indiana Memorial Union parking lot (12 of 27 categories represented) Whole Fast Food Bag Electronic Pen/Pencil Misc. Metal Glass Misc. Other Paper Cup Flyer/Poster 7% Clothing 5% Newspaper Cardboard 4% Cigarette Box Tissue/Napkin 11% Fast Food Paper Packaging Non-Fast Food Paper Packaging Aluminum Can 14% Misc. Paper 3 Misc. Plastic Fast Food 4% Plastic Non-Fast Food Plastic Packaging Packaging Disposable Cup Straw Disposable Cup Top Styrofoam 2% Mylar/Snack/Chip Packaging 9% Plastic Cup 11% Plastic Bottle 4% Plastic Bag 2% 16

17 Figure 13: Outdoor litter, Indiana Avenue parking lots (22 of 27 categories represented) Misc. Other 1% Whole Fast Food Bag Clothing 1% Electronic Pen/Pencil Flyer/Poster 1% Misc. Metal Glass 2% Aluminum Can 5% Paper Cup 12% Newspaper 1% Tissue/Napkin 7% Cigarette Box 4% Cardboard 2% Fast Food Paper Packaging 2% Misc. Paper 15% Non-Fast Food Paper Packaging Non-Fast Food Plastic Packaging 3% Fast Food Plastic Packaging Misc. Plastic 14% Disposable Cup Straw 5% Disposable Cup Top 4% Plastic Bottle 4% Plastic Bag 3% Plastic Cup 3% Mylar/Snack/Chip Packaging Styrofoam 7% 4% Figure 14: Outdoor litter, McNutt/Briscoe parking lot area (26 of 27 categories represented) Misc. Other 1% Fast Food Paper Packaging 3% Cardboard 2% Cigarette Box 3% Tissue/Napkin 2% Whole Fast Food Bag 1% Electronic 1% Newspaper 5% Paper Cup 4% Flyer/Poster 3% Non-Fast Food Paper Packaging 2% Misc. Paper 15% Plastic Bottle 7% Mylar/Snack/Chip Packaging 7% Disposable Cup Top 9% Plastic Bag 2% Plastic Cup 4% Styrofoam 2% Pen/Pencil 1% Misc. Metal Clothing 1% Glass 1% Aluminum Can 4% Misc. Plastic 8% Non-Fast Food Plastic Packaging 5% Disposable Cup Straw 8% Fast Food Plastic Packaging 2% 17

18 Figure 15: Proportion of recyclable material in outdoor litter (by number of pieces counted) Paper 35% Non- Recyclable 1 Plastic/Metal /Glass 55% Figure 16: Outdoor litter by location and type of recyclable material Paper/Cardboard Plastic/Metal/Glass IMU IMU P-Lot Indiana P-lots McNutt P-lots 18

19 Figure 16: Classroom litter composition (by number of pieces, averaged over several observations in each room) BH BH WH WH BU Plastic, Aluminum, Glass Non-Recyclable Wrapper or Cup Paper, Newspaper, Cardboard Other 19

20 Appendix 2: Data Academic Building Waste Audits: March 2012 (post) and November 2011 (pre) March Ballantine Office Desk-Side March Ballantine Classroom Trash March Ballantine Classroom Paper March Ballantine Hallway Bottle/Can March Ballantine Hallway Trash March Ballantine Hallway Paper March Woodburn Classroom Trash March Woodburn Hallway Trash March Woodburn Office Trash March Woodburn Hallway Paper all values in lbs. Paper n/a Newspaper n/a Cardboard n/a Metals n/a Plastics n/a Glass n/a Other Paper n/a Cups n/a Food Waste n/a Landfill n/a Nov Ballantine Office Trash Nov Ballantine Classroom Trash Nov Ballantine Classroom Paper Nov Ballantine Hallway Bottle/Can Nov Ballantine Hallway Trash Nov Ballantine Hallway Paper Nov Woodburn Classroom Trash Nov Woodburn Hallway Trash Nov Woodburn Office Trash Nov Woodburn Hallway Paper all values in lbs. Paper n/a 2.00 n/a Newspaper n/a 0.20 n/a Cardboard n/a 1.00 n/a Metals n/a 0.10 n/a Plastics n/a 0.80 n/a Glass n/a 0.00 n/a Other Paper n/a 0.30 n/a Cups n/a 0.30 n/a Food Waste n/a 1.50 n/a Landfill n/a 7.00 n/a

21 New Recycling Container User Survey: Conducted during the week of April 2-6, 2012 Trash Slot-top Round-top Obs # Order Correct, no hesitation Correct, hesitation Incorrect Correct, no hesitation Correct, hesitation Incorrect Correct, no hesitation Correct, hesitation Incorrect 1 A B C D E F A B C D E F A B C D E F A B C D E F A total Order Key A B C D E F 1st photo Trash Slot-top Round-top Trash Slot-top Round-top 2nd photo Slot-top Round-top Trash Round-top Trash Slot-top 3rd photo Round-top Trash Slot-top Slot-top Round-top Trash 21

22 Hoosier Café Waste Audit: Conducted Wednesday, February 1, 2012 from 6:00PM - 8:00PM (approximately 70 student customers) Sorting Category Weight (lbs.) Weight (% of total) Landfill % Food waste/compostables % Plastic/Glass/Metals % Mixed Paper 1 5.9% Corrugated Cardboard % Total Total Landfill % (landfill + food waste) Total Recyclable % (p/g/m + paper + cardboard) Preliminary Outdoor Litter Audit: Conducted February 13-14, 2012 General Type Category Brand/Type IMU P- Lots Woodburn to Law Indiana Ave P-Lots Indiana Ave P-Lots Indiana Ave P-Lots Paper Flyer/Poster Paper Paper Cup McDonald's Paper Jimmy John's Paper Qdoba Paper Fazoli's 1 1 Paper Penn Station 4 4 Paper Potbelly 1 1 Paper Starbuck's Paper Coca-Cola/RPS Paper Noodles Co. 1 1 Paper Taco Bell Paper Einstein Bros. 1 1 Paper Subway 1 1 Paper Rally's 1 1 Paper KFC 2 2 Bag 1 - McNutt Bag 2 - McNutt Totals 22

23 General IMU P- Woodburn Indiana Indiana Indiana Bag 1 - Bag 2 - Category Brand/Type Type Lots to Law Ave P-Lots Ave P-Lots Ave P-Lots McNutt McNutt Totals Paper Panda Express 1 1 Paper Checker's 1 1 Paper Seattle's Best 1 1 Paper Generic 1 1 Paper Newspaper Paper Tissue/Napkin Paper Cigarette Box Paper Cardboard Beer Box Paper Starbuck's Cup Sleeve Paper Seattle's Best Cup Sleeve 1 1 Paper Other Paper Fast Food Packaging McDonald's Paper Taco Bell Paper Burger King 1 1 Paper Hardee's 1 1 Paper Wendy's 1 1 Paper Steak N' Shake 1 1 Paper Jimmy John's 1 1 Paper Other Paper Non-Fast Food Packaging Paper Misc. Paper Qdoba Menu Paper McDonald's Menu 1 1 Paper Receipt Paper Library Notice 5 5 Paper Parking Ticket Paper Lottery Ticket 3 3 Paper Other Plastic Plastic Bottle Water Plastic Alcohol 1 1 Plastic Other Plastic Plastic Bag Plastic Plastic Cup McDonald's Plastic Arby's 1 1 Plastic Starbuck's Plastic Taco Bell Plastic Wendy's 1 1 Plastic Subway 1 1 Plastic McCallister's 1 1 Plastic Pizza X 1 1 Plastic Speedway

24 General IMU P- Woodburn Indiana Indiana Indiana Bag 1 - Bag 2 - Category Brand/Type Type Lots to Law Ave P-Lots Ave P-Lots Ave P-Lots McNutt McNutt Totals Plastic Chipotle 1 1 Plastic Panera 2 2 Plastic Solo Plastic Generic Plastic Mylar/Snack/Chip Packaging Plastic Styrofoam Polar Pop Plastic Steak N' Shake Plastic McDonald's Plastic Big Gulp 1 1 Plastic Dunkin' Donuts 1 1 Plastic Generic Plastic Disposable Cup Top Plastic Disposable Cup Straw Plastic Fast Food Packaging 9 9 Plastic Non-Fast Food Packaging Plastic Misc. Plastic Metal/Glass Aluminum Can Alcohol Metal/Glass Non-Alcohol Metal/Glass Glass Alcohol Metal/Glass Non-Alcohol 2 2 Metal/Glass Misc. Metal (road debris) Other Clothing Other Pen/Pencil Other Electronic 4 4 Other Complete Fast Food Bag McDonald's 2 2 Other Arby's 0 Other Wendy's 1 1 Other Five Guys 1 1 Other Misc Total Pieces

25 Preliminary Classroom Litter Audit: Conducted February 13-14, 2012 Room BU 219 BU 223 BU 223 WH 101 WH 101 WH 101 WH 100 WH 100 Date of observation 3/5/2012 3/5/2012 3/7/2012 3/5/2012 3/6/2012 3/12/2012 3/5/2012 3/6/2012 Time of observation 5:35PM 8:10PM 5:20PM 8:20PM 5:15PM 8:40PM 6:40PM 5:15PM Plastic, Aluminum, Glass Paper, Newspaper, Cardboard Non-Recyclable Wrapper or Cup Other Total pieces Continued Room BH 013 BH 013 BH 013 BH 013 BH 109 BH 109 BH 109 Date of observation 3/5/2012 3/6/2012 3/7/2012 3/12/2012 3/5/2012 3/7/2012 3/12/2012 Time of observation 6:30PM 5:30PM 6:45PM 8:55PM 8:30PM 6:55PM 8:45PM Plastic, Aluminum, Glass Paper, Newspaper, Cardboard Non-Recyclable Wrapper or Cup Other Total pieces Appendix 3: Conducting a Waste Audit: A Standard Operating Procedure The Standard Operating Procedure begins on the next page 25

26 26

27 Table of Contents Purpose and Applicability Waste Audits: Use and Design Types of Waste Audits Definitions The Large Building Waste Audit Procedure Summary Safety Requirements Equipment and Supplies Audit Preparation Audit Procedure Design Note Alternative Waste Audit Designs Dining Facilities Litter References and Helpful Publications Appendix A: Audit Preparation Checklist Appendix B: Materials Checklist Appendix C: Sample Data Recording Sheet (category-averaging) Appendix D: Sample Data Recording Sheet (with visual estimation)

28 Purpose and Applicability The purpose of this Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) is to provide a standardized method for analyzing solid waste streams at Indiana University. This SOP is specifically focused on auditing large buildings. Because it is usually impractical or impossible to audit the entire waste stream of a large building, this method allows a researcher to audit only a sample of bags while maintaining a basic level of statistical confidence. Waste Audits: Use and Design For a large organization, sustainability is not just a state of being or a place at which one can arrive; rather, it is a continual process of measurement and movement towards goals. Waste audits are an effective technique for measuring such progress. Most frequently, waste audits are used to characterize a particular waste stream in an effort to measure the performance of a waste management system. Some of the many other reasons for conducting a waste audit include determining how much of a particular material is being thrown away (e.g. recyclables or compostables), comparing the composition of a waste stream before and after the implementation or alteration of a diversion program, examining a recycling program s degree of contamination, and comparing single stream and multiple stream recycling systems. Among the many organizations that have used waste auditing for such purposes and have published the results, most conduct a single audit to see how they are doing in terms of capturing recyclables. Some organizations conduct an initial audit before implementing or updating a diversion program, and then re-audit and attribute the change to the new program. While it is probable that the new or updated program has contributed to the change (e.g., an observed increase in recycling), these studies are unable to account for daily or seasonal fluctuations in waste quantity and composition. This presents a problem as it prevents the researcher from making definitive claims about the effectiveness of the program. A control, such as another building similar in size and function, can solve this problem by accounting for error caused by daily or seasonal changes in the waste stream. The researcher is then able to conduct a difference-in-differences analysis. Of course, conducting a second audit it often unfeasible given time and effort constraints; however, the method described here requires less waste to be audited, thus allowing for a control. Types of Waste Audits Waste audits can take many forms depending on the goal of the study and the type of waste stream being examined. Here, the three most common approaches, adapted from The Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment Waste Audit User Manual (1996), are described briefly: 28

29 1. Back End Approach sorting waste from a facility s central waste disposal receptacle 2. Activities Approach sorting different sections of a facility separately 3. Input/Output Approach requires tracking material inputs and outputs and following how they move through a facility; most commonly used in hazardous waste management This SOP describes an activities approach to achieve a greater level of detail than would be gained from a back end approach. This design allows waste reduction plans to be more accurately tailored to particular sections in a building or area (CCME 1996). Waste auditing doesn t always involve sorting through waste receptacles. This SOP also describes alternative auditing methods for dining facilities and litter. Definitions Building Services a division of Indiana University overseeing custodial services, recycling, moving and set-ups, and other building services Contamination the degree to which a waste stream or receptacle contains materials that should not have been placed in that stream or receptacle Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) clothing or equipment designed to reduce or eliminate a worker s risk of injury Random sample a statistical technique where every member of a population has an equal chance of being selected Residential Programs and Services (RPS) a division of Indiana University administration overseeing residence halls and certain dining facilities Sampling category a sampling category is a combination of a waste receptacle s generic location (e.g., hallways, classrooms, etc.) and its type (e.g., landfill, paper recycling, etc.) Stratified sample a statistical technique which involves dividing a population into strata then sampling randomly from each stratum (e.g. by building floor) Visual estimation visually sorting the contents of a waste receptacle into categories and reporting those categories relative quantities by means of percentages Waste diversion also called waste minimization; the process of diverting waste from a landfill Waste stream the aggregate flow of all wastes through a system, such as a building or a university Waste type the kind of waste a receptacle is designed to capture (e.g., landfill, plastic, etc.) The Large Building Waste Audit Procedure Summary Pre-Audit Clearly define the goals of the audit. Using information from building walk-throughs and from the visual inspection of waste receptacles, develop building-specific sampling techniques. Define sorting 29

30 categories based on goals and sampling techniques. Create data recording sheets. Gather safety materials and auditing equipment. Select an audit date, time, and location and recruit volunteers. Audit Prepare the sorting area. Using the sample collection method, collect and label sample waste bags from all sampling categories. Explain method to volunteers and assign roles. Beginning with one particular sampling category, record each bag s label prior to sorting. Open the bag, spread its contents on the ground, and sort the bag s contents into the appropriate receptacles. Repeat the weighing and sorting procedures for all bags in a sampling category. Weigh and record all individual sorting receptacles. Repeat this procedure for all sampling categories. Properly dispose of sorted materials and clean area. Safety Requirements Because a waste audit requires contact with non-hazardous waste and potentially involves contact with sharp objects, it is necessary to comply with personal protective equipment (PPE) regulations from Indiana University s Office of Environmental, Health, and Safety Management. A PPE Hazard Assessment from that office has mandated the following minimum PPE requirements: Multi-task neoprene-coated standard work gloves N-95 nuisance dust masks Safety glasses with side shields Sturdy, closed-toed shoes Full length pants and a shirt with long sleeves Bag-cutting tools for remotely opening bags If materials are found that are suspected to be hazardous, cease the task immediately and contact the Office of Environmental, Health, and Safety Management ( ). Equipment and Supplies Appendix B contains a list of equipment, supplies, and PPE necessary for conducting an audit. Audit Preparation The following steps will help the researcher design and prepare for a large building audit. These steps are outlined in a checklist format in Appendix A. 1. Define goals Clearly defined goals are essential to developing appropriate sampling techniques. Consider including a control if a goal is to compare a building s waste stream before and after implementing or updating a waste diversion program (see Waste Audits: Use and Design). 30

31 2. Analyze the building to be audited Spend time walking through the entire building, noting the location of all types of waste receptacles. Take note of parts of the building where the waste stream might be different (i.e. cafés or student/employee lounges vs. classroom or office space) and which parts of the building may be similar (i.e. two building levels have similar floor plans and usage). Visually inspect a few receptacles to identify special categories that may be need to be included in the audit (i.e. paper cups or food waste in a café area, cardboard or junk mail in a mail receiving area, newspapers near newsstands, etc.). Record your findings and take pictures if necessary. Conduct these initial observations after hours, on weekends, or with a Building Services staff member in order to access parts of the building which may be in use or off limits during peak hours. 3. Consult building maintenance staff Organize a meeting or conduct interviews with building maintenance staff for information regarding the existing waste management system (Kenlon et al. 2010). Helpful questions to ask include: How and when is waste collected? Which parts of the current waste management system present the most difficulties? How could a new system make their job easier? Is litter or waste left around rooms a problem? If so, do they have suggestions for reducing or eliminating it? In what sections of the building is the waste stream different from others? What is the easiest way to collect bags for the audit? 4. Identify sampling categories* This method suggests the activities approach (see Types of Waste Audits) in order to obtain more detailed data from an audit. This requires the researcher to identify different types and locations of waste and audit them separately. Types: While most audits look only at trash, it may be useful to also audit recycling containers. This will show the contamination rate of those containers (important because some recycling haulers only accept bags containing less than a certain amount of contamination) and could be used to compare the contamination of solitary containers to those paired with other waste types. Locations: In addition to auditing different types of waste, further separating them by location will yield more detailed results. Separate receptacles by where they are or how they are used. For example, receptacles in a heavily-used public space such as a hallway on a main floor of a building are likely to be different from those in a single-occupant office on the topmost floor. Examples of location categories include hallways, classrooms, offices, outdoors, high/low traffic areas, student/staff use areas, dining facilities, break rooms, mailrooms, and bathrooms. Identify sampling categories by combining the waste types and locations to be audited. For example, a 2011 study of Indiana University academic buildings interested in discovering the 31

32 composition of trash and degree of contamination in paper recycling containers had six categories: hallway trash, hallway paper recycling, hallway bottle/can recycling, classroom trash, classroom paper recycling, and office trash (Milby 2012). *If the study contains a control building, a high level of detail may not be necessary for the control. The purpose of the control is only to show that changes in the test building were not caused by daily or seasonal variations. 5. Select sample sizes Sample size is a compromise between statistics and a realistic workload. Although sampling error could be reduced to zero by auditing every waste receptacle in a building, this is usually impossible for large buildings. In such cases, a 10 25% sample size is recommended (CCME 1996). Find this number by estimating the total number of receptacles in a sampling category and multiplying that number by the desired proportion (e.g., 25 hallway trash receptacles x 25% = approx. 7 samples needed). 6. Prepare a collection procedure See sections 3.1 and 3.2 of the next section, Audit Procedure. 7. Define sorting categories Refer to the study s goals to help define sorting categories. In general, the more specific the sorting categories, the more the study will reveal about the building s waste. Categories should be created with the intent to provide information that will highlight opportunities for waste diversion (CCME 1996). Successful audits typically have between 5-15 categories such as newspaper, office paper, paper cups, paper towels, aluminum cans, plastics 1-7, glass bottles, compostable or organic materials, certain branded materials, electronics, batteries, and food containers. A 2012 litter study at Indiana University separated items into individual brands, and thus had 85 categories (Milby 2012). Note that volunteers will need each category explained in full and described on signs above each sorting container during the audit. 8. Create data recording sheets Data recording sheets should be intuitive and easy to use. See Appendix C and D for examples. During the audit, provide clipboards and designate volunteers as recorders. This also offers volunteers a break from sorting (or an alternative to sorting). 9. Gather materials Gather the materials described above in the Safety Requirements and Equipment and Supplies sections and ready them for use. Prepare a plan for transporting materials to and from the auditing site. This may involve securing on-campus parking and a vehicle. Use Appendix B: Materials Checklist to inventory the materials before and after the audit. 10. Select an audit location The proper location balances space and safety needs with publicizing the audit. The audit should be held close to a building entrance on a flat, impervious surface out of the way of 32

33 vehicle and pedestrian traffic, ideally under cover in case of rain. The location absolutely must minimize wind. Be careful to not let liquid from waste bags drain into vegetation or storm drains. If possible, consider holding the audit near a high-traffic walkway or public space. Use signs to explain to passersby what is happening. If the audit location is not highly visible, post signs in nearby buildings instructing inhabitants where to go to observe or volunteer. 11. Select an audit date and time Because an accurate sample includes waste from one full business cycle, synchronizing an audit with normal custodial operations is crucial (CCME 1996). The audit date will be a compromise between custodial operations and volunteer availability. If a compromise between these two times is not available, collect and store samples before the audit, and then transport them to the auditing location just before volunteers arrive (for the sample collection procedure, see section 3 of Audit Procedure). Be conscious, however, of sanitation needs to prevent spoiling or attracting animals, do not store waste bags outside or for more than one day. Audit Procedure 1. Prepare the sorting area Secure the tarp or plastic sheeting over the entire workspace. Leaving plenty of space in the center of the workspace for sorting, arrange the sorting containers and their respective signs around the sorting area. 2. Explain the procedure to volunteers Explaining the procedure to volunteers before beginning will ensure efficiency and accuracy. How tasks are delegated depends on the number of volunteers. If few are present, proceed through one sampling category at a time; if many are present, they can be split into groups in charge of certain sampling categories. Designate data recorders and group leaders, and ensure that more experienced volunteers are spaced evenly among new volunteers. Ask for questions. 3. Collect sample bags A general sample collection procedure: 1) Using a building floor plan, create a numbered list of every room or area for a particular sampling category (e.g. every classroom, or every office) 2) Using a random number generator, choose rooms or areas on the list to sample from. Select a few more than needed in case of locked doors or empty receptacles. 3) With a rolling cart and the help of building staff, collect bags of each type from the selected rooms or areas. Bags may have to be double-bagged to prevent leaking. 4) Using tags or permanent markers label each sample bag s source and associated sampling category. You may also want to record what other types of waste receptacles it was paired with. 5) Keep bags organized by sampling category at the auditing site. 33