waste audit cohen loading dock

7 March 2013 Prepared for University of Pennsylvania, School of Arts and Sciences

Waste Audit Cohen Loading Dock

1

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 1Ϋ 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:

339.5 pounds of trash (in white bags, 51% of waste by weight) and 330.3 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.

2

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 2012. 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 11 8 15

# of different types of recycling containers 8 11 15

*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.

3

Observation: Several signs provided

conflicting messages. For example,

in certain cases, both the recycling

signage and trash signage stated

that plastic bags should be placed in

the respective container.

Anecdote: A housekeeper was concerned that the

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).

Anecdote: An office

occupant was concerned

that office trash was not

always collected on a

daily basis and that this

may lead to pest issues.

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

as hallways, break rooms, study rooms and classrooms,

but not in individual offices. Certain signs were

attached to trash/recycling receptacles. Other signs

were placed on the wall near to the respective

container. However, when signs were affixed to the

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

sign). Several signs were not visible to users, for example they

were on a wall far away from the container, or hidden behind a

door or behind other signage. 100% of signs for trash in common

areas were either in the incorrect location or were missing in

Williams Hall and 55% of signs for trash in common areas were

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.

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.

4

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.

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.

5

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.

Anecdote: A building occupant was

concerned that some of the

recycling containers in common

areas are too small, causing building

users to misplace recyclables.

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.

6

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.

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.

7

Observation: In July‐November FY13,

campus wide, 73% of the waste stream

campus wide was trash and 27% of the

waste stream was recycling

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 2013. 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) 339.5 119.8 330.3

Volume (gallons) 1,230 200 910

51% 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.

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.

8

Table 2.2. Composition of materials in sampled white bags (trash)

Waste Classification Recyclable? Weight

(pounds) Volume (gallons)

Trash X 4.2 2

Compostable material X 17.7 12.8

Office paper √ 4.6 18

Newspaper √ 1.3 4

Cardboard √ 0.2 2

Waxed, non-recyclable cardboard X 0.2 0.8

Recyclable mixed paper (magazines, glossy, paperboard)

√ 3.1 16

Paper towels X 6.8 47.2

Steel/Bi-Metal & Aluminum √ 0.2 10

Glass √ 3.7 1

Recyclable plastics √ 6.1 21

Non-recyclable plastics X 2.8 11.2

Other X 0.1 8

Contaminated paper √ 15.8 64

Contaminated plastic √ 7.7 41.6

Contaminated metal √ 2.2 14

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.

9

Observation: A number of white

bags were themselves contained in

blue bags and vice versa.

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 3.5 1.6

Office paper √ 5.3 7

Newspaper √ 2 7

Cardboard √ 2.8 20

Waxed, non-recyclable cardboard X 0.2 0.16

Recyclable mixed paper (magazines, glossy, paperboard)

√ 2 10

Paper towels X 9.2 32

Steel/Bi-Metal & Aluminum √ 1.3 5

Glass √ 5.3 2

Recyclable plastics √ 11.2 45

Non-recyclable plastics X 0.3 0.8

Other X 0.3 1

Contaminated paper √ 4.3 32

Contaminated plastic √ 3.2 25.6

Contaminated metal √ 0.2 0.16

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.

10

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.

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.

A comparison of the proportions of each type of material by weight and volume identified in trash and recycling are presented in Appendix E.

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

Appendices

Appendix A

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

Hal

ey&

Ald

rich

,In

c.

WILLIAMS HALL TRASH CONTAINERS

Photograph 1. Trash Container Type 1.


Hal

ey&

Ald

rich

,In

c.




Hal

ey&

Ald

rich

,In

c.

COHEN HALL TRASH CONTAINERS



Hal

ey&

Ald

rich

,In

c.




Hal

ey&

Ald

rich

,In

c.

WILLIAMS HALL RECYCLING CONTAINERS

Photograph 1. Recycling Container Type 1.


Hal

ey&

Ald

rich

,In

c.




Hal

ey&

Ald

rich

,In

c.

COHEN HALL RECYCLING CONTAINERS



Hal

ey&

Ald

rich

,In

c.




Appendix B

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

Hal

ey&

Ald

rich

,In

c.

SIGNAGE

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

Photograph 1. Trash Sign Type 1.

Photograph 2. Trash Sign Type 2.

Hal

ey&

Ald

rich

,In

c.

SIGNAGE


Photograph 3. Recyclables Sign Type 1.


Hal

ey&

Ald

rich

,In

c.

SIGNAGE



Photograph 6. Recyclables Sign Type 4, Partly Covered by Another Sign.

Appendix C

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

Hal

ey&

Ald

rich

,In

c.

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.

Appendix D

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

Hal

ey&

Ald

rich

,In

c.

CONTAMINATION

Photograph 1. Recyclable plastic in a trash container.

Photograph 2. Non-recyclable material in a recycling container.

Hal

ey&

Ald

rich

,In

c.

CONTAMINATION

Photograph 3. Recyclable glass in a trash container.

Appendix E

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

Hal

ey&

Ald

rich

,In

c.

SXODR NE L@SDQH@KR HM SQ@RG @MC QDBXBKHMF

waste audit cohen loading dock

Documents