1

Spencer Chemistry & Biology Building Waste Assessment

Fall 2012

Andrew Barchak

Harris Gbomina

Taylor Barton

Samantha McKee

Tommy Rebecchi

2

Table Of Contents

Heading Page Number

Summary 3

Introduction 3

Methodology 4

Discussion 5

Conclusion 5

Acknowledgements 6

Team Member Performance Log 6

Data: Table 1 – Waste Sort Form #1 7

Data: Table 2 – Waste Sort Form #2 8

Data: Table 3 – Waste Totals 9

Pie Chart: Total Waste Collected 10

Pie Chart: Waste Audit Breakdown 11

Pictures 12

Works Cited 14

3

Summary

A waste assessment is defined as an on-site assessment of the waste stream and recycling

potential of an individual business, industry, institution, or household which involves observing,

measuring, recording data and collecting and analyzing waste samples. Our assignment was to

perform a waste assessment for the Spencer Chemistry & Biology Building located on the

UMKC Volker Campus. Our team felt that the best way to perform this waste assessment was to

start on it as soon as possible to get the initial investigation out of the way and to use what

remaining days we had left to compile and analyze the data we collected. When performing the

actual assessment, we were very organized in how we conducted ourselves, wore personal

protective equipment to protect ourselves from any harmful substances we came across,

managed our time wisely, and chose samples that had a wide variety of waste. Utilizing these

strategies, we were able to conduct a successful and informative waste assessment.

Introduction

‘‘Waste is simply resources out of place” is a common adage amongst environmental

resource managers and those involved in related disciplines. Management of resources both that

are discarded and those that are extracted fresh from natural sources by man impact the

environment and the Earth’s natural reserve of resources available to all living beings

(Kollikkathara et al., 2009).

In today’s economic times, it is critical to conserve resources and save money. Many

companies are also considering the social impacts of the decisions they make on a daily basics.

With all this activity surrounding the environmental, economic and social impacts of doing

4

business, many organizations are pursuing a more sustainable path while growing their products

and services. Examples of direct cost savings include reductions in energy use, landfill tipping

fees, raw material use, reuse and recovered materials, reducing climate change impacts, etc.

(Hasan and Johnson, 2012).

This report is a comprehensive summary of the waste assessment and waste reduction

and recycling survey recently conducted at the Spencer Chemistry and Biology Building on

Volker Campus by Team A. The exercise is to expose students offering “Introduction to Waste

Management” to the various kinds of waste being generated within the University of Missouri-

Kansas City (UMKC); and to determine the level of awareness of students, and faculty staffs on

reuse and recycling of materials.

Methodology

Team A met on October 29th and 31st, 2012 at 1230 at the Spencer Chemistry and

Biology building to do the waste assessment. First, the team put out all materials needed to keep

the area clean and to gather the much needed data that will make up our report, such as laying

out the tarp and setting up and familiarizing themselves with the scale. Next, the team picked out

a number of bags of trash making sure that we got a good variety of garbage to sort through.

Some of the bags were thin enough that the contents of the bag could be clearly seen whiched

helped with the wide variety.

The team wore face masks and gloves for the entire time to help protect themselves from

any unsanitary substances they came across. After sorting the materials into separate piles due to

their category, each category was then weighed and then put back into trash bags. Once the data

5

was collected, the team then did the necessary math to discover just what percentage each

category was of the trash for that day. When both days were completed, the team then combined

the data and did the necessary math to finish the overall waste assessment.

Discussion

The team was amazed to find that a large majority of the garbage were materials that

could be recycled. Another large portion of the trash were things that should not be disposed of

in a normal landfill but instead should go to a hazardous material/waste facility to be properly

disposed of. Also, there was a large majority of food and equipment that was unused and them

being in the garbage was nothing less than wasteful. The team found an entire vegetable tray of

food, unused and perfectly acceptable Tuperware, almost an entire box of unused latex gloves, a

perfectly acceptable and clean Styrofoam box, and what seemed to be an entire bag full of plastic

tubes with dead insects.

Conclusion

The team concluded that the majority of the contents of the garbage were just wasteful

and the materials improperly disposed of. There were better methods of disposing of the

materials than just throwing them in the trash. A lot of the materials could have avoided the trash

and saw better usage by reusing them, such as the Styrofoam box and the Tuperware. The

vegetable tray could have easily gone to another office or home with someone to be eaten and

not carelessly thrown away, as this vegetable tray most likely cost around six to twelve dollars at

the supermarket. While the students and teachers that work in the Spencer Chemistry and

6

Biology building may be very intelligent in their fields, they still need much work on properly

disposing of their materials and wastes.

Acknowledgements

The team would like to thank the Lead Custodian of the Spencer Chemistry and Biology

building, Mr. Jose Quezada as well as Kaye Johnston for their assistance in helping us complete

this project.

Team Member Performance Log

Team Member Responsibility Performance

Andrew Barchak Presentation Coordinator 100%

Harris Gbomina Photographer 100% Taylor Barton Scribe 100%

Samantha McKee Data Coordinator 100% Tommy Rebecchi Team Coordinator 100%

7

Data

Table 1: Waste Sort Form #1 Date: 10/29/12

Waste Component

Full Container

Weight (lbs)

Empty Container

Weight (lbs)

Net Waste Component Weight (lbs)

Total Waste

Generated (lbs)

Waste Component Percentage

(%)

Mixed Office Paper

7.8 5.2 2.6 74.8 3.47

Corrugated Cardboard

8.6 5.2 3.4 74.8 4.54

Paperboard (thin cardboard)

7.4 5.2 2.2 74.8 2.94

Newsprint - - - - -

General Waste 7.7 5.2 2.5 74.8 3.34

Magazines 8.6 5.2 3.4 74.8 4.54

Plastics (#'s 1-7) 9.0 5.2 3.8 74.8 5.08

Glass 6.5 5.2 1.3 74.8 1.73

Aluminum Cans 6.0 5.2 0.8 74.8 1.06

Food Waste 23.2 5.2 18 74.8 24.0

Styrofoam 6.1 5.2 0.9 74.8 1.20

Pallets 40.9 5.2 35.7 74.8 47.7

Batteries - - - - -

Electronic Waste

5.4 5.2 0.2 74.8 0.26

Totals 137.2 62.4 74.8 74.8 100

8

Table 2: Waste Sort Form # 2 Date: 10/31/12

Waste Component

Full Container

Weight (lbs)

Empty Container

Weight (lbs)

Net Waste Component Weight (lbs)

Total Waste

Generated (lbs)

Waste Component Percentage

(%)

Mixed Office Paper

5.9 5.2 0.7 41.9 1.67

Corrugated Cardboard

- - - - -

Paperboard (thin cardboard)

6.8 5.2 1.6 41.9 3.81

Newsprint - - - - -

General Waste 19.4 5.2 14.2 41.9 33.8

Magazines 7.2 5.2 2 41.9 4.77

Plastics (#'s 1-7) 12.4 5.2 7.2 41.9 17.1

Glass 5.8 5.2 0.6 41.9 1.43

Aluminum Cans 5.4 5.2 0.2 41.9 .047

Food Waste 5.4 5.2 0.2 41.9 .047

Styrofoam 6.4 5.2 1.2 41.9 2.86

Pallets - - - - -

***Plastic Styrofoam containers

19.2 5.2 14 41.9 33.4

Batteries - - - - -

Electronic Waste

- - - - -

Totals 93.9 52 41.9 41.9 100

9

Table 3: Waste Sort Totals

Materials Form # 1 (lbs)

Form # 2 (lbs)

Total Net Waste (lbs)

Total Weight

(lbs)

% of Total (%)

Ranking

Mixed Office Paper

2.6 0.7 3.3 116.7 2.82 9

Corrugated Cardboard

3.4 - 3.4 116.7 2.91 8

Paperboard (thin

cardboard)

2.2 1.6 7.1 116.7 6.08 6

Newsprint - - - - - -

General Waste 2.5 14.2 23.8 116.7 20.3 2

Magazines 3.4 2 5.4 116.7 4.62 7

Plastics (#'s 1-7)

3.8 7.2 11 116.7 9.42 5

Glass 1.3 0.6 1.9 116.7 1.62 11

Aluminum Cans

.8 0.2 1 116.7 0.85 12

Food Waste 18 0.2 18.2 116.7 15.5 3

Styrofoam .9 1.2 2.1 116.7 1.79 10

Pallets 35.7 - 35.7 116.7 30.5 1

Batteries - - - - - -

Electronic Waste

.2 - 0.2 116.7 0.17 13

Plastic Styrofoam Containers

- 14 14 116.7 11.9 4

Totals 74.8 41.9 116.7 116.7 100 -

10

11

12

Total Daily Waste

Categorizing Waste

13

Plastic Containers with Deceased Organic Specimens

Unused Box of Latex Gloves Found in Waste

14

Works Cited

1) Kollikkathara, N.; H. Feng; and E. Stern, 2009, A Purview of Waste Management

Evolution: Special emphasis on USA, Jr. Waste Management, vol. 29, pp. 974-985.

2) Hasan S. E.; and Johnson R. K, 2012, Recycling and Waste Management Manual, Geol

335 Waste Audit Project Manual, pp.2