waste audit cohen loading dock
TRANSCRIPT
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.
Photograph 2. Trash Container Type 2.
Hal
ey&
Ald
rich
,In
c.
WILLIAMS HALL TRASH CONTAINERS
Photograph 3. Trash Container Type 3.
Photograph 4. Trash Container Type 4.
Hal
ey&
Ald
rich
,In
c.
WILLIAMS HALL TRASH CONTAINERS
Photograph 5. Trash Container Type 5.
Photograph 6. Trash Container Type 6.
Hal
ey&
Ald
rich
,In
c.
WILLIAMS HALL TRASH CONTAINERS
Photograph 7. Trash Container Type 7.
Photograph 8. Trash Container Type 8.
Hal
ey&
Ald
rich
,In
c.
WILLIAMS HALL TRASH CONTAINERS
Photograph 9. Trash Container Type 9.
Photograph 10. Trash Container Type 10.
Hal
ey&
Ald
rich
,In
c.
WILLIAMS HALL TRASH CONTAINERS
Photograph 11. Trash Container Type 11.
Hal
ey&
Ald
rich
,In
c.
COHEN HALL TRASH CONTAINERS
Photograph 1. Trash Container Type 1.
Photograph 2. Trash Container Type 2.
Hal
ey&
Ald
rich
,In
c.
COHEN HALL TRASH CONTAINERS
Photograph 3. Trash Container Type 3.
Photograph 4. Trash Container Type 4.
Hal
ey&
Ald
rich
,In
c.
COHEN HALL TRASH CONTAINERS
Photograph 5. Trash Container Type 5.
Photograph 6. Trash Container Type 6.
Hal
ey&
Ald
rich
,In
c.
COHEN HALL TRASH CONTAINERS
Photograph 7. Trash Container Type 7.
Photograph 8. Trash Container Type 8.
Hal
ey&
Ald
rich
,In
c.
WILLIAMS HALL RECYCLING CONTAINERS
Photograph 1. Recycling Container Type 1.
Photograph 2. Recycling Container Type 2.
Hal
ey&
Ald
rich
,In
c.
WILLIAMS HALL RECYCLING CONTAINERS
Photograph 3. Recycling Container Type 3.
Photograph 4. Recycling Container Type 4.
Hal
ey&
Ald
rich
,In
c.
WILLIAMS HALL RECYCLING CONTAINERS
Photograph 5. Recycling Container Type 5.
Photograph 6. Recycling Container Type 6.
Hal
ey&
Ald
rich
,In
c.
WILLIAMS HALL RECYCLING CONTAINERS
Photograph 7. Recycling Container Type 7.
Photograph 8. Recycling Container Type 8.
Hal
ey&
Ald
rich
,In
c.
COHEN HALL RECYCLING CONTAINERS
Photograph 1. Recycling Container Type 1.
Photograph 2. Recycling Container Type 2.
Hal
ey&
Ald
rich
,In
c.
COHEN HALL RECYCLING CONTAINERS
Photograph 3. Recycling Container Type 3.
Photograph 4. Recycling Container Type 4.
Hal
ey&
Ald
rich
,In
c.
COHEN HALL RECYCLING CONTAINERS
Photograph 5. Recycling Container Type 5.
Photograph 6. Recycling Container Type 6.
Hal
ey&
Ald
rich
,In
c.
COHEN HALL RECYCLING CONTAINERS
Photograph 7. Recycling Container Type 7.
Photograph 8. Recycling Container Type 8.
Hal
ey&
Ald
rich
,In
c.
COHEN HALL RECYCLING CONTAINERS
Photograph 9. Recycling Container Type 9.
Photograph 10. Recycling Container Type 10.
Hal
ey&
Ald
rich
,In
c.
COHEN HALL RECYCLING CONTAINERS
Photograph 11. Recycling Container Type 11.
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
Name of Project Date of Photographs: 15 February 2013 Location Page 2 of 3 G:\38600_Penn\Deliverables\draft 3\Appendix B\2013_0305_appendix_B_Photo_log_ksh.docx
Photograph 3. Recyclables Sign Type 1.
Photograph 4. Recyclables Sign Type 2.
Hal
ey&
Ald
rich
,In
c.
SIGNAGE
Name of Project Date of Photographs: 15 February 2013 Location Page 3 of 3 G:\38600_Penn\Deliverables\draft 3\Appendix B\2013_0305_appendix_B_Photo_log_ksh.docx
Photograph 5. Recyclables Sign Type 3.
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
Hal
ey&
Ald
rich
,In
c.
SXODR NE L@SDQH@KR HM SQ@RG @MC QDBXBKHMF