Running head: WASTE REDUCTION PROPOSAL

Waste Reduction Proposal

Claire Caudill, Meredith Cook, Derrick Decker,
Michaela Joines, Callie Ronan
Presented April 28, 2015
Pittsburg State University

WASTE REDUCTION PROPOSAL

Introduction
Benjamin Franklin said there were only two things certain in life: death and taxes. But I'd like to add a
third certainty: trash. And while some in this room might want to discuss reducing taxes, I want to talk
about reducing trash.
-

Ruth Ann Minner

The formation of trash is a problem that nearly all humans, especially those living in First World
countries, contribute to. Its no small matter: approximately 2.6 trillion pounds of standard household
garbage, known scientifically as Municipal Solid Waste, was produced in 2012 (Thompson, 2012). Put
into perspective, the world accumulated over twice as much waste during the first year of Barack
Obamas presidency than the U.S. National Debt. Although the latter is known to be a hot-button topic,
the issue of municipal solid waste and its consequences tends to be buried more than the local landfill.
However, the rising popularity of sustainable, environmentally friendly practices within the United States
carries a fresh wind of optimism. Reduce, Reuse, and Recycle has become a winning mantra, as
companies and organizations look to save energy, waste, and the environment one plastic bottle at a time.
Pittsburg State University faces the issue of municipal solid waste in a hybrid fashion, being that
it functions as both a residency and an institution. The result is a large amount of both common household
waste, mainly food scraps, and institutional waste such as paper. The progressive nature of higher
education institutes generally leads its stakeholders to strive for sustainability through waste reduction.
Pittsburg State is no different, having instituted a number of programs geared toward waste reduction
throughout the last decade. However, improvement and reinvigoration of programs is sometimes
necessary when dealing with the long-term ideal of sustainability. The following proposal will outline the
current system used by Pittsburg State to manage its municipal solid waste, including traditional methods
of waste disposal and current programs geared toward sustainability. It will then propose three ideas for
reducing PSUs municipal solid waste, including potential benefits and challenges to implementing the
solutions.

WASTE REDUCTION PROPOSAL

Process
Before any solutions could be proposed, a problem first needed to be identified. Using the Procedural
Model of Problem Solving (P-MOPS), a problem question was stated and analyzed to guide later research
and solutions. Through an initial interest in composting and recycling, the overall issue of waste
management was chosen as a problem to be analyzed. From this topic, the following problem question
was produced: Is there a cost effective way to reduce Pitt States municipal solid waste? The criterion of
cost effectiveness was specifically mentioned to focus possible solutions into real, manageable policies
that could be implemented by Pittsburg State. After forming this problem question, a set of sub questions
was developed to focus research efforts. The following sub questions were analyzed before and during the
research phase:
1. What does this problem mean to us?
2. What is our charge?
3. What is unsatisfactory at present?
a. What is affected?
b. How long has the problem existed?
c. Do we need to gather additional information to accurately assess the nature and extent of
the problem?
4. What conditions have contributed to the problem?
5. What do we hope to accomplish?
6. What information do we need before we can find a satisfactory solution?
By focusing research efforts on these questions - specifically questions three, four, and six - the
problem question was broken into manageable sections based on different aspects of the waste
management problem.
Based on the sub questions detailed above, several areas of Pittsburg States municipal solid
waste management had to be understood before a workable solution could be found. First, the group
analyzed what was unsatisfactory with the current system. This involved researching several areas: 1) The

WASTE REDUCTION PROPOSAL

total amount of municipal solid waste produced by the campus, 2) The affect of waste disposal on
Pittsburg State in terms of cost, and 3) The affect of landfill waste disposal on the environment. Next, the
group researched the factors that contributed to the problem of waste disposal. This research focused on
the perceived lack of education among students and faculty in regards to traditional and alternative means
of trash disposal. Finally, the information needed to find a satisfactory solution was analyzed. This
included an analysis of programs currently implemented by Pittsburg State to reduce waste, such as
recycling and composting. The data and analysis harvested from this research is included below, followed
by three possible solutions to reduce Pittsburg States municipal solid waste.
Total Municipal Solid Waste
As a residence and institution, Pittsburg State produces a large amount of municipal solid waste,
with certain buildings being more wasteful than others. According to figures provided from the
Physical Plant, Pittsburg State produced a total of 941,313 lbs of waste, or 470.66 tons, from the 20132014 school year. Since Pittsburg State provides on-campus housing, they also must provide dining
services. This service, chief of which being Gibson Dining Hall, produces a large amount of food scraps.
To find a rough estimate of this number, our group met with Jeanette Dyck, Resident Dining Manager at
the dining hall. Mrs. Dyck estimated that the dining hall produced 80 gallons of food waste per day. For a
more accurate amount, line graphs provided by the Physical Plant from two 3-yard dumpsters indicated
the total waste in 2014 (Jan-Dec) to be 23.25 tons. This total, which equals the amount of waste produced
by the Kansas Technology Center in the same time frame, is the highest amount of waste produced by a
single building on campus. As expected with a two-semester university, the peak months for waste
production are September to November and the low month is July, while students are on break.
Cost of Waste Disposal
To remove the municipal solid waste produced on campus, Pittsburg State employs the service
provider WCA Waste Corporation. The company removes waste from 36 dumpsters throughout campus.
The cost to contract with WCA was difficult to track down. However, the most recent number available
for disposal of waste at Oak Grove Landfill in Arcadia, KS the landfill used by WCA for Pittsburg

WASTE REDUCTION PROPOSAL

States municipal solid waste set the gate fee at $41 per ton (Clark, 2010). Applying this number to
Pittsburg States 470.66 tons of waste removed each year results in a cost of $19,297 per year in gate fees.
This number is a rough estimate, as it does not include a service fee for the waste to be picked up from the
PSU campus, which would raise the cost. The Physical Plant also provided our group with the yearly
budget allocated to recycling efforts. The total budget in 2014 was set at $52,000, which included salaries
for one full time and three student positions, costs associated with transporting recycling to the SEK
Recycling Center, and miscellaneous expenses such as maintenance.
Oak Grove Landfill
Pittsburg States municipal solid waste is deposited at the Oak Grove Landfill in Arcadia, KS.
Located 23 miles from campus, the location is the closest landfill owned by waste service provider WCA.
As indicated by WCA officials in a report published by The Morning Sun, the Oak Grove Landfill
receives approximately 168,000 tons of waste per year. The landfill services multiple states, with 11
percent of the deposited waste originating in Crawford County, another 18 percent from other Kansas
counties, and 71 percent brought in from neighboring states during the year 2010. (Clark, 2010). As stated
above, Pittsburg State disposes of approximately 470 tons of municipal solid waste per year, which is
deposited by WCA at the Oak Grove Landfill.
Although there are no known environmental hazards associated the Oak Grove Landfill at
present, the affect of landfills on the environment and human population has been extensively studied.
Federal regulations beginning in the 1980s require landfills to be lined with a flexible membrane liner
above compacted clay soil to protect groundwater from a contaminate known as leachate (Environmental
Protection Agency, 2014). The result of precipitation seeping through landfill waste, leachate water is
contaminated with various organic and inorganic substances that are present throughout the waste. The
liner and clay barrier required today, along with piped leachate collection systems employed by more
modern landfills, attempt to prevent leachate from contaminating underlying groundwater. However, the
EPA has found that all landfills will eventually leak into the environment, citing the breakdown of pipes
and liners over time (Environmental Protection Agency, 1988). Groundwater contaminated with leachate

WASTE REDUCTION PROPOSAL

has the potential to cause serious health problems within the human population, including lead poisoning,
illnesses associated with drinking unsafe water, and exposure to known carcinogens. Although this
presents the worst-case scenario associated with landfill waste disposal, the potential consequences of
Pittsburg States current system are worth noting when analyzing its unsatisfactory nature.
Lack of Education
To determine the amount of knowledge possessed by the students and faculty of Pittsburg State in
regards to waste management and alternative options, our group conducted a survey of 50 students and
faculty (25 of each). First, we split the population into three categories; students, professors, others
(includes administrators or staff). Next, the group came up with five different questions that we believed
were direct yet broad. These questions ranged from how committed are you to recycling? to what
percentage of solid waste do you believe can be recycled or composted? These questions helped us know
what we were dealing with. 80 percent of students knew about the recycling program that is at PSU. On a
scale of 1 (Never) to 5 (often), professors had the highest commitment level of recycling at the average of
4.53, followed by others at 3.75, and finally students at an average of 3.2. The majority of the population
recycles paper the most followed by plastics and aluminum. Professors and others were the only ones who
recycled electronic waste. We rated the question, If we were to loose recycling on campus how would
you feel? on a scale from 1-5, from not bothered to very upset, respectively. Professors would be the
most upset as their average was 4.4, followed by others at 3.75, and students 3.57. Finally when we asked
what percentage of solid waste do you believe can be recycled or composted we divided up the
percentages into groups of 20 percent. Students ranked most in the 0 to 20 percent range, and professors
and others ranked most in the 61 to 80 percent range.
It is not surprising that professors and others knew more about the recycling program and that
they recycle the most. We believe that because they are more aware of the universitys policies they are
more informed. Also, they have the proper disposal of solid waste in most of their buildings, and since
most of the students live off campus they probably do not have the proper bins. The results were not

WASTE REDUCTION PROPOSAL

surprising considering the information that professors and others are prone to, and students are not
informed as much as they should be.
Current Efforts to Reduce Waste
Pittsburg State has a Standing Committee dedicated to sustainability, the University Committee
for Energy and Resource Conservation (UCERC). In the school year of 2009-2010 President Scott asked
the UCERC to come up with a blueprint for the campus to move in a more sustainable direction. It is a
25-page paper that consists of 14 sustainability goals, some of which are already underway and have been
completed. While others, specifically point six, seven, and ten have been started but in the words of
president Scott have lost momentum and plateaued.
Goal six suggest Pitt State go to a Local and organic closed-loop food system by observing
sustainability criteria for all food purchasing, preparation and service, cleaning, waste disposal, and
purchase of equipment and supplies. Because we are looking at reducing waste we just looked at
Objective 2, which is Create pre-consumer and post-consumer composting programs that reduces overall
campus waste. All food services her at Pitt State such as Gibson Dinning Hall and the Crossing have
composting bens for compostable material from the preparation of the meals only. For this to be a true
closed loop system Pittsburg State would first have to begin growing their own organic food but also
begin composting the left over scrapes after consumption. This is where the majority of the waste comes
from. Gibson Dinning Hall alone tied with the entire Kansas Technology building for the most waste
produced on campus, at 23.25 tons of waste per year (graphs). Following them in third place was the
Student Center food services with 13.26 tons per year. Putting the food waste alone on campus at about
13% of its total waste produced (graphs).
Goal seven suggests that Pitt State Reduce and ultimately eliminate waste streams on campus
through conservation, recycling and implementing sustainability-focused purchasing policies. The first
Objective of this goal is the enhancement of the infrastructure used for the campus-wide recycling
programs. We deemed recycling centers as any location recycling 3 or more materials in the same
location. Nine of the 19 buildings on campus on the main campus still do not have a recycling center

WASTE REDUCTION PROPOSAL

(survey). While every building did not have a recycling center, every building has at least 1 recycling ben.
Whether that is just paper or just plastic. The number of recycling bens per building varied a great deal
and there seemed not to be any type of strategic placement of the bens. Though we though it was
interesting that the new performing arts building is the only exception that didnt have a single recycling
ben.
Goal 10 suggest that Pitt State Intergrade education and research on the social, economic, and
environmental impacts of sustainability as a major component of the university curriculum. Objective
three, Develop sustainability-focused undergraduate major. Though the degree of Sustainability,
Society, and Resource Management was completed and implemented in 2011, Objective one states, All
academic programs will require at least one sustainability related course. This was said to be completed,
but after a small survey it was discovered that not all students or degree programs have had sustainability
intergraded into them yet.
Solutions
Through brainstorming solutions to the problem, we determined that having a required
curriculum for freshmen and transfer students could alleviate the lack of education about current waste
reduction efforts. The general education class would be an addition to the freshmen experience class that
focused on sustainability. Students would be required to complete 50 hours of community service
throughout the semester, and the class would meet once a week for one credit hour.
At C.A.R.E.S. Pittsburg State Universitys freshman orientation, the new students could be
informed about the sustainability class with a brief explanation of what is to be expected. During that
presentation, a brochure could be distributed to students so they can see potential locations for community
service around the area, along with a short description under each place specifying what kind of help they
are looking for. This brochure would be critical to help students complete 50 hours of community service.
The incentive behind making freshmen complete community service is to open their eyes from
when they arrive so this behavior will become an encouraging habit for the future of Pittsburg. The
University could benefit from having so many students volunteering as well as the community itself; there

WASTE REDUCTION PROPOSAL

is always something to be done around town. The students would make a huge impact on the town of
Pittsburg as a whole and would personally benefit from using the 50 hours of community service on any
resume. Truly a win-win for everyone.
Along with the waste management course and the community service work to increase
knowledge amongst students, there are other areas within the campus that can maintain and improve upon
their duty to be a sustainable campus. One area that can be addressed is the use of recycled paper for the
shipment of packages that are exported, specifically from the on-campus post office or the physical plant.
Simple measures can be taken to see this through.
Since 2012, Pittsburg State as an entire campus has accrued nearly 139 tons of recyclable paper.
These numbers provided by the physical plant were astonishing. This recycled paper could have a
multitude of uses, more than what was described. The use of this paper is most commonly used for the
following: it is taken to other areas of campus for use of recycled paper (library), or it is sent to the
recycling center to be sold to other businesses and organizations. Limiting to these two sources does not
allow for it to be reused. Reusing this recycled paper will be economically and environmentally effective.
With such an astounding amount of recycled paper material accumulated, it is disappointing to
learn that the post office and physical plant do not apply any of this paper for their usage. Though the post
office does not use any of this recycled paper for packaging, they are still using a form of recycled
material, old editions of the Collegio. Unlike the post office, the physical plant revitalizes packing peanuts
and paper from previous received packages. Neither of these two groups purchase materials for their
packaging but use materials they already have access to.
Pittsburg State already utilizes two small composting centers one on-campus and one off
campus. These are not used to the extent that they could be, but with the help of some recycled shredded
paper, the campus would be able to increase and expand the usage for this composting. The addition to
the already composted material could provide richer soil for the flowers around campus. Each of these
components above could improve the effectiveness of PSU in many ways.