Waste Audit Of Wescoe, Strong, and the Spencer Museum of Art

Sustainability Update. Revised May 2010

Environmental Studies Capstone Project
Lauren Keith Lydia Gibson Karin Scott Ryan Rastok Renee Boyd

table of contents
01. psychology 02.
what motivates people to recycle | why conduct a waste audit | what was found in previous audits | why this project is valuable to KU

methodology

creating a baseline for future audits | the procedure we followed

03. results

building profiles | what we found | charts and graphs

04. recommendations 05. resources

works cited | thanks to

what could have been done better | suggestions for the University of Kansas to implement

abstract
This project examines
the waste stream at the University of Kansas and provides suggestions on how students and the University can reduce waste by diverting recyclable, reusable, and compostable materials from the waste stream. We conducted a waste audit on three campus buildings: Wescoe Hall, Strong Hall, and the Spencer Museum of Art. We chose to examine these buildings because they represent a variety of collegiate infrastructure. These buildings vary in the classrooms, offices, and administration activities, as well as the differing degrees to which student, faculty, and public have access to each building. In none of the buildings surveyed was non-recyclable trash the majority of the waste stream. By weight, the recycling found in Spencer was 67% of the waste stream and 68% by volume. In Strong, 72% of the waste by weight and 74% by volume could have been recycled. In Wescoe, 76% of the waste by weight and 72% by volume could have been recycled. Because previous audits of Wescoe Hall have been conducted, the Wescoe audit in 2010 will be compared with those from 2004 and 2005. The waste from Spencer and Strong will be compared with each other because similar sample sizes were pulled. This project seeks to develop a unified sampling procedure for conducting waste audits to ensure that the results are comparable. When a baseline procedure is created, these audits could be conducted annually and compared.

01.
psychology

What motivates people to recycle?

Most studies have centered on behavioral models and regulating behavior through rewards and punishments (Mannetti et al 2004). The idea behind these models is that humans maximize efficiency and human behavior can be easily manipulated through a system of sticks and carrots. If it is financially beneficial to recycle, people will do it. Recently, a more theoretical approach to this model has been proposed. New models consider the role of socioeconomic and demographic variables that construct general attitudes toward the environment and define environmental responsibility. This notion has been coined the theory of planned behavior (Mannetti et al 2004). This theory is an model based on the assumption that humans attitudes have a causal impact on behavior. According to the theory, people recycle because they internally rationalize ecologically oriented behavior within the domain of morality (Mannetti et al 2004). In this theory, the act of recycling is not solely a simple calculation of profits and losses but a basic moral question of right and wrong. The connection between pro-environmental behavior and positively evaluated social identities has even been reflected (and some might argue that it has been exploited) in commercial advertising (Mannetti et al 2004). Because most people associate buying green, recycled, and eco goods as the moral choice (though not necessarily the cheapest), many companies have seen the benefits of branding themselves this new identity. However, even though this concern for recycling and taking care of the environment has evolved to be socially acceptable or even desirable, the changes in behavior required to recycle, such as sorting and separating, have been disappointing (Derksen and Gartrell 434). Although, according to surveys, the majority of people think recycling is important, hindrances and inconveniences associated with sorting and transporting material keep people from carrying out the act. Because of this, educational tools such as waste audits can be used to educate and inform groups about their waste streams and how to decrease them.

01.
psychology

Why conduct a waste audit?

The purpose of a waste audit is to find out where a school, community, home, or business is in terms of its waste management practices. A good waste audit identifies wasteful practices and creates potential opportunities for people to increase efficiencies, reduce waste, and lower costs. The first step in the process is a waste audit. According to the Guidebook on Waste Minimisation for Industries, the main objective of a waste audit is to profile the waste streams by finding out information on the types of waste, quantity of each waste stream, how they are generated, why they are generated, where they are being generated, and how they are managed after being generated. To reduce the volume of waste a group or community, in this case of this project the University of Kansas, is producing, the group needs to know more about the composition of the waste being produced.

01.
psychology

What was found in previous audits of Wescoe Hall?

Waste audits of Wescoe Hall were conducted in 2004 and 2005. The amount of newspaper being thrown away was the biggest surprise, and newsprint made up nearly half of the waste in 2004 and more than half of the waste in 2005. Following the waste audit that was conducted on Earth Day 2004, the KU Recycling staff places eight newspaper recycling containers in the north and south hallways on the fourth floor of Wescoe.

01.
psychology

Why is this project valuable to the University of Kansas?

The implementation of a successful waste audit can lead to source reduction and recycling, which in turn could save money (Solid Waste Policy Group). From a business standpoint, producing waste is not economical or sustainable, and it costs the University money when it is hurting from budget cuts. The potential reduction of waste could also conserve landfill space, energy in the manufacturing process, and natural resources (Solid Waste Policy Group). A waste audit, as a tool in implementing waste reduction, is a cost-effective business tool for universities and businesses alike. Waste audits are also educational tools. By having students and citizens participate in their own waste audit, these groups can learn more about the waste they generate and its effects on the campus. Our group wanted to implement this line of thinking into our waste audit project, which is why we created a public event near Wescoe so that people could see the waste that they were generating and participate in sorting through it.

02.

methodology

Creating a baseline for future audits

Although waste audits were conducted in Wescoe in 2004 and 2005 (Environmental Stewardship Program), a specific procedure has not been developed and outlined to serve as a baseline for future audits at the University of Kansas. Many environmental organizations have created materials and procedures about how to conduct a waste audit, but it is incredibly important to use the same procedure and method each year so that the results from the audits are comparable over time. When results from past and present audits can be compared, students and environmental organizations can target a particular waste stream and determine the best course of action to alleviate or lessen this type of waste. With comparable data, it is also easy to determine which actions have worked over time and which still need to be tweaked for better future success. Our group decided to use waste audit worksheets that were created by Kansas Green Teams, an initiative that promotes waste reduction, recycling and environmentally responsible purchasing in state and local governments, businesses and schools (Kansas Green Teams). Rodney Ferguson and Sandy Barnett of the Kansas Department of Health and Environment coordinate the organization. Worksheets from the Kansas Green Teams include a building questionnaire that calculates and maps the number of waste and recycling bins in the building, a walk-through worksheet that gives a visual sample to see the approximate type and composition of the waste being disposed of, and a table that we used during the waste audit to record the weight, volume and composition of the trash being thrown out. These worksheets and walkthrough documents are also included at the end of this report.

02.

methodology

How we did it
Celeste Hoins, who works with the Environmental Stewardship Program, was instrumental in contacting and coordinating trash collection with Facilities Operations and giving our group space in the ESP warehouse for our trial run of sorting trash from Strong Hall and the Spencer Museum of Art. She contacted Vic Kane at Facilities Operations, who instructed the custodial staff to put the trash collected into a separate blue container next to the dumpster. Trash is emptied in Strong and Spencer twice per week (on Mondays and Thursdays). This amounted to seven bags of trash for the Spencer Museum of Art and eight bags of trash from Strong Hall. The bags from Spencer included trash from the entire building, and the trash from Strong was from the third floor only. Trash from the galleries and library at the Spencer Museum were considered negligible for this study because no food or drink is allowed. About 25 bags of trash were collected from the fourth floor and third floor auditoriums in Wescoe. We conducted a test run of the trash from Strong and Spencer to make sure that we all knew what to expect for the larger event on Earth Day when we audited Wescoe. We divided 18-gallon storage containers into the labels indicated on the worksheets from Kansas Green Teams, such as trash, plastic bags, paper cups, and newspaper. The waste was sorted and then weighed on a pallet scale. (For future audits, we recommend that a more precise scale be used to get a more accurate weight of each container, instead of having to round to the nearest pound. See the recommendations section.) For the Wescoe audit, we used the same procedure, but a spring scale was used instead of a pallet scale for convenience. Waste was sorted into types in 50-gallon bags, and then bags were weighed and recorded. We conducted this audit on Earth Day to raise awareness of the event. Our project was picked up by the Lawrence Journal-World, KUJH-TV and The University Daily Kansan. Although it was raining this Earth Day, we moved into a dry overhang between Wescoe and Stauffer-Flint. Because of the rain, the weights might have been slightly heavier than they would have been if it were dry. However, we did not adjust the weights that we recorded.

03.
results

What we found
The results of the waste audits of the Spencer Museum of Art, Strong Hall, and Wescoe Hall are depicted by volume, not compacted, and by weight. Both measures have their own utility for evaluating the waste stream. Landfills and other disposal services base disposal fees based on weight, usually with a tonnage tipping fee. However, volume often dictates when containers are removed for disposal. At the University, individual waste receptacles are emptied into larger dumpsters outside of campus buildings, and these are collected as dictated by a set schedule or as they fill. This method places increased emphasis on the volume of material being disposed of rather than the weight. Volume measurements are more subjective than weight measurements because they were estimated instead of specifically calculated. In the waste audits conducted for this study, coffee and drink cups were separated from trash because of the amount we found in the initial audits. They are classified as trash. The plastic bags category includes recyclable bags found in the waste stream and trash bags used to contain the waste. The volume and weight of these trash bags are important because they are often under-filled and result in the creation of extra waste. They also represent a key problem in waste generation and disposal. Trash bags are necessary for sanitation and health reasons, but they are often under-utilized. The most common problem is that bags are larger than their containers, which uses more plastic than is needed.

10

03.
results

Spencer Museum: Building profile and walkthrough

Area audited: All floors Number of classrooms (estimated): 5 Number of offices (estimated): 14 Square feet: 91,095 Spencer has two custodians and one dumpster. Recycling bins have been added in offices for paper, newspaper, and catalogues at the request of the offices occupants. An old outdoor central location will be removed, and containers for office paper, newspaper, bottles, and cans will be added throughout the building this summer. Fourteen cans were found on the second floor. Five were examined. The cans were about half full and contained coffee cups, sandwich bag, soup cup, to-go box, two magazines, snack bags, an envelope, and two pieces of paper. Cans on the third floor contained similar materials. The fifth floor was all offices. There were 10 cans in open rooms, and three were examined. The first can contained paper. A can near the top of the stairs was half-full of plastic packaging used for shipping. There were several empty cans.

Spencer Museum of Art, 1301 Mississippi St.

11

03.
results

Though listed on the Kansas Green Teams sheets, batteries and hazardous material were not included in our counts because none were found in any of the buildings.

Material

Weight (lbs)
1 <1 9 4 5 <1 0 1 <1 8 7 <1 0 8 2 1 46

Volume (gal)
18 9 18 9 5.4 5.4 0 12.6 12.6 18 27 5.4 0 36 5.4 18 199.8

Spencer Museum of Art

As was found in all of the buildings we audited, reusable and recyclable materials made up a majority (about 67%) of the waste stream by both weight and volume. Office paper was the biggest recyclable material that ended up in the waste stream, despite additions of desk-side paper collection. Of the portion of the waste stream that was trash, almost half of it was made up of coffee and other drink cups. Food and compostable waste made up a significant portion of the materials in the waste stream that could have been reused. Compostable material was just over one-fourth of the recyclable/reusable stream. There was great diversity of the materials that could have been recycled in both the weight and volume categories.

Cardboard Chip board Office paper Newspaper Magazines Aluminum cans Steel cans Plastic #1 & #2 Plastic #3-7 Food/compost Coffee/drink cups Styrofoam Glass Trash Reusable Plastic bags TOTALS

figures 01, by weight. Amount of trash vs. recyclables in Spencer, in pounds

figures 02, by volume. Amount of trash vs. recyclables in Spencer

>>
of the recycling,

of the trash,

>>
of the recycling,

of the trash,

>>

weights of <1 lb were omitted

>>

Reusable includes a light bulb, unopened candy, a Nalgene bottle, wiring, unopened ketchup packets, a DVD, a DVD case, pens, pencils, and a sock.

12

03.
results

Strong Hall: Building profile and walkthrough

Area audited: Third floor Number of classrooms: 11 Number of offices: 10 Square feet: 175,806 Strong Hall has five custodians and two large dumpsters. Five trash cans from this floor were examined. One was half-full and contained office paper. Another trash can contained a #1 plastic soda bottle. The third was full of both newspaper and regular office paper. A fourth can was empty, as were many others on the floor. The fifth can contained another recyclable bottle. The International Program office was open, and five trash cans were examined inside. Two of them had food boxes. One contained two pieces of paper. Another contained plastic bags, and the last one contained a sandwich bag, a recyclable bottle, and newspaper. Four cans in the algebra tutoring room contained office paper, food wrappers, a plastic bottle, a disposable cup, a pizza box, and plastic wrap. There were also trash cans in the hallway, which contained a plastic bottle, used tissues, a disposable cup, a milk carton, and a food box.

Strong Hall, 1450 Jayhawk Blvd.

13

03.
results

Though listed on the Kansas Green Teams sheets, batteries and hazardous material were not included in our counts because none were found in any of the buildings.

Material

Weight (lbs)
1 1 3 6 0 <1 <1 4 1 14 1 <1 <1 10 <1 1 42

Volume (gal)
18 18 18 9 0 4.5 4.5 18 18 9 18 4.5 0.1 36 4.5 27 207.1

Strong Hall
The waste stream from Strong was different from Spencers, as the third floor of Strong contains several more classrooms. Coffee cups and other drink cups made up a significantly smaller percentage of the waste stream, by both weight and volume. However, much more compostable materials such as food scraps were found in the trash on the third floor of Strong. Office paper and newspaper make up another significant portion of the recyclable waste stream. Although a few aluminum cans were found on this floor, they seem to have been mostly eliminated from the waste stream. However, this waste could also just be taking a different form as #1 plastic bottles that students can get from vending machines.

Cardboard Chip board Office paper Newspaper Magazines Aluminum cans Steel cans Plastic #1 & #2 Plastic #3-7 Food/compost Coffee/drink cups Styrofoam Glass Trash Reusable Plastic bags TOTALS

figures 03, by weight. Amount of trash vs. recyclables in Strong, in pounds

figures 04, by volume. Amount of trash vs. recyclables in Strong

>>
of the recycling,

of the trash,

>>
of the recycling,

of the trash,

>>

weights of <1 lb were omitted

>>

Reusable includes uneaten wrapped food, hangers, toys, pens, pencils, and toothpaste.

14

03.
results

Comparison between Strong and Spencer

By weight Disposing of food products, wrappers and bottles was the largest component of waste in Strong, most likely because of its location near Wescoe and its Hawk Shop on the first floor that serves food and drinks. Food and other compostable materials were two of the largest portions of the waste stream that could have been diverted, and the amount of food and compostable waste in Strong was nearly half of the overall recyclable/reusable stream (45%). Newspaper and office paper are other big weight targets that should be eliminated next. By volume Plastic bottles and coffee and other drink cups are an increasing problem for disposing of waste by volume. They take up a lot of space but are relatively light, so they give the illusion that the trash cans need to be emptied when they usually do not. This also creates a large amount of waste in the plastic trash bags that must be thrown away although they contain very little weight in trash. In fact, both Strong and Spencer had about 15% of waste by volume that could have been recycled in trash and other plastic bags.

15

03.
results

Wescoe Hall: Building profile and walkthrough

Area audited: Fourth floor and large third floor auditoriums Number of classrooms: 35 Number of offices: 42 Square feet: 179,844 Wescoe has six custodians and four small dumpsters. Each auditorium has 300+ seats. Vic Kane, the assistant director for facility operations custodial services, said, I cant really estimate the number of trash containers in each building. As an example, I can tell you Wescoe has 400+ small trash cans in the office areas. There are 23 recycling bins (two office pack, two magazine, 11 cans/bottles, and eight newspaper) and six trash cans in the hallway. Ten trash cans from different rooms were sampled. Cans in the hallway were also inspected. The hallway trash cans had a much higher volume of waste than the trash cans in the classrooms, which were empty except for candy wrappers, coffee cups, and paper. The hallway trash cans were almost full and contained bottles, newspaper, mixed paper, coffee and other cups, wrappers and compostable material, and trash.

Wescoe Hall, 1445 Jayhawk Blvd.

16

03.
results

Though listed on the Kansas Green Teams sheets, batteries and hazardous material were not included in our counts because none were found in any of the buildings.

Material

Weight (lbs)
<1 24 28 26 <1 7 0 16.5 6 31 12.5 1.5 <1 48 13 21 237.4

Volume (gal)
<0.1 100 50 40 <0.1 25 0 62.5 25 50 75 25 <0.1 100 12.5 50 615

Wescoe Hall
Wescoe had similar breakdowns of trash vs. recycling compared with the other buildings that were audited. A smaller portion of the trash was made up of coffee cups by weight, but the amount by volume was similar to the measurements from Strong and Spencer. Again, there was a great diversity in the types of waste that could have been reused or recycled. Newspaper and office paper again made up large percentages of the recyclable material that was found in the trash. A significant percentage of plastic bags were found, most likely as a result of having dining areas close by but also because many of the trash bags are not completely filled when they are emptied. Food and compostable items were also a large portion in this building.

Cardboard Chip board Office paper Newspaper Magazines Aluminum cans Steel cans Plastic #1 & #2 Plastic #3-7 Food/compost Coffee/drink cups Styrofoam Glass Trash Reusable Plastic bags TOTALS

figures 03, by weight. Amount of trash vs. recyclables in Wescoe, in pounds

figures 04, by volume. Amount of trash vs. recyclables in Wescoe

>>
of the recycling,

of the trash,

>>
of the recycling,

of the trash,

>>

weights of <1 lb were omitted

>>

Reusable includes full pop cans, unopened ketchup packets, a KU ID, pens, a stapler, and an unopened box of Lucky Charms.

17

03.
results

Comparison between Wescoe in 2010 and 2005

Because only the basics of the procedure were known for the last audit of Wescoe Hall in 2005, it was difficult to compare exactly the differences in waste that we collected. The waste audit conducted in 2010 broke down the waste into more categories that were not included in the 2005 audit. For this comparison, the results from the 2010 audit were recalculated and constrained into the parameters of the 2005 audit. Categories that were not Material (by weight) 2005
Newspaper Mixed Paper Chipboard/cardboard Aluminum cans Steel cans Plastic #1 & #2 Glass Trash TOTALS 110 6 4 5 0.9 41 0.9 39 207

included in the 2005 audit (food waste, plastics 3-7, reusable materials, and plastic bags) were simply added to the trash amount, although this will alter the results. It is hoped that future audits will use the categories outlined by the Kansas Green Teams so that those results will be easier to compare. The results from the 2004 and 2005 audits by volume were not accessible, so the chart below compares the years by weight. Future results should compare both. 2010
26 29 25 7 0 16.5 0.9 133 237.4

Percent Change
-76% +383% +525% +40% -100% -60% 0% +241% +15%

18

04.

recommendations

Suggestions for future audits

When measuring the waste and recycling from Strong and Spencer, better scales should be used in the future. The scale used in this years audit rounded to the closest pound, which did not account for slight variations in weight and could not show us weights in pounds and ounces. Something like a bathroom scale would have been more useful and accurate. Second, there was subjectivity involved in sorting during the audits. The purpose of our audit was to find what ideally could have been recycled if it hadnt been thrown in the trash originally. Paper that had become soaked in food or liquid, was recycled because if it had not been put in the trash, it would have been viable. We suggest that instead of leaving it up to individual sorters best judgment, the next group develops more consistent method to make the audit better quality. There was also some subjectivity involving calculating the volume of waste or recycled materials. Because this years group had no defined may of measuring volume, the group estimated the waste based on the volume of trash bags it was in. This could be improved upon in the future to make the comparisons and data more useful and viable.

19

04.

recommendations

Suggestions to curb waste and encourage reusing

Coffee cups, plastic bottles and aluminum cans The volume of cups being discarded was surprisingly high. It is important to target cups and drink containers because it is possible that discarded drink containers could be easily diverted from the waste stream. Other campuses have attempted this. On Earth Day 2006, the University of Oregon started a campaign to promote reusing by giving out free mugs on the premise that if everybody on campus bought one beverage a day in a refill mug instead of a disposable cup, more than 9 million cups would be saved a year (University of Oregon). The campus was inspired to do this when it was discovered that 25% volume of the waste stream on campus. (Wescoes waste stream has about 12% drink cups by volume.) The University of Oregon also found that many people thought disposable coffee cups were recyclable when they are not. Oregon has found that it is difficult to convince people to reuse because only 11% of beverages purchased on campus are in refillable containers. KU Dining offers reusable drink mugs that cost only 89 cents to refill, but more marketing for this discount should be considered as an incentive for more students to start reusing. Freshman orientation could have a presentation dedicated to reusing and how it helps green efforts on campus. Freshmen could be issued their own reusable container with a barcode on it with their student ID number. The barcode could be scanned every time the student reuses the container and adds that amount Beak Em Bucks. An incentive could be after the container is filled 10 times, the next drink is free. Pop bottles and cans made up a another recyclable portion of the waste stream and have been identified in the past by KU Recycling and the Center for Sustainability as a target material. In 2008, it was found that about 10.6 tons of plastic bottles and 1.1 tons of aluminum were recycled, but a survey conducted by CocaCola revealed that less than one-half of students were recycling (KU News). Again, more promotion of reusable cups from KU Dining and student media could reduce this amount.

19

04.

recommendations

Suggestions to curb waste and encourage composting

Food, napkin and silverware composting Wescoe had a large amount of food and compostable waste (13% by weight). It is possible to compost much of this waste. Fruit and vegetable scraps are ready to compost. Food is not the only thing that can be composted. The disposable utensils purchased and used by KU Dining are now biodegradable (KU Dining Services). It would allow for a reduction in the need to purchase fertilizers and a lower cost to haul waste. The compost could benefit student gardens and the student farm. Furthermore, the compostable waste will have a shorter distance to travel. The campus garden already has its own compost piles. The two existing piles consist of fruit and vegetable scraps, leaves, and grass clippings. The University has considered composting in the past. In 2008, a site on West Campus was proposed to handle appropriate food waste from cafeterias (Earles 2008). This report recommended starting composting sites near the dining centers but noted the lack of space around these areas. An article in The University Daily Kansan suggested using an Earth Tub, a closed composting unit with an auger inside for mixing. The unit also has a biofilter that will prevent unpleasant odors. Food waste, napkins, biodegradable serviceware, and tougher materials such as leaves or straw can be added to this unit. The most numerous item by volume from the Wescoe audit was chipboard. Besides recycling, it can be shredded or chopped for mulch and then covered with soil. It may be possible to reduce this waste by allowing chipboard to be collected with newspapers.

20

05.
resources

Works cited
CAP-KU: Creating a Climate Action Plan for the University of Kansas. Publication. C-CHANGE IGERT Program and the Urban Planning Graduate Program, Spring 2009. Web. Derksen, Linda and John Gartrell. Social Context of Recycling. American Sociological Review 58.3 (1993): 434-42. Environmental Stewardship Program. Wescoe Hall Waste Audit 2004. Chart. KU Facilities Operations. Apr. 2005. Web. http://recycle.ku.edu/pages/events_and_projects/earth_day/wescoewaste_compare.shtml. Earth Tub. Green Mountain Technologies. Web. 28 Apr. 2010. http://www.compostingtechnology.com/invesselsystems/ earthtub/. FAQ. Environmental Stewardship Program. Web. 28 Apr 2010. http://www.recycle.ku.edu/faq. shtml Kansas Green Teams. How to Conduct a Waste Audit. <http://www.kansasgreenteams.org/how-conduct-waste-audit> Kate Gould, Joey Warren, and Shane Capra. Chapter 3: Closing the Loop: Materials and Waste Management. The Sus tainable University. 2008. Clark University, Web. 9 Feb 2010. http://clarku.biz/offices/campussustainability/docu ments/EN%20103%20The%20 Sustainable%20University%20Class%20Report%202008.pdf#page=55 KU Dining Services. KU Memorial Unions, 2010. Web. 28 Apr 2010. http://union.ku.edu/dining.shtml. KU Dining Services Sustainability. KU Memorial Unions. University of Kansas, 2010. Web. 27 Apr 2010. http://www. union.ku.edu/sustainability.shtml KU News - Coca-Cola, Unions Promote Recycling by Students; Special Discounts on April 22. Home - KU News. Web. 28 Apr. 2010. http://www.news.ku.edu/2009/april/21/recycling.shtml. Mannetti, Lucia, Antonio Pierro, and Stephano Livi. Recycling: Planned and Self-expressive Behaviour. Journal of Environmental Psychology 24.2 (2004): 227-36. Web. Mott, Stephanie. University considers recycling. University Daily Kansan 2008. n. 28 Apr 2010. http://www.kansan. com/news/2008/jun/26/compost/. National Environment Agency, JTC Corporation, Singapore Manufacturers Federation, and Waste Management & Recycling Association of Singapore. Guidebook on Waste Minimisation for Industries. National Environment Agency, 2002. Personal Communication. Vic Kane, Assistant Director for FO Custodial Services. 01 May 2010 Personal Communication. Celeste Hoins, Administrative Manager of Environmental Stewardship Program. 23 Feb 2010 Solid Waste Policy Group. Waste Audit. Rutgers State University of New Jersey, 2004. Web. 22 Apr. 2010. University of Oregon Campus Recycling. EMU and Campus Recycling Gave Away FREE MUGS. Rep. 26 Apr. 2006. Web. <http://www.uoregon.edu/~recycle/FreeMugs.htm>

Thanks to Celeste Hoins and Vic Kane for making this waste audit possible. campus photos and design by Lauren Keith May 6, 2010 21

EVRN 615: CAPSTONE PROJECT, CAMPUS WASTE AUDIT

Name of auditor: Location of Source: Weight (lbs) Volume Comments

Date/time sampled:

Materials Type

Cardboard

Chip Board

Office Paper

Newsprint

Magazines

Aluminum cans

Steel cans

Plastic #1 & #2

Plastic #3-7

Food/compostable

Coffee/drink cups

Styrofoam

Batteries

Glass

Hazardous Materials

Waste Audit Worksheet, adapted from Kansas Green Teams, http://www.kansasgreenteams.org/how-conduct-waste-audit

Trash

Other: Reuseable

Other: Plastic Bags

Total