• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Table of Contents
 Front Matter
 Main














Title: Audit of solid waste management practices and generation at the University of Florida
CITATION PDF VIEWER THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00100963/00001
 Material Information
Title: Audit of solid waste management practices and generation at the University of Florida
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences, University of Florida
Publisher: Office of Sustainability, University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Copyright Date: 2009
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00100963
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Downloads

This item has the following downloads:

PDF ( 14 MBs ) ( PDF )


Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover
    Table of Contents
        Page i
        Page ii
        Page iii
        Page iv
        Page v
        Page vi
        Page vii
        Page viii
    Front Matter
        Page ix
        Page x
        Page xi
        Page xii
    Main
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
        Page 106
        Page 107
        Page 108
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
        Page 117
        Page 118
        Page 119
        Page 120
        Page 121
        Page 122
        Page 123
        Page 124
        Page 125
        Page 126
        Page 127
        Page 128
        Page 129
        Page 130
        Page 131
        Page 132
        Page 133
        Page 134
        Page 135
        Page 136
        Page 137
        Page 138
        Page 139
        Page 140
        Page 141
        Page 142
        Page 143
        Page 144
        Page 145
        Page 146
        Page 147
        Page 148
        Page 149
        Page 150
        Page 151
        Page 152
        Page 153
        Page 154
        Page 155
        Page 156
        Page 157
        Page 158
        Page 159
        Page 160
        Page 161
        Page 162
        Page 163
        Page 164
        Page 165
        Page 166
        Page 167
        Page 168
        Page 169
        Page 170
        Page 171
        Page 172
        Page 173
        Page 174
        Page 175
        Page 176
        Page 177
        Page 178
        Page 179
        Page 180
        Page 181
        Page 182
        Page 183
Full Text








Audit of Solid Waste Management

Practices and Generation at the

University of Florida



October 2009




Prepared For: University of Florida, Office of Sustainability










Prepared By: Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences
Kelly Hodoval, Student Assistant
Haley Carter, Student Assistant
Alyson Byrne, Graduate Research Assistant
Timothy Townsend, Professor










TABLE OF CONTENTS


1. Introduction 1

1.1. Motivation 1

1.2. Scope 1

1.3. Organization of Audit 3

2. Solid Waste at the University of Florida 4

2.1. Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) 5

2.2. Construction and Demolition Debris (C&D) 6

2.3. Recyclable Material 6

2.3.1. Paper 7_
2.3.2. Scrap Metal 7
2.3.3. Cans and Bottles 7
2.3.4. Wastewater Treatment Sludge 8
2.3.5. Yard Waste 8
2.3.6. Masonry 8
2.3.7. Electronic Waste 8
2.3.8. Miscellaneous 9

2.4. Medical Waste 9

2.5. Hazardous Waste 9

3. Current Solid Waste Management at the University of Florida 11

3.1. MSW 12

3.1.1. Disposal Containers 12
3.1.2. Disposal Vehicles 16
3.1.3. Disposal and Recovery Techniques 18

3.2. C&D Debris 18

3.2.1. Disposal Containers 18
3.2.2. Disposal Vehicles 19
3.2.3. Disposal and Recovery Techniques 19

3.3. Recyclable Material 20










3.3.1. Disposal Containers 20
3.3.2. Disposal Vehicles 26
3.3.3. Disposal and Recovery Techniques 27

3.4. Medical Waste Disposal 31

3.5. Hazardous Waste Disposal 31

4. Waste Generation and Composition at the University of Florida 32

4.1. Composition of the UF Waste Stream 32

4.2. Historical Generation Trends 33

4.2.1. Total Generation Trends 33
4.2.2. Recorded Waste Category Generation Trends 34

4.3. Composition of MSW 37

4.3.1. Campus Sources 38
4.3.2. MSW Sort Study 31
4.3.3. Results With Respect To Campus Source and MSW Category 53

4.4. Recycling 55

4.5. Comprehensive Summary/Analysis 58

4.5.1. Organics 63
4.5.2. Paper 64
4.5.3. Plastics 65

5. Observations and Recommendations 67

5.1. Comparison of Recovery Benchmarks 67

5.1.1. National, State, and County Recycling Rates 67
5.1.2. University 69

5.2. MSW Sort Implications and Diversion Opportunities 72

5.2.1. Organics 72
5.2.2. Paper 74
5.2.3. Non-recyclable 74
5.2.4. Plastics 74
5.2.5. Conclusion 75

5.3. Recommendations 75

5.3.1. Communication and Accountability 75










5.3.2. Education and Outreach 76

5.3.3. Recyclables Accepted 76
5.3.4. Spatial Identification 76



Appendices



A. Glossary ................................................................................................................................. 79

B. Campus Sources ..................................................................................................................... 81

B.1. Campus Sources Identification ............................................................... ........................ 81

B.2. W aste Characterization by Campus Source............................................................................ 84

B.3. W aste Contribution by Campus Source................................................................................ 108

C. Campus Map with recycling locations ..................................................................................... 109

D. Historic Data ........................................................................................................................ 110

D .1. Y early D ata ............................................................................................ ................... ......... 110

D.2. Average Yearly Tonnages ........................ ......................................... ............................. 127

E. Contacts.................................................................................................................................... 128

F. Phase I: MSW Sorts .............................................................................................................. 129

F.1. Safety P la n ......................................................................................................... ........ ........ 129

F.2. M etho d o logy ............................................................................... ....................................... 133

F.2.1. W aste Category Identification for Sorts...................................... ............. 133

F.2 .2 Sa m p lin g .................................................................................................................. 13 9

F.2 .3 So rating ................................................................................... .................. ......... 13 9

F.2.4. Data recording method ...................... ............................... 139

F.3. Detailed Data Sheet Recordings............................................................ ........................ 141

F.4. Summary of Results .............................................................................. ........................... 143

G. Phase II: MSW Sorts................................................................................................................... 144

G .1. Safety Plan ......................................................................................................... ........ ........ 144

G.2. Methodology..................................................... 148

G.2.1. W aste Category Identification for Sorts............................... ......... ............... 148

G .2.2. Sam p ling ............................................................................... .................... ........ 14 9

G .2 .3 So rtin g .................................................................................. ................... ......... 15 0

G.2.4. Data recording method ........... ... ............................................. .......... 150

iii










G.3. Sampling and Sorting Events...................................... .......... 151

G .4 D detailed Resu lts .................................................................................... ............................ 153

H. Phase III: MSW Sorts.................................................................................................................. 155

H . M etho d o logy ............................................................................... ....................................... 155

H.1.1. W aste Category Identification for Sorts............................... ......... ............... 155

H .1.2 Sam p ling ............................................................................... .................... ........ 156

H .1 .3 So rtin g .................................................................................. ................... ......... 15 6

H.1.4. Data recording method ............................. ...... ............. ........................ 156

H.2. Sampling and Sorting Events...................................... .......... 156

H .3 Safety P la n ...................................................................................... .................................... 15 6

I. Compiled Results....................................................................................................................... 157

J. Literature Review ................................................................................................................. 177

J.1. University of Oregon (population: 20,376)....................................................................... 177

J.1.1. Recycling: .......................................... ......................................................... ........ 177

J.1.2. C o m posting:........................................................ ................................................ 177

J.1.3. Source Reduction:.................................................................. ........................ 177

J.1.4. Education and Outreach: ....................... .......................... 178

J.1.5. Event Recycling: ........................... .......................................................................... 178

J.1.6. Contracts/Vendor agreements: ........................................................... 178

J.2. University of Colorado at Boulder (population: 26,000) ......................... ........................ 178

J.2.1. Recycling: ........................... ..... ................................................................. 178

J.2.2. C o m posting:........................................................ ................................................ 179

J.2.3. Source Reduction:.................................................................. ........................ 179

J.2.4. Education/Outreach: ............................................................. ........................ 179

J.2.5. Event Recycling: ................................................................... ........................ 179

J.2.6. Contract/Vendor Agreements: .................................................... 179

J.3. Carnegie Mellon University (population: 9,000)............................ ......... ........... 179

J.3 .1. Recycling : ............................................................................... .................... ........ 179

J.3.2. C o m posting:........................................................ ................................................ 180

J.3.3. Source Reduction:.................................................................. ........................ 180

J.3.4. Education/Outreach: ............................................................. ........................ 180

J.3.5. Event Recycling: ................................................................... ........................ 180

iv










J.4. Notre Dam e University (population: 11,733) ........................... ............... 180

J.4.1. Recycling: ............................................................................... ............................. 180

J.4.2. Com posting:........................................................ ................................................ 180

J.4.3. Source Reduction:.................................................................. ........................ 180

J.4.4. Education/Outreach: ............................................................. ........................ 181

J.4.5. Event Recycling: ........................... ......................................................................... 181

J.5. University of California, Davis (population: 31,426)...................................... ... 181

J.5.1. Recycling: ............................................................................... ............................ 181

J.5.2. Com posting:........................................................ ................................................ 181

J.5.3. Source Reduction:.................................................................. ........................ 181

J.5.4. Education/Outreach: ............................................................. ........................ 181

J.5.5. Event Recycling: ........................... ......................................................................... 181

J.6. Pennsylvania State University (population: 77,505)....................... ...... ...... ............ 182

J.6.1. Recycling: ............................................................................... ............................ 182

J.6.2. Com posting:........................................................ ................................................ 182

J.6.3. Source Reduction:.................................................................. ........................ 182

J.6.4. Education/Outreach: ............................................................. ........................ 182

J.6.5. Event Recycling: ........................... ......................................................................... 182

J.7. Universities of a Sim ilar Population to UF.................................................. ........................ 183










TABLE OF TABLES

Table 1: Summary of the recorded waste categories at UF 4

Table 2: The University of Florida was separated into sources of MSW, referred to as campus sources 6

Table 3: Summary of management strategies for major UF categories 11

Table 4: Total weight of waste generated on campus for 2008 by the category and disposal method 32

Table 5: Total tons of waste generated at the University of Florida from 2001 through 2008 by the
disposal method, yearly total tonnage provided 36

Table 6: The weight (tons) and volume (cubic yards) of MSW contributed by each campus source to the
University of Florida MSW stream 41

Table 7: Summary of the sampled campus sources, featuring the total weight and volume of all samples
taken as well as the mean sample weight for each campus source 42

Table 8: Summary of the loads sampled during Phase I of the MSW sorts 44

Table 9: Phase I composition profile of University of Florida's MSW stream by waste category and
subcategory in terms of weight (pounds) and volume (gallons) 45

Table 10: Phase II composition profile of University of Florida's MSW stream by weight (pounds) and
volume (gallons), these values are not weighted by campus source information 48

Table 11: Composition profile of University of Florida's overall MSW stream by weight and volume, these
values are not weighted by the campus source information. 53

Table 12: Comparison of University of Florida's MSW by source and MSW category presented as non-
weighted weight based percent 54

Table 13: Comparison of University of Florida's MSW by source and MSW category, these weight based
percent are weighted by the campus source contribution 55

Table 14: Weight based average percent weighted by influence of the campus source and then the UF
waste stream (48.25%) 59

Table 15: Percent of UF waste stream that is escaping the diversion techniques for current recyclables
and other waste that is potentially recyclable 63

Table 16: The total tons of MSW generated, of recycled material, and the consequent percent recycled
with respect to the United States, Florida, Alachua County, and the University of Florida
during 2004 to 2007 68










TABLE OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Map of the University of Florida, displaying over 95% of the campus managed by Physical Plant
Division 2

Figure 2: Examples of standard indoor MSW receptacles from (A) hallways and common areas as well as
(B) offices, classroom, and laboratories 13

Figure 3: A wall mounted garbage receptacle for bathrooms 13

Figure 4: Examples of trash receptacles placed around the UF campus 14

Figure 5: Example of a MSW dumpster 15

Figure 6: Example of a MSW compactor 15

Figure 7: Example of a specialty MSW compactor 16

Figure 8: Example of a Bobcat vehicle 17

Figure 9: Example of a front loading truck 17

Figure 10: The campus street sweeper 18

Figure 11: Example of a roll-off container 19

Figure 12: Indoor 19 gallon recycling container for cans & bottles 20

Figure 13: Indoor compartmentalized recycling containers with paper, can and bottle, and MSW slots. 21

Figure 14: Example of desk tray for paper recycling 21

Figure 15: Example of indoor 40-gallon console and 95-gallon recycling cart for paper 22

Figure 16: Outdoor recycling containers for can and bottle; (A) a metal bin dispersed campus wide for
commuting traffic, (B) a 95 gallon container located by on campus housing facilities 23

Figure 17: Outdoor three-tiered compartmentalized bins for paper, can and bottle recyclables as well as
MSW disposal, bins located around the Reitz Lawn and Turlington. 23

Figure 18: Example of dumpsters for recyclable material, (A) paper and cardboard dumpster and (B) can
and bottle dumpsters 24

Figure 19: Example of a paper/cardboard compactor 25

Figure 20: Example of a specialty paper/cardboard compactor 25

Figure 21: Example of a can and bottle roll-off container 26

Figure 22: Example of a truck for surplus products 26

Figure 23: PPD semi-trailer used to store recyclable carpet 27










Figure 24: Yearly waste generation from 2001 through 2008 at UF 33

Figure 25: Total waste generation at the University of Florida defined by month and tonnage, with each
year from 2001 through 2008 displayed 34

Figure 26: The total waste generated at the University of Florida in tons for each year from 2001 through
2008 by the recorded waste category 35

Figure 27: The average contribution of each recorded waste category to the University of Florida's total
waste stream 36

Figure 28: Monthly tonnage trends for the MSW generated at the University of Florida from the data
collected by PPD during 2001 through 2008 38

Figure 29: Maximum volume estimates for each campus source of MSW 39

Figure 30: The US MSW composition by waste category from the 2006 USEPA study 40

Figure 31: The weight (A) and volume (B) percent of the nine MSW categories from the MSW sort
commingled phase data 50

Figure 32: The weight (A) and volume (B) percent of each paper subcategory in the University of
Florida's MSW stream 51

Figure 33: The Weight (A) and Volume (B) Percent of each Plastic Subcategory 52

Figure 34: Mass percent average of recycled material categories for 2001 through 2008 56

Figure 35: Monthly recycling for each year from 2001 through 2008 by weight and month 57

Figure 36: Average weight recycled by component from 2001 through 2008 58

Figure 37: Comprehensive diagram of the waste stream generated by the University of Florida. The five
waste categories monthly recorded by PPD are depicted by colors and are MSW
(48.25%, 8,740 tons annually), C&D Debris (12.91%, 2,339 tons annually), Recyclable
Material (36.50%, 6,613 tons annually), Medical Waste (1.81%, 328 tons annually), and
Hazardous Waste (0.52%, 95 tons annually). The components of the MSW, determined
from the MSW composition study, and recyclable material, which is recorded monthly
by PPD, streams are denoted in detail. 61

Figure 38: Composition of Organics in the University of Florida MSW stream 64

Figure 39: Composition of Paper in the University of Florida MSW stream 65

Figure 40: Composition of Plastics in the University of Florida MSW stream 66

Figure 41: Comparison of the average recycling rates achieved by the United States, Florida, Alachua
County, and UF during 2004 through 2007 69

Figure 42: Map of the University of Florida identifying recycling opportunities 77










ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This study was made possible through the assistance and voluntary efforts from the University
of Florida Physical Plant Division, interviewee, and students. Moreover, the municipal solid waste sorts
were only feasible because of the support from the Alachua County Transfer Station, Emerald Waste
Services, and the waste haulers sampled. The participation, patience, and insight from all those involved
contributed the pivotal support necessary for this study to be a success.










Executive Summary


The Office of Sustainability at the University of Florida (UF) commissioned an audit of the solid
waste management practices and generation campus wide. This waste audit was conducted by students
in UF's Department of Environmental Engineering Sciences (EES) under guidance of EES faculty. The
objectives of the audit were to summarize current solid waste characteristics and management practices
on campus, to benchmark current recycling and waste reduction efforts, and to identify potential steps
to further decrease the amount of UF waste destined for disposal. In addition to compiling existing
information, the audit team performed several studies to collect new data helpful for estimating the
current composition of solid waste on campus.

Solid waste at UF has traditionally been characterized into five main categories: municipal solid
waste (MSW), recycled material, construction and demolition (C&D) debris, medical waste, and
hazardous waste. UF's Physical Plant Division (PPD) maintains records of monthly generation associated
with each category. Currently, a combination of UF personnel and outside contractors collect the MSW
from containers on campus and haul it to the Alachua County transfer station, where it is then
transported to the New River Regional Landfill. Recyclables are collected and transported to
appropriate handling facilities by a similar blend of UF personnel and outside contractors. UF currently
recycles paper, cardboard, cans, glass and plastic bottles and jars, scrap metal, masonry, yard waste,
electronics, wastewater treatment sludge, and other miscellaneous items (e.g., toner cartridges, carpet,
and automotive batteries).

UF presently produces approximately 18,000 tons of waste annually. Approximately 11,000
tons are landfilled, while about 6,600 tons are recycled. Yearly, there are roughly 330 tons of medical
waste and 95 tons of hazardous waste that require special disposal. Accordingly, the composition of
UF's solid waste as reflected by the primary categories is: 48.25% MSW, 36.50% recycled material,
12.91% C&D debris, 1.81% medical waste, and 0.52% hazardous waste ( Figure 1).

Since landfill-disposed MSW contributes almost half of the waste on campus, the audit team
conducted several waste composition studies to better assess the primary components of the MSW
currently being disposed. While not an exhaustive composition study, data were collected that provide
a good first look at MSW composition (Figure 1). The five largest MSW contributors are organic at
15.28%, paper at 14.26%, non-recyclable2 materials 9.39%, plastic at 3.93%, and finally products3 2.55%.

The average recycling rate from 2001 through 2008 for UF solid waste of 36.50% is similar to
(though at the higher end of the range) typical recycling rates achieved by municipalities in Florida and
the US. Although comparing results to other colleges and universities is fraught with uncertainty due to


1 Organic material refers to all food waste (e.g., generated incomplete meals, food preparation waste from
cafeterias, disposed, etc), animal by-products (e.g., litter from cages, feces, remaining food scraps, etc), yard
waste, and composite or other organic materials like wax and leather.
2 Non-recyclable waste is materials for which there is either no method or no currently feasible method of
recovery.
3 Products are materials that had the potential for reuse, auction, or donation. This includes, but is not limited to,
binders, apparel, textiles, rubber, personal entertainment devices, etc.










availability of data and differences in data collection and recording methods, UF's techniques and
success are comparable. The results of the waste audit suggest several opportunities for additional
progress. The relatively high percentage of organic (food waste, food contaminated paper, and paper
products such as paper towels) suggests that implementation of an organic treatment system such as
anaerobic digestion or composting is logical next for further investigation. Such technologies are
currently employed to a limited extent on parts of campus and to a very large level at other universities.
The relatively high percentage of paper in the currently landfilled waste stream suggests that additional
efforts to promote use of the existing paper recycling program are warranted. Given the relative
contribution it makes to the landfilled waste stream, additional recycling of C&D debris should also be
further evaluated.













O Medical O Hazardous MSW


Sludge Electronics
1.38% 0.15%


Scrap
Metal
2.24%
Misc.
0.49%


Figure 1: Comprehensive diagram of the waste stream generated by the University of Florida. The five
waste categories monthly recorded by PPD are depicted by colors and are MSW (48.25%, 8,740 tons
annually), C&D Debris (12.91%, 2,339 tons annually), Recyclable Material (36.50%, 6,613 tons annually),
Medical Waste (1.81%, 328 tons annually), and Hazardous Waste (0.52%, 95 tons annually). Percent
contribution determined from the 2001 through 2008 data collected by PPD. The components of the
MSW, determined from the MSW composition study, and recyclable material, which is recorded
monthly by PPD, streams are denoted in detail.


* C&D Debris


0Recycled Material










1. INTRODUCTION



1.1. MOTIVATION

The University of Florida (UF) has committed to improve campus wide operations to minimize its
impact on the environment and to foster environmental awareness, knowledge, and responsibility. UF
encourages and endorses sustainable initiatives, and with the creation of the Office of Sustainability in
2006, has helped maintain and promote the objective of greening the University. In accordance with
their pursuit of a sustainable campus, the University of Florida set a goal of Zero Waste by 2015.

A vital component in attaining a sustainable campus is the efficient management, reduction, and
recycling of its solid waste. To effectively manage solid waste generated at the University of Florida it is
essential to understand and identify the waste types and quantities disposed, the sources of these
materials, and the possible opportunities for further reduction and recycling. Furthermore, it is
important to identify and analyze the quantity of waste currently captured by recovery efforts versus
the quantity disposed.


1.2. SCOPE

The Office of Sustainability supported activity by the Department of Environmental Engineering
Sciences to audit the current solid waste management practices and generation on campus and to make
suggestions for possible changes to increase reduction and recovery. This involved identifying an
appropriate audit methodology for attaining all the necessary information, which is detailed below.

First, the area of campus to be considered for the duration of the solid waste audit was
established with the Office of Sustainability and is the portion of campus that the Physical Plant Division
(PPD) manages and documents waste. This includes all the waste generated on the main campus bound
by 34th Street, University Avenue, 13th Street, and Archer Road as well as the campus south of Archer
Road, the Coastal Engineering Lab, PK Young School, Treeo Center, Lake Wauberg, Austin Cary Memorial
Forest, and other UF locations in the vicinity. The audit included Shands Health Care center, but not
satellite locations outside of Gainesville. Figure 1 displays the majority of the campus managed by PPD.
With the boundaries for analysis determined, information on the current solid waste management
system utilized was investigated.




























Figure 1: Map of the University of Florida, displaying over 95% of the campus managed by Physical Plant
Division


Information on the techniques employed for managing the solid waste on the main campus was
collected and assessed by both reviewing publications from the University and interviewing staff
members. Information on how waste is managed on campus, how the campus recycling program works,
and other reduction, recovery and educational approaches the University utilizes was gathered. This
included accumulating information on the number, location, volume, and collection frequency of solid
waste receptacles available on campus, such as trash receptacles, recycling containers, dumpsters,
compactors, and roll-off containers. Moreover, historical data on the weights of solid waste disposed
monthly, recorded by PPD, was also gathered and analyzed for generation numbers and trends. Primary
information sources included the PPD, specifically the Solid Waste Coordinator and Lands/Grounds
Superintendent, and the Office of Sustainability. This information was vital for providing a general
understanding of the complex system in place for management and generation of solid waste.
Moreover, with the techniques fully detailed, recommendations were able to be considered.

Once a basic understanding of the solid waste management system was obtained, the campus
was divided into the contributing sources of solid waste (e.g., dining, academic, and housing). The
campus was categorized based on both the data collected above and the types of wastes anticipated to
be disposed of from each source. For instance, dining sources would primarily contain food waste,
containers for food, and compostable paper whereas administration sources would consist of
compostable paper, office paper, food waste, and recyclable plastics. Every roll-off container,
compactor and dumpster emptied by the PPD or contracted out to a private hauler was classified as
contributing to a campus source.

Historically, solid waste at UF is denoted into five recorded categories, which are municipal solid
waste (MSW), construction and demolition debris (C&D debris), recyclable material, hazardous waste,
and medical waste. The monthly weight generated for each category is recorded by PPD. In addition,
recyclable material is denoted into eight subcategories which are also weighted monthly. Of these waste
categories, MSW is the category with the most potential for improvement, since as MSW is the primary










contributor to the UF waste stream and is composed of non-hazardous waste. Thus, the composition
was investigated through MSW composition evaluations.

These evaluations were designed and conducted on the University's MSW from the main
campus. Samples of waste from each source were extracted and the waste was sorted into waste
component categories and subcategories. The primary waste component categories were paper,
plastic, glass, metal, organic, products, construction and demolition debris, and special waste. These
categories were further broken down into subcategories and parts, when necessary. These are detailed
by the MSW composition sort method utilized in Appendices _. At each MSW sort, weight and volume
measurements were taken to determine the percentage that each waste category contributed to the
sample and ultimately the UF waste stream.

Waste management and reduction techniques at other universities were evaluated by
researching their solid waste management and recycling strategies. Successful techniques offered
insight on how UF could better manage, reduce, and recover the waste generated. Also, the difficulties
encountered at other universities identified problematic areas for consideration as well as supplied a
forewarning on what to expect when implementing recommendations.

Proposals and recommendations on viable alternatives for waste management were based on
the information accumulated through research, data analysis, and MSW composition studies completed
for this audit. Once the greatest opportunities for recovery were identified, alternate management
techniques were advised that would promote greater capture, diversion, and recommendations were
offered on further research and efforts that would promote sustainable waste management at UF.


1.3. ORGANIZATION OF AUDIT

This audit report is organized into five primary chapters with appendices containing the
supporting information, detailed work, and results. The first chapter presents the introduction, which
details the purpose and scope of the audit. The second chapter is an overview of solid waste generation
at the University of Florida, introducing the different types of solid wastes generated on campus and
identifying the sources of waste. The third chapter details the current practices of waste management
at UF, including who manages, collects, disposes and/or recovers each waste type. In the fourth
chapter, the waste generation and composition of the University's waste stream is investigated. Overall
waste generation trends are identified and the MSW and recyclables stream is examined in detail. In the
final chapter, observations and recommendations are presented.

The appendices commence with the glossary describing the terminology utilized within the
report then the campus sources are identified. This includes information on how the campus sources
were determined, their significance the campus categories as well as eight years worth of historic data.
Then the methodology for the different phases of the MSW sorts is described. This includes the waste
category identifications, sampling and sorting protocols, and detailed results of each phase. Next the
compiled results of all of the MSW sorts are detailed. Finally, the literature review details waste
management strategies on other campuses.










2. Solid Waste at the University of Florida

The main campus of the University of Florida is made up of over 2,000 acres in Gainesville,
Florida. UF is composed of 16 colleges and more than 150 research centers and institutes with over
50,000 students, 12,000 staff, and 4,000 faculty members utilizing these facilities. As such, the
University generates a large amount and a wide variety of solid waste. Solid waste is defined as any
garbage, refuse, sludge or other discarded material'. Solid waste results from a number of different
sources, including typical residential refuse produced by dormitories to on-campus dining halls,
academic buildings, as well as the medical and hazardous waste produced by the medical and research
institutions and labs.

The University of Florida manages solid waste through the Physical Plant Division. In order to
manage and track the solid waste appropriately, PPD classifies the UF waste stream into five waste
categories, based on their composition, source, and characteristics. The categories recorded in this
tracking scheme are MSW, C&D debris, recyclable material, medical waste, and hazardous waste. An
overview of the UF waste categories produced is provided in Table 1.


Table 1: Summary of the recorded waste categories at UF

Waste
aste Description
Category
Waste produced in dormitories, academic buildings, dining halls, recreational
Municipal Solid
S facilities and other campus buildings that is primarily composed of paper, organic,
Waste (MSW)
and plastic and disposed of by students, faculty and staff during standard activities.
Construction Waste produced during the construction, renovation, or demolition of campus
and Demolition structures. These structures include buildings, sidewalks, roads, and any other man
(C&D) Debris made edifice.
Waste that is able to be and is recycled, reused, or donated. This includes paper,
Recyclable
scrap metal, cans and bottles, sludge, yard waste, masonry, electronics as well as
Material
miscellaneous products such as batteries, carpets, paints and oils.
Waste produced at the medical institutions on campus, such as Shands and the
Medical Waste Veterinary Hospital. This is special waste that could contain bodily fluids,
pharmaceutical waste, and any wastes that could possibly present a biohazard
Any waste that could be considered harmful that is produced on campus. This
includes fuels, chemicals, solvents, and any other material that is disposed in any of
Waste
the laboratories or research institutions on campus2.



1 National Archives and Records Administration. (2009, September 3). Title 40: Protection of Environment.
Retrieved September 6, 2009, from Electronic Code of Federal Regulations:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-
idx?c=ecfr&sid=305f91bl7ec541820b9e4948af6f35af&rgn=div8&view=text&node=40:25.0.1.1.2.1.1.2&idno=40
2 University of Florida. (2009, July 28). Hazardous Material Management. Retrieved August 15, 2009, from
Environmental Health & Safety: http://www.ehs.ufl.edu/HMM/default.asp










To estimate the composition of the University of Florida's waste stream, it was necessary to
identify, evaluate and quantify the contributing waste categories. In this chapter, each waste category is
described in detail. The management as well as the generation and composition of the waste categories
is detailed in Chapters Three and Four, respectively.


2.1. MUNICIPAL SOLID WASTE (MSW)

MSW is a term used in the solid waste industry to describe those wastes produced by
residential, commercial, and institutional activities. It is most commonly associated with the garbage
that is collected from single-family homes, multi-family dwellings, businesses, and institutions. The
primary components of MSW include paper, plastic, food waste, glass, metals, textiles, and other
discarded products.

In the context of this report, MSW is the landfilled waste generated from classrooms, libraries,
offices, laboratories, recreational facilities, as well as on-campus commercial establishments and
residences. Moreover, it includes waste generated from standard maintenance activities such as the
litter collected by PPD and street sweepings3. Some components of MSW (e.g., office paper, cans and
bottles) are recyclable; if diverted, these recycled materials are recorded by PPD in the recycled material
category. Therefore, in this report, MSW does not included recycled material. Moreover, MSW does not
include hazardous nor other regulated waste.

Since the MSW stream had yet to be fully characterized, MSW was investigated in depth in this
report. MSW is the waste stream that most individuals associate with solid waste, it is the largest single
component of the UF waste stream at 48.25%, it is highly variable, and it is a good target for recycling
and reduction activities. In order to appropriately assess the MSW generated on campus, the campus
was categorized by the source or generator of the waste.

The campus sources reflect the composition of waste disposed at a particular building, which
would differ depending on the activities performed in the building. Every roll-off container, compactor
and dumpster which is emptied by PPD or contracted out was then classified. This was done by
examining the building descriptions where the containers were located. For instance, the dumpster on
the south side of the New Engineering Building (NEB) was categorized as Academic: Mixed since the
dumpster is most conveniently located for waste from NEB. Within NEB are classrooms, laboratories,
and offices, hence the Academic: Mixed categorization. In some areas, multiple buildings will utilize one
dumpster and the buildings may represent different campus sources. In these instances, one source was
assumed the primary contributor. The sources and sub-sources determined for the UF campus and are
listed and described in Table 2.

With each dumpster, compactor, and roll-off container classified as contributing to a single
source, maximum volume estimates were determined for each source. This information gave insight on
how each source contributed to the UF MSW stream. This will be detailed further in Chapter Four. The
complete assessment of dumpsters, compactors, and roll-off containers is provided in Appendix B.

3 Street sweepings are composed of soil, leaves, litter, and other debris collected from the paved roads on campus
using a mechanical sweeping device.










Table 2: The University of Florida was separated into sources of MSW, referred to as campus sources

Campus Source Description

Academic: Animal Lab Laboratories whose research activities involve animals

Academic: Plant Lab Laboratories whose research activities predominantly involve plants

Academic: Library Exclusively involves library

Academic: Mixed Includes a combination of lecture halls, laboratories, libraries, and offices

Administration Mostly composed of offices

Dinning Food service locations

Recreational Recreational facilities and fields

Housing: Dorms Exclusively involves dorms

Housing: Family Exclusively involves family housing

Housing: Greek Sororities and fraternities

Miscellaneous Unclassifiable, such as storage units, hay barns, building services, etc

Waste produced in buildings where research is primarily medical in nature
Medical (not to be confused with the medical waste type) This would include any
Medical
waste that is thrown in regular containers that are not specifically for bio-
hazardous or any other special waste.



2.2. CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS (C&D)

C&D debris is known as any waste that is produced as a result of construction, renovation, or
demolition of any man-made structure. This includes items such as concrete, wood, asphalt, sheetrock,
glass, plastics, fiberglass, ceramics, and any other building material. In Florida, C&D debris can be
separated from MSW or disposed in either Class III or C&D landfills that charge less expensive tipping
fees.

In UF's tracking scheme C&D refers to C&D materials disposed at a landfill. Although, certain
C&D materials are recycled (e.g., masonry); these are included as part of the recycled materials
category. On campus, C&D debris is collected in roll-off containers designated exclusively for C&D debris
and located where construction, demolition, or renovation activities are being carried out. The roll-offs
are located at each construction, demolition, and renovation projects completed by PPD or contracted.


2.3. RECYCLABLE MATERIAL

Recyclable materials are referred to as any product or material that can be processed into new
products. This applies to a wide range of materials from paper, metal, plastic, glass, textiles, electronics,
and C&D debris like wood, concrete, and bricks. Other important products to recycle included










automotive products like motor oil, tires, and car frames as well as hazardous materials such as
fluorescent light bulbs, paints, batteries, and pesticides4.

Currently, recyclable materials weighed at UF include paper, scrap metal, cans, bottles,
wastewater treatment sludge, yard waste, masonry, electronics as well as miscellaneous products such
as batteries, carpets, paints, and oils. Many of these items, such as cans, bottles, paper and masonry
may also be components of the MSW and C&D debris streams. However, if they are diverted from the
landfill waste stream and recovered through recycling or reuse, these materials are classified as
recyclable material. The recycling data does not reflect small scale recovery efforts such as composting
at the Butterfly Garden or Diamond Village. Moreover, UF currently does not track certain products that
are recycled such as toner cartridges and wooden pallets.

The weight of each recyclable material subcategory is recorded monthly in addition to the five
waste categories discussed earlier. Consequently, UF has been characterizing recyclable material for
over a decade. The material recycled is a function of the availability of appropriate outlets and markets.

2.3.1. PAPER
Campus wide, in each campus source identified, paper waste is generated and composes one of
the largest contributors to the UF waste and recycling stream. Currently, UF classifies recyclable paper
as office paper, mixed paper, corrugated cardboard, newspaper, junk mail, phonebooks, and magazines.
Paper products that are currently not recycled are compostable paper like napkins, paper plates, paper
towels, paper soiled with food, as well as composite paper products such as packaging materials where
plastic and paper are present. Moreover, neither paperboard nor pasteboard containers are recycled.

2.3.2. SCRAP METAL
Products containing metal such as filing cabinets, desks, wire, eve troughs, and rebar are easily
dismantled for the metal and recycled. IFAS projects and PPD maintenance contribute to the scrap
metal frequently. Metal has one of the highest recycling markets because it is simpler as well as less
expensive and resource intensive to make metal products from secondary production, where metal is
reused, than primary production where metal is extracted and processed from ores which are sources of
metal in the earth that occur naturally.

2.3.3. CANS AND BOTTLES
Recyclable food and drink containers are brought to or purchased at school from vending
machines or commercial establishment during daily business and school activities. Plastic, glass, and
metal drink containers as well as certain food containers, denoted as cans and bottles, are recyclable.
Number one through seven plastic containers, with a pourable spout up to two gallons, are accepted
campus wide. This also includes yogurt cups and margarine tubs. The numbers on the plastic containers
identify the type of resin material utilized, for instance number one plastic is polyethylene terephthalate


4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2009, February 18). Recycling. Retrieved June 30, 2009, from Wastes -
Resource Conservation Reduce, Reuse, Recycle: http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/conserve/rrr/recycle.htm










(PET, #1) and number two plastic is high density polyethylene (HDPE, #2). Unbroken glass or metal food
and beverage containers are also accepted.

2.3.4. WASTEWATER TREATMENT SLUDGE
UF operates a water reclamation facility to treat wastewater produced by campus buildings.
Solids and dissolved materials in the wastewater are treated using a variety of physical and biological
methods. One of the byproducts of this treatment operation is wastewater treatment sludge, commonly
referred to as sludge or biosolids. These biosolids are composed primarily of microbial biomass that has
been separated from the wastewater treatment process and concentrated, as well as some inorganic
material such as sand and grit. Biosolids contain nutrients and organic matter which often make it a
valuable material for application to soils for agriculture. This is the case with biosolids from the UF
reclamation facility. The biosolids are collected by Gainesville Regional Utilities (GRU) and managed as
part of the land application program.

2.3.5. YARD WASTE
Yard waste is defined as waste composed of leaves, branches, and soil5. This describes various
kinds of woody or organic debris that are a result of manicuring outside areas. In Florida, yard waste is
banned from Class I and II Landfills. This reflects that the materials are inert and biodegradable and
therefore should not take up space in a landfill that accepts MSW and other wastes.

UF's yard waste is produced during routine landscape maintenance of the campus. This includes
mowing, trimming trees and shrubs, landscaping, land clearing, and any other activities that would
produce waste composed of soils, leaves, and woody debris. Much of this waste is easily compostable;
therefore, recovery can be attained.

2.3.6. MASONRY
Masonry waste is generated from construction, renovation, and demolition projects on campus
and may be composed of concrete and bricks. These materials are highly recyclable, thus they are
collected separately from other C&D debris and sent to be recovered. Historically, the masonry reported
as recycled is just from PPD project, however, the UF Facilities Planning and Construction (FP&C) is now
reporting recycling figures from Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) projects.

2.3.7. ELECTRONIC WASTE
Electronic waste has recently become a regulated and a recyclable waste. It is generally
described as discarded, surplus, obsolete, broken electrical or electronic devices. Included in the
electronic waste category are any items such as computers, entertainment device electronics, mobile






5 Townsend, Timothy. (2008). Organic Waste Management. [Powerpoint]. Presented in Solid and Hazardous Waste
Management. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.










phones, and other items such as television sets and projectors6. If the disposal is not handled properly,
the items pose a risk to environmental and human health because they contain heavy metals such as
lead and cadmium and possibly other environmental contaminants.

2.3.8. MISCELLANEOUS

UF recycles a variety of other wastes that are generated irregularly and/or in smaller quantities.
Miscellaneous items include, but are not limited to batteries, carpets, paints, and oils.


2.4. MEDICAL WASTE

Medical waste is defined as waste that is generated in the diagnosis, treatment, or
immunization of humans or animals7. This includes tissue, bodily fluids, pharmaceuticals, syringes, and
any other wastes that could possibly present a biohazard. There are different types of medical wastes
such as those that could be potentially infectious and those that are considered non-infectious.

UF medical waste is produced in research labs and medical institutions on campus (e.g Shands
Hospital and the Veterinary Medical Center). For the purpose of this report, medical waste refers only to
the waste disposed of in specially marked red bags. This waste has specific handling and disposal
procedures that are listed in later sections of the report. Any other wastes produced at these facilities
falls under the MSW category.


2.5. HAZARDOUS WASTE

Hazardous wastes are materials that could cause or contribute to serious illness or death. They
are also defined as wastes that could pose substantial risk to human health or the environment8. Wastes
are considered hazardous if they are listed by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), or if
they show one (or more) of four hazardous characteristics. For a waste to have a hazardous
characteristic it would be ignitable, corrosive, reactive, and/or toxic.




6University Controller. (2006, May 18). Reducing, Re-Using and/or Recycling University of Florida Electronic
Equipment. Retrieved August 26, 2009, from Directives and Procedures:
http://fa.ufl.edu/uco/handbook/handbook.asp?doc=1.4.9.17

7 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2008, September 9). Medical Waste. Retrieved August 29, 2009, from
Wastes -Non-Hazardous Waste Industrial Waste:
http://www.epa.gov/waste/nonhaz/industrial/medical/index.htm

8 National Archives and Records Administration. (2009, September 3). Title 40: Protection of Environment, Subpart
B-Criteria for Identifying the Characteristics of Hazardous Waste and for Listing Hazardous Waste. Retrieved
September 6, 2009, from Electronic Code of Federal Regulations: http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-
idx?c=ecfr;sid=0c206ac884496dc640fc104e2f3 f76a;rgn=div5;view=text;node=40%3A25.0.1.1.2;idno=40;cc=ecfr#
PartTop










UF's hazardous waste is composed of spent solvents, solutions, and other wastes containing
toxic chemicals that are discarded from campus laboratories and other facilities as part of the research
infrastructure. Due to the chemicals they contain and their characteristics, these chemicals are managed
differently than other wastes to protect the safety of UF's students, staff, and visitors in addition to the
environment. They are managed following special requirements that are detailed more in the current
management section.










3. CURRENT SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT AT THE UNIVERSITY OF
FLORIDA

The staff at the Physical Plant Division manages and records the waste generated in the five
waste categories outlined. Collection and disposal is either performed by PPD or contracted out. PPD is
responsible for maintaining equipment, contracts, and agreements to ensure that solid waste is
managed in an acceptable manner. Waste is managed depending on its characteristics and where it is
sent for final disposal. The total weight of waste that is disposed of at landfills (i.e. MSW and C&D
debris), the weight of recyclable material sent to appropriate handling facilities, the medical waste sent
to Stericycle, and the hazardous waste sent to Environmental Health and Safety (EH&S) are documented
monthly. Table 3 summarizes the current management strategies for the recorded UF waste categories.


Table 3: Summary of management strategies for major UF categories


Waste
Category


Management


MSW receptacles are placed in all major offices, residential areas, and classrooms
around campus. These containers are emptied by the building staff into dumpsters,
compactors, and roll-off containers located outside of buildings.
Municipal
Solid Waste Approximately 600 trash receptacles and 300 dumpsters are dispersed throughout the
Solid Waste
campus and collected by UF PPD. Seventeen compactors are on campus and serviced by
Southland Waste Systems (SWS) and ten roll-off containers serviced by _. The MSW is
disposed at a New River Regional Landfill.

C&D debris is managed differently depending on who handles the project. When the
Construction project is contracted it is the responsibility of the contractor to dispose and recycle the
and waste properly. Since 2001, all major construction and renovation projects must be LEED
Demolition certified and, starting this year, all waste and recycling data must be reported to PPD.
Debris When projects are managed by PPD, the wastes are either recovered or disposed of in
Florence Landfill, which is a C&D landfill.

Indoor and/or outdoor collection containers are available for the various recyclable
Recyclable
materials. The collection and transportation of recyclables is completed by UF PPD,
Material
contractors, or vendors depending on the explicit recyclable.

All medical wastes are deposited at the source in biohazard containers for disposal.
Medical
Treatment prior to disposal depends on the type of medical waste. The waste is
Waste
collected, managed, and disposed by Stericycle.

All hazardous wastes on campus are sent to Environmental Health and Safety. The waste
Hazardous is then managed in a manner that is dictated by the characteristics of the waste. Once a
Waste hazardous waste is identified, it is marked with a placard detailing how it is dangerous.
These wastes are ultimately sent to a disposal facility that accepts hazardous wastes.










Additional discussion of the landfilled, recycled, medical, and hazardous waste infrastructure
and management are provided in this chapter. Detailed are the disposal containers available, vehicles
utilized and collection methods utilized. Current diversion and reduction programs in place or under
investigation are also detailed under recyclable material.

With the historical data provided by PPD from 2001 through 2008 on the monthly weights of
each waste category recorded, the average contributions to the UF waste stream were determined.
Consequently, MSW (48.25%), recyclable material (36.51%), and C&D debris (12.91%) were investigated
thoroughly since these three waste categories combine to account for 97.67% of the UF waste stream.
Medical waste (1.81%) and hazardous waste (0.52%) contribute approximately 2.33% to the UF waste
stream, since the contribution is low in comparison, the disposal containers, vehicles, and techniques
are only summarized.


3.1. MSW

MSW disposal containers are dispersed indoors and outdoors throughout the UF campus.
Details on the containers available to students, staff and faculty as well as the containers used to
accumulate the waste before disposal at the Alachua County Transfer Station (ACTS) or New River
Regional Landfill (NRRL) is provided in this chapter. Moreover, the standard collection and disposal
methods utilized are specified.

3.1.1. DISPOSAL CONTAINERS

3.1.1.1. Indoor
There are small MSW containers available inside offices, classrooms, and laboratories. Larger
MSW containers are available in hallways and common areas within buildings. Figure 2 presents an
example of a standard hallway and office MSW containers. Also available are restroom receptacle which
are mounted on walls, Figure 3, or within stalls. The refuse from each of these indoor receptacles is
collected by building staff and deposited into the nearest dumpster.










(A) (B)


Figure 2: Examples of standard indoor MSW receptacles from (A) hallways and common areas as well as
(B) offices, classroom, and laboratories


Figure 3: A wall mounted garbage receptacle for bathrooms










3.1.1.2. Outdoor


PPD designates all outdoor trash cans as trash receptacles (TRs). Trash receptacles consist of open
containers with wooden slats, as seen in Figure 4. Approximately 600 TRs are dispersed throughout the
main campus. Trash receptacles are available for the use of commuting students, faculty, staff, and
visitors and are emptied daily. These receptacles are maintained by the PPD grounds crew and the waste
is placed in the nearest dumpster.


Figure 4: Ex2


d around the UF campus


Dumpsters on the campus vary in size from 4 cubic yd to 8 cubic yd. Approximately 256 MSW
dumpsters are located campus wide, Figure 5. Dumpsters are in close proximity to the source of refuse,
specifically buildings. The waste within each building is disposed of in the nearest dumpster, along with
the waste from the trash receptacles in the vicinity of the dumpster. The campus is divided into three
dumpster collection routes, the north, central, south, and one recycling route. MSW dumpsters are on
average collected twice a week by UF, however, some dumpsters, such as those at dining halls, are
emptied daily.

































Compactors, like the one displayed in Figure 6, are available for high volume sources, such as
Shands Medical Center and Reitz Union. As of August 2009, there are a total of seventeen compactors
campus wide, fourteen of which are for garbage. Compactors are collected by Southland Waste Systems
(SWS). The compactors range from 12 cubic yards to 35 cubic yards; however, the majority is 34 cubic
yard compactors. In addition to these standard compactors, there are specialty mini compactors that
compact trash prior to being deposited into the garbage dumpsters located at Gator Corner and
Broward Dining, Figure 7.


Figure 6: Example of a MSW compactor






































Figure 7: Example of a specialty MSW compactor


Typically roll-off containers are used for temporary collection of waste, for instance at C&D sites,
and on campus roll-off containers range from 10 to 40 cubic yards. Currently, roll-off containers are
occasionally in place for bulk MSW items that are routinely disposed, but do not fit in a dumpster or
compactor, as well as for the Veterinary Medicine building for the sterilized stall material. Roll-off
containers are also utilized during the end of spring semesters when students are moving out of the on
campus housing. Primarily, roll-off containers are used for C&D debris and recyclable material generated
on campus.

3.1.2. DISPOSAL VEHICLES

The University of Florida owns and utilizes a vehicle fleet to collect and transport solid waste.
Solid waste management vehicles are primarily utilized by PPD, however, other departments/units such
as Surplus Warehouse handle solid waste as well. The vehicles are used to pick up refuse, concrete, yard
waste, electronic waste, and other forms of solid waste.

Grounds Department uses utility vehicles such as bobcats and gators to collect the outdoor
refuse from TRs. There are three different TR routes for the entire campus which are the northeast,
northwest, and south campus routes. When the cart is full, Grounds staff deposits the garbage in the
nearest dumpster. An example of a bobcat is pictured in Figure 8.































Figure 8: Example of a Bobcat vehicle


PPD owns four front loading refuse trucks, Figure 9, to empty dumpsters on campus. PPD then
hauls the waste to the Transfer Station. Also, SWS provides UF with a rear loader refuse truck following
home football games to increase the ease of


Figure 9: Example ot a tront loading truck


PPD owns their own street sweeper, Figure 10, which cleans campus streets and roads. The
sweepings are collected in the sweeper truck and then are deposited into a roll-off container until it is










full and can be disposed in a landfill. Due to contamination from for instance litter and automotive oils,
greases, and gasoline, recovery options like composting are not available for street sweepings. However,
if the contamination is low enough, the sweepings may be discarded at a Class III Landfill, which is less
expensive than the Class I and II landfills that MSW must be deposited.


3.1.3. DISPOSAL AND RECOVERY TECHNIQUES
Both MSW and C&D from UF are disposed in landfills. The landfill facility utilized depends on the
type of waste. In Florida, MSW must be placed in Class I or II landfills. PPD front loading trucks collect
MSW from the containers on campus and deliver it to the Alachua County Transfer Station. This waste is
then hauled from ACTS to the New River Regional Landfill by Alachua County in large transfer trailers.
The NRRL is a permitted Class I landfill. In a few cases, a UF collection vehicle will take a MSW load
directly to NRRL.


3.2. C&D DEBRIS

C&D debris disposal containers are located on site as well as in the PPD Recycle Yard on campus.
C&D debris is kept separate from MSW because in Florida it can be disposed of in Class III or C&D
Landfills. The method in which this material is collected and disposed is detailed below.

3.2.1. DISPOSAL CONTAINERS
C&D debris is managed in three different manners depending on the size of the project. If the
project is small, such as patching a portion of a sidewalk, the C&D debris is stored in a roll-off in the PPD
Recycle Yard, until there is enough to transport to the C&D landfill. If the job is larger, the waste can be










directly contained in a truck and hauled to the C&D landfill upon completion. Lastly, on medium to large
scale projects, such as building renovation, demolition, and construction, the waste is deposited into a
roll-off container on site. Roll-off containers are used for C&D debris because of the large volume and
ease of disposal. Roll-off containers can also be rented by construction contractors for C&D debris
collection, as displayed in Figure 11. Currently, there are eight C&D roll-Off containers utilized on campus
which range from 10 to 40 cubic yards.


Figure 11: Example of a roll-off container


3.2.2. DISPOSAL VEHICLES


PPD uses front loading trucks to load concrete, yard waste, soil, scrap metal, and any other
bulky or heavy material. These trucks differ from the refuse front loading trucks pictured in Figure 9, for
instance they may include a grapple for retrieving heavy and/or bulky material.

3.2.3. DISPOSAL AND RECOVERY TECHNIQUES
In Florida, C&D debris can be placed in a Class I landfill, but it may also be disposed in a Class III
landfill or a C&D disposal facility9. Currently, C&D debris from UF is disposed at Florence Landfill, a
permitted C&D landfill in Alachua County. C&D debris is also diverted from the landfill waste stream
through concrete and brick recovery efforts.

The waste generated from renovation, construction, and demolition projects completed by UF is
documented monthly. Historically, these were the only numbers C&D debris numbers recorded,
however, the UF Facilities Planning and Construction (FP&C) is now reporting the figures from LEED
projects to PPD.




9 Class III landfills and C&D disposal facilities do not require the same degree of environmental protection as MSW
landfills; C&D debris are considered more inert compared to MSW. The disposal cost at Class III landfills and C&D
disposal facilities is less than Class I landfills.










3.3. RECYCLABLE MATERIAL


The availability of containers for proper disposal of recyclable material is increasing campus
wide. Containers are located in areas where high volumes are generated, for instance paper recycling
containers are often located in copy rooms, high traffic areas inside and outside, as well as upon
request.

3.3.1. DISPOSAL CONTAINERS
Detailed below are the recycling containers available for standard household recyclable such as
paper and cans and bottles. Container and/or collection methods are also in place throughout campus
for highly recyclable materials such as scrap metal, printer cartridges, and batteries. Specialized
collection for materials like masonry and biosolids are in place, but are not detailed in disposal
containers since the generation is explicit to C&D sites and the water reclamation facility.

3.3.1.1. Indoor
Indoor recycling for cans and bottles as well as paper is now readily available around UF. The
indoor paper recycling program is a well established effort, whereas the indoor can and bottle recycling
initiative is a recent and well received addition.

The indoor containers for can and bottle recycling are a recent investment by PPD. There are
over 600 can & bottle 19 gallon Bullseye bins, Figure 12, dispersed in buildings campus wide. Moreover,
the Reitz Union has funded the dispersal of 36 compartmentalized (three-tiered) containers throughout
the Reitz Union which have a slot for waste, paper, and containers such as cans & bottles, Figure 13.


Figure 12: Indoor 19 gallon recycling container for cans & bottles































Figure 13: Indoor compartmentalized recycling containers with paper, can and bottle, and MSW slots.


Currently, there are free desk trays for recyclable paper available from PPD, Figure 14, as well
as over 1000 large paper recycling containers, which are either 95-gallon carts or 40-gallon consoles,
Figure 15. The large paper recycling containers are strategically located in key areas such as copy rooms
and outside of elevators. There are also bins that are emptied on an on-call basis by PPD.


Figure 14: Example of desk tray for paper recycling
































Figure 15: Example of indoor 40-gz


ig cart tor paper


3.3.1.2. Outdoor
Outdoor paper and can and bottle recycling are offered in three different forms to commuting
traffic. These are for pedestrian use, and are placed throughout the high traffic areas around the
campus. First, there are 150 metal containers that are clearly marked for mixed can and bottle
recyclables as seen in Figure 16 A. A map with the majority of metal containers identified campus wide
is provided in Appendix C. Second, there are 250 plastic 95-gallon carts, Figure 16 B, that are placed
outside of select buildings such as the dorms and dining halls for mixed can and bottle recyclables.
Third, approximately 10 outdoor compartmentalized containers, Figure 17, have been introduced on
campus and have a section for waste, paper, and mixed container recyclables. These three-tiered
compartmentalized containers are available in the Reitz Lawn and Turlington area.











































Figure 16: Outdoor recycling containers for can and bottle; (A) a metal bin dispersed campus wide for
commuting traffic, (B) a 95 gallon container located by on campus housing facilities


~ .." '4. .'':-... '-''*.''
- .... .. .
... .... ; .. r- .
.:.4, '' **,' '" ..r" *" "*'


Figure 17: Outdoor three-tiered compartmentalized bins for paper, can and bottle recyclables as well as
MSW disposal, bins located around the Reitz Lawn and Turlington.


:7' 77 q


' 4_ LN










Dumpsters for recyclable are available campus wide and vary in size from 4 cubic yd to 8 cubic
yd. Dumpsters provide ease of proper disposal for high volume sources within buildings. There are 92
paper dumpsters dispersed through the campus, Figure 18 A. In addition, there six dumpsters for cans
and bottles, Figure 18 B, which are located at the Shands loading dock, Shands Kitchen, Broward Dining,
Reitz loading dock, O'Connell Center, and at Veterinary Medicine. The campus has one recycling route,
which is in addition to the previously discussed dumpster routes (i.e. north, central, and south).
Paper/cardboard dumpsters are collected by UF twice weekly. The can and bottle dumpsters are
collected by UF as well, but collection frequency collection is need based.



(A) (B)


Figure 18: Example of dumpsters for recyclable material, (A) paper and cardboard dumpster and (B) can
and bottle dumpsters


Compactors, like the one displayed in Figure 19, are available for high volume sources, such as
Shands Medical Center and Reitz Union. Campus wide there are a total of seventeen compactors, three
of which are for paper/cardboard recycling. The three paper compactors are all 34 cubic yard and are
collected by SWS. In addition to these standard compactors, there are specialty mini compactors that
compact paper/cardboard, Figure 20, located at dining facilities and recreational facilities like the
University Alumni Association at the Stadium.

































Figure 19: Example of a paper/cardboard compactor


Figure 20: Example of a specialty paper/cardboard compactor


At UF, roll-off containers are also used in the PPD Recycle Yard to temporarily store materials
until they are sent for recovery. Two roll-off containers, Figure 21, are used to store the can and bottle
recyclables from the containers inside buildings, the five dumpsters, as well as about half of the outdoor










containers. There are also roll-off containers used in the Recycle Yard to store wooden pallets, masonry,
and metals. A roll-off container is provided and serviced by SP Recycling during home football games to
assist with the increased generation of recyclables.


Figure 21: Example of a can and bottle roll-off container


3.3.2. DISPOSAL VEHICLES
PPD utilizes pickup trucks to collect half of the outdoor metal and indoor can and bottle
recycling containers. Surplus Warehouse uses a truck and a large semi-trailer to collect electronics,
furniture, and other reusable products. When items are no longer able to be reused these vehicles are
used to transport materials to their appropriate disposal/recovery sites. An example of a truck is
presented in Figure 22.


Figure 22: Example ot a truck tor surplus products


L N11'E~r
FLOMMOF'l~










PPD's Solid Waste Division has a semi-trailer, Figure 23, which is used to collect and store
carpet. The carpet is stored at the recycle yard prior to proper recovery.















Figure 23: PPD semi-trailer used to store recyclable carpet


3.3.3. DISPOSAL AND RECOVERY TECHNIQUES
The University has implemented a recycling program where recyclable items can be deposited
in specific areas for pick up and recovery. Most of the recycling is outsourced via contracts and vendor
agreements. The recyclables by material and how they are managed is summarized in this section. The
collection frequency and the locations of the containers are decided on an as needed basis. Certain
containers are collected daily while others may only be collected monthly or for special events.

In addition to the traditional recycling program, the UF Office of Sustainability has established
an infrastructure for sustainable initiatives and communication through the Green Team. The Green
Team is composed of over 100 Green Team Captains (GTCs) in departments and units, such as the
museum, dining halls, and academic departments, campus wide. GTCs help promote sustainable
practices such as source reduction and recycling in departments and units and communication among
the teams. Moreover, GTCs encourage participation in campus sustainable initiatives and identify as well
as inform about departmental and University progress towards sustainability goals10. There are also
representatives in housing that promote sustainable practices in dorms.

3.3.3.1. Paper
Paper recycling at UF is handled depending on the container. Indoor paper is collected,
transported and recycled by Recycling Services of America, Inc. Paper is collected from the indoor
recycling containers inside buildings (Figure 15). The paper is then taken to their facility for recovery.
Cintas was hired to collect and shred all campus confidential documents. These are then transported to
their warehouse to be sent to their preferred recycler.





10 University of Florida. (2009, March). The Green Team. Retrieved July 21, 2009, from Office of Sustainablity:
http://sustainable.ufl.edu/greenteam/










Outdoor cardboard dumpsters are collected by UF front loading trucks and transported to RSA.
Outdoor cardboard compactors are collected by Southland Waste Systems and transported to RSA for
recovery.

3.3.3.2. Scrap Metal
Products containing metal such as desks, filing cabinets, wire, and rebar are easily dismantled
for the metal and recycled. Metal is accumulated in the PPD Recycle Yard until there is enough to be
collected by Commercial Metals for recovery.

3.3.3.3. Cans and Bottles
Indoor can and bottle containers are emptied by the Building Staff and left in a specified area for
PPD solid waste staff to collect on their outdoor route. They are then deposited in the can and bottle
roll-off container in the Recycle Yard until recovery.

PPD collects half of the metal outdoor can and bottle containers as well as the three-tiered
compartmentalized recycling containers. The materials collected by PPD are temporarily stored in the
PPD Recycle Yard until there is enough material for economical transport to Southeast Paper. Waste Pro
collects the other half of the metal outdoor can and bottle containers as well as all of the 95-gallon
carts. The materials collected by Waste Pro are sent directly to Southeast Paper for recovery.

3.3.3.4. Wastewater Treatment Sludge
The wastewater treatment sludge generated at the UF water reclamation facility is collected by
Gainesville Regional Utilities and taken to one of GRU's facilities for processing. The sludge is then
applied to farmland as a soil amendment.

3.3.3.5. Yard Waste
Yard waste is collected by either the PPD Grounds Crew or SWS. When collected by the Grounds
Crew, the waste is stored until economically feasible to transport to Wood Resource Recovery (WRR) for
composting. SWS hauls the waste directly to WRR where it is processed and composted.

3.3.3.6. Masonry
The PPD Grounds Crew manages the masonry to be recycled at Florida Concrete. Depending on
how much is generated, masonry will either be transported directly to Florida Concrete after projects or
temporarily stored in the PPD Recycle Yard until it can be transported to Florida Concrete for recovery.

3.3.3.7. Electronic Waste
Campus electronics are managed by Asset Management. First, the electronics are retained by
the department in a storage area, where others departmentally can access the electronics, if they are
still unwanted, and then Asset Management collects and logs all electronics on the Surplus Property










online database. If the electronics cannot be redistributed on campus, they are auctioned. Any
remaining electronics are donated or recycled via Creative Recycling".

3.3.3.8. Miscellaneous
UF recycles a variety of other wastes that are generated in substantially smaller quantities. The
weights of these recyclables may or may not be recorded. Auto batteries are sent to Motor Pool for
exchange. Motor Pool then sends them to their preferred vendor for recovery. EH&S collects and
recycles the rechargeable batteries from campus. Items such as standard sized wooden pallets and
spent toner cartridges are not recorded, though they are recycled.

3.3.3.9. Diversion Opportunities
There are a variety of efforts toward enhancing and initiating sustainable practices at the
University. Moreover, UF encourages departments and units to integrate sustainable practices.
Initiatives range from education programs, source reduction plans, to utilizing applicable recovery
techniques.

Education and outreach programs about how and where to recycle (e.g. Sustainability Hut and
Green Team) are prevalent on campus. These initiatives help to implement UF's recycling program.
Student Green Team members and other organizations help on game days to inspire tailgaters to
properly dispose of recyclables in designated bins. The University supports competitions like
Recyclemania12 and Focus the Nation13 as well as provides incentives such as trophies and celebrations
with food and prizes for competitions (e.g. One Less Car Challenge). Moreover, PPD is continually
working to enhance the management system, including special event management. For instance, PPD
has commenced a new game day recycling initiative, supplementing their current strategy and Green
Team efforts, to assist fans in properly disposing of their recyclables. This entails gator themed recycle
stations that are dispersed in parking lots and have holders for clear plastic bags, which fans can use to
dispose their recyclable waste. The clear bags allow PPD employees to clearly identify the waste as
recyclable and handle it appropriately. Moreover, the stations are readily accessible and have plaques
informing fans about recycling.

The University of Florida supports source reduction by promoting sustainable products and
programs. Asset Management is used to exchange working electronics and accessories, or to recycle
components that are outdated or broken. The University created a supply swap site through Asset
Management, which is a free online exchange for unwanted, useable supplies, furniture and other


"University of Florida. (2006, May 18). E-Waste Directive. Retrieved July 22, 2009, from UF Controllers Office:
http://fa.ufl.edu/uco/handbook/handbook.asp?doc=1.4.9.17
12 RecycleMania is a competition and benchmarking tool for college and university recycling programs to both
promote waste reduction activities on campus communities and diffuse information nationally. Over a 10-week
period, schools report recycling and trash data which are then ranked according to who collects the largest amount
of recyclables per capital, the largest amount of total recyclables, the least amount of trash per capital, or have the
highest recycling rate. In 2009, 510 schools representing all 50 states participated.
13 Focus the Nation is a non-profit organization dedicated to educating about Global Climate Change and clean
energy while supporting these initiatives.










itemsl. Purchasing and Disbursement Services has set guidelines directing the UF community to buy
recycled products, hence supporting sustainable products that ensure markets for recyclables. 15. Best
practices are set for interdepartmental mailings and printing that discourages overuse of paper. For
instance, publicity encouraging the use of reusable interdepartmental envelops at department meetings
and on university login pages (e.g. MyUFL). Vendor agreements help to make sure that products are
reused such as packaging peanuts and bubble wrap16, printer cartridge recycling17, and pipet tip racks'8.

Campus wide there are pilot scale experiments that are being investigated. Historically, waste
vegetable oil for cooking from the dining halls was collected twice a week for conversion to bio-diesel
fuel. This bio-diesel was then used to fuel a PPD pickup truck and several lawnmowers on campus. The
project is currently scaling up and is proposed to complete the biodiesel cycle at a maximum rate of
5000 gallons per month'9. Composting is utilized by the Butterfly Garden and the option is being
investigated for on campus residents20. Currently, composting is available to Diamond Village residents,
a family housing establishment, as part of a sustainability project for housing, and the Campus
Composting Cooperative, supported by Bioenergy and Sustainable Technology Laboratory, is exploring
providing on campus residents with composting opportunities. Housing has established the University
of Florida Housing Recycling Guidelines, which dictates the recycling opportunities available to students
living on campus.

Moreover, the University is a member of and actively promotes the U.S. Green Building Council,
which develops and administers the LEED Green Building Rating System. The University of Florida is one
of the few participants nationwide to take the challenge of constructing high performance green
buildings that will maximize efficiency, productivity, and comfort of the students, staff, and faculty.
Moreover, UF integrates sustainable measures such as waste reduction and recycling into contracts and
vendor agreements to reinforce their commitment21



14 University of Florida. (2006, May 18). Finance and Accounting: Asset Management. Retrieved August 28, 2009,
from Directives. and Procedures: http://fa.ufl.edu/uco/handbook/handbook.asp?doc=1.4.9.17
1s University of Florida. (2007, June 29). Finance and Accounting: Purchasing. Retrieved August 28, 2009, from
Directives. and Procedures: http://fa.ufl.edu/uco/handbook/handbook.asp?doc=1.4.12.16

16 University of Florida. (n.d.). Campus Copy Fax & Pack. Retrieved August 28, 2009, from Reitz Union:
http://www.union.ufl.edu/campuscopy/
17 University of Florida. (2008, October 9). University Contract for Recycled Toner Cartridge Program. Retrieved
June 5, 2009, from Purchasing: http://www.purchasing.ufl.edu/main_contracts-recycled_toner.asp
18 University of Florida. (2009, August 21). UF Contractfor Scientific Equipment, Lab and Safety Supplies. Retrieved
August 24, 2009, from Purchasing: http://www.purchasing.ufl.edu/main_contracts-fisher.asp
19 Bruce Welt, PhD. (2009, August). Associate Professor and Undergraduate Coordinator University of Florida
Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Packaging Science Program. (K.Hodoval, Interviewer)
20 Hartman, C. D. (2009, July). Campus Composting Cooperative Coordinator. (K. Hodoval, Interviewer)
21 University of Florida. (2009, May 21). University of Florida "LEED"s by Example. Retrieved June 5, 2009, from
Facilities Planning and Construction: http://www.facilities.ufl.edu/sustain/










3.4. MEDICAL WASTE DISPOSAL


Medical wastes are produced on campus in laboratories and at Shands Hospital. All medical
wastes are deposited in red biohazard bags prior to disposal. Some of the wastes require further
treatment while others go untreated for collection. Any waste that is potentially infectious or is
infectious must be inactivated via autoclave or bleach treatment before it leaves that facility that
generated it. Other medical wastes that are not potentially infectious do not have to be inactivated, but
do have to be deposited in red biohazard bags. Bags are then placed into corrugated cardboard boxes
that are labeled with the biohazard symbol. All sharps must be placed in red, hard plastic biohazard
boxes prior to disposal22. Biohazard boxes are then transported by lab staff to a secure storage/pick up
area. All medical waste at UF is then collected and disposed by Stericycle.


3.5. HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL

The university encourages all departments and laboratories to minimize production of
hazardous wastes. This is accomplished through source reduction, recycling, and treatment. Source
reduction involves not producing a particular hazardous waste, while recycling entails re-using a
material. Treatment must result in the waste not being classified as hazardous afterward23. All
hazardous wastes on campus are sent to Environmental Health and Safety. They are then managed in a
manner that is dictated by regulations and/or the characteristics of the waste.
























22 University of Florida. (n.d.). University of Florida Biological Waste Disposal Policy. Retrieved July 23,
2009, from http://www.ehs.ufl.edu/Bio/biowaste.htm#Top

23 University of Florida. (n.d.). Hazardous Waste Minimization Guide. Retrieved August 26, 2009, from
Environmental Health and Saftey: http://www.ehs.ufl.edu/HMM/wmin.htm










4. WASTE GENERATION AND COMPOSITION AT THE UNIVERSITY OF
FLORIDA

The University of Florida provides a variety of services to at least 70,000 community members
daily. UF serves as place of employment, education, dining, entertainment, recreation, residence, and
even a care giving facility. Accordingly, the generation and composition of UF's waste stream varies
appropriately. In this chapter, information on the overall waste steam components and the generation
rates are first presented. Subsequently, composition and generation trends of municipal solid waste and
recycling are examined. Lastly, a cumulative summary displaying the overall components as a function of
the waste and recovery stream categories and subcategories is provided.


4.1. COMPOSITION OF THE UF WASTE STREAM

As detailed in Chapter Two, the UF Physical Plant Division separates the UF waste stream into
five categories for ease of recording the monthly weights generated. According to these categories, the
composition of the UF waste stream is denoted as MSW, C&D, recyclable material, as well as medical
and hazardous waste. MSW and C&D debris are disposed of in separate dumpsters, compactors, and
roll-offs since in Florida they may be disposed at different class landfills. Recyclable material, such as
paper, metal, cans, and bottles are collected in recycling containers, dumpsters, and compactors. Other
wastes accounted for under recyclable material are biosolids, which are collected in transportable truck
containers, and yard waste, which is collected in trucks. All recyclable materials are sent to appropriate
handling facilities after collection. The medical waste is collected and treated to landfill standards by
Stericycle. The hazardous waste is sent to EH&S for proper management.

Table 4 presents the weights from 2008 for these five primary recording categories. The
categories are classified by their disposal method. As discussed earlier, both C&D debris and MSW are
landfilled, while recyclable material is sent to be recovered. Waste that must first undergo treatment,
before disposal at a landfill, such as medical waste and hazardous waste, is classified in the "other"
category.


Table 4: Total weight of waste generated on campus for 2008 by the category and disposal method

Category Tons Landfilled Tons Recovered Tons Other* Total Tons Generated
MSW 9,209.32
C&D debris 1,452.12
Recycled 5,570.34
Medical 269.76
Hazardous 85.44
Totals 10,661.44 5,570.34 355.20 16,586.98
*The other category refers to waste requiring special management practices prior to disposal.










As indicated in Table 4, landfilling is the dominant means of waste management. Approximately,
64% of the waste generated in 2008 at UF was landfilled, with 8.8% contributed by C&D debris and
55.5% from MSW. However, over 33% of the UF waste stream is recovered through the campus wide
diversion techniques such as recycling. Moreover, a component of these diversion techniques not
considered in this table is the quantity of waste not generated due to reduction and reuse efforts
encouraged on campus.


4.2. HISTORICAL GENERATION TRENDS

The UF PPD maintains records tracking the weight of refuse generated on campus. For the past
decade, these records identify the monthly weight of the previously described categories: MSW, C&D,
recyclables, medical, and hazardous waste. The data collected from 2001 to 2008 were analyzed for
cumulative generation rates and disposal trends. The data was furnished by PPD.

4.2.1. TOTAL GENERATION TRENDS

Figure 24 provides the total generation rates with respect to the last eight years of data.. The
five categories are totaled in order to observe any trends with respect to the overall waste stream. On
average, approximately 18,000 tons per year of waste are generated from campus activities,
approximately 50 tons per day. In 2004, there was a peak of roughly 21,000 tons; due to the nearly
3,000 ton increase in yard waste resulting from the severe hurricane season. This peak of yard waste in
2004 is noted in future figures as well. Overall, the data show a slight downward trend, meaning the
quantity of waste generated yearly is decreasing.



25,000

20,000

o 15,000
I-

| 10,000

5,000

0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Time, Year

Figure 24: Yearly waste generation from 2001 through 2008 at UF


The monthly generation data for 2001 through 2008 is provided in Figure 25. The rates remain
relatively steady in the 200 to 300 ton range. A decrease in the generation rate regularly occurs in July
during the summer months. Other monthly fluctuations do not synchronize as distinctly, however, there











is typically a peak and a dip within each the fall and spring semester. This trend is illustrated better when
just looking at MSW.


--2001
W-2002
2003
2004
--*2005
2006
-+-2007
. ...... 2008


2 4 6 8


Time, Month


Figure 25: Total waste generation at the University of Florida defined by month and tonnage, with each
year from 2001 through 2008 displayed




4.2.2. RECORDED WASTE CATEGORY GENERATION TRENDS

The historical generation of MSW, C&D debris, recycled, medical, and hazardous waste was
identified in Figure 26 and analyzed for 2001 through 2008. The weight of MSW disposed of at a landfill
was approximately around 8,740 tons with a peak of approximately 9,200 tons in 2008. The yearly
tonnage of C&D debris fluctuates around 2,300 tons with a peak in 2003 and a low in 2008. The tons of
waste diverted from the landfill as recycled material decreased from approximately 7,100 tons in 2001
to 5,600 tons in 2008, with an exception in 2004 when the recycled material peaked around 9,100 tons.
The yearly tonnage of medical waste fluctuates around 330 tons with a peak of 400 tons in 2005 and a
low of 270 tons in 2008. Hazardous waste generation remains relatively constant with a yearly average
of 95 tons, fluctuating over a 10 ton range.


2,500.00



2,000.00


1,500.00



1,000.00


500.00



0.00











10,000
9,000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0


2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
Time, Years

Figure 26: The total waste generated at the University of Florida in tons for each year from 2001 through
2008 by the recorded waste category


The peaks of C&D debris and recycled material in 2004 are a result of the damage caused by the
active hurricane season in the fall of 2004. The downward trend in C&D as well as the medical and
hazardous waste categories from 2001 to 2008 is likely a function of the current economic situation.
That is, there is less funding available for renovations and construction, hence decreasing the
consequent C&D debris. Given the expense associated with proper disposal of medical and hazardous
waste, reduction techniques have been implemented as well as more attention paid to exclusively
disposing of medical and hazardous materials in the specified containers. This could account for the
slight upward trend seen for MSW generation from 2001 to 2008. Moreover, only since 2006 have the
weights of each category been tracked, prior to this estimates were often used. Hence, these values
could have been inflated.

The downward trend in recycling, by weight, may reflect both the variation in recyclables
generated on campus as well as the physical changes of recyclable material. Since Pepsi has been on
campus, the volume of aluminum cans has been replaced by PET plastic bottles. With respect to the
physical alterations in recyclables, newspapers are smaller, cardboard is thinner, the paper stock is
lighter weight, and smaller fonts are utilized to decrease the amount of paper necessary. Moreover,
recycling weights are affected by new technology (e.g on-line phone books, magazines, two-sided
printing, etc) and reduction campaigns (e.g. "Think before you ink," two-sided printing, etc).

The average UF waste stream by ton was determined from the yearly tons per recorded
category data. This information is displayed in Figure 27. On average, the UF waste stream is composed
of MSW (48.25%), C&D debris (12.91%), recyclable material (36.51%), medical waste (1.81%), and
hazardous waste (0.52%). With respect to disposal methods utilized, both MSW and C&D are collected
and immediately sent to be landfilled, thus an average of 61.16% is landfilled versus other final disposal
means, such as landfill diversion through recycling (36.51%).


- MSW
- Recyclable
Medical
Hazardous
-*-C&D Debris











Medical
Waste
1.81%






Recyclable
Material
36.50%


Hazardous
SWaste
0.52%


Figure 27: The average contribution of each recorded waste category to the University of Florida's total
waste stream


The total weight of waste generated from 2001 through 2008 is classified by the disposal
method utilized in Table 5. The percent of the total associated with each disposal method is presented.
As seen earlier, the tons landfilled is composed of both the MSW and C&D debris, the tons recycled is
composed of all the materials that are recycled or sent for reuse, and tons other account for waste
requiring special management practices prior to disposal (medical and hazardous waste).


Table 5: Total tons of waste generated at the University of Florida from 2001 through 2008 by the
disposal method, yearly total tonnage provided

Tons % Tons % Tons % Yearly Total
Year
Landfilled Landfilled Recycled Recycled Other* Other* Tons Generated
2001 11,131.71 59.7% 7,148.56 38.3% 380.38 2.0% 18,660.65
2002 10,596.08 59.3% 6,830.49 38.3% 428.00 2.4% 17,854.57
2003 11,865.41 62.0% 6,823.62 35.6% 454.00 2.4% 19,143.03
2004 11,380.80 54.3% 9,118.04 43.5% 452.69 2.2% 20,951.53
2005 11,148.32 62.9% 6,069.98 34.3% 500.37 2.8% 17,718.66
2006 11,042.49 63.1% 6,004.48 34.3% 452.71 2.6% 17,499.67
2007 10,760.84 65.4% 5,336.10 32.4% 360.93 2.2% 16,457.87
2008 10,661.44 64.3% 5,570.34 33.6% 355.20 2.1% 16,586.98
Average 11,073.39 61.16% 6,612.70 36.52% 423.03 2.33% 18,109.12
*The other category refers to waste requiring special management practices prior to disposal.










As with the 2008 data already reviewed, the dominant disposal method utilized by the university
is landfilling. The landfilled portion of the waste stream is on average 21% C&D debris and 79% MSW.
Yearly, at least 30% of the waste stream is recycled, thus diverted from the landfill. Once more, this does
not account the reduction of waste due to reuse and reduction techniques implemented on campus.


4.3. COMPOSITION OF MSW

As discussed, UF PPD classifies and records the weight of the waste generated at the University
by five waste categories, known as MSW, C&D debris, recyclable material, hazardous waste and medical
waste. Currently, the recycled material is further characterized into eight subcategories which are also
weighted monthly. The composition of C&D debris varies on the project, while hazardous waste and
medical waste vary depending on the research, laboratory, and campus source. Moreover, there is
largely no means of regulating the waste generated or an accurate method to characterize these
recorded waste categories since they are source dependent. Accordingly, MSW is the primary waste
category of interest since it is the largest recorded component of the UF waste stream contributing
approximately 48.25% and has yet to be characterized at the University level. Furthermore, of the
recorded waste categories, MSW is the most feasible to alter since it is composed of non-hazardous
waste that is generated from standard business, academic, and social activities.

Consequently, in properly assessing, managing, and recommending improvements to the
campus solid waste management system, it is crucial to quantify and qualify the MSW portion of the UF
waste stream. Identifying the components of the MSW stream and the proportion provided essential
information regarding the quantity of refuse that is recoverable or even reducible. Moreover, it gave
insight on the success of current campus wide recovery efforts.

The first element of this investigation involved reviewing historical data and identifying trends
resulting from the university operating schedule. During the spring and fall semesters, approximately
eight months out of every year, the campus is in full session with over 50,000 students, 12,000 staff, and
4,000 faculty members. Moreover, sports, theater, and other entertainment opportunities exist,
drawing crowds of over 90,000 for pivotal gator football games. During the summer months, the student
and professor numbers decrease, however, the campus is still active. Staff and faculty busily clean,
maintain, and prepare for the spring and fall semesters. Additionally, UF is alive with tournaments and
summer camps for academics, athletics, theatre, and other arts, as well as incoming students and their
parents for Preview activities.

Figure 28 below presents the monthly MSW generation trends for 2001 through 2008. It can be
observed that there is a historical small peak near the end of the spring semester in April within the 800
tons range followed by a dip in the summer, with waste disposal in June wavering around 600 tons. The
first peak may result from a combination of academic exams and housing move-outs. During the exam
period, libraries, dining and coffee options, academic buildings, and the Reitz remain open for extended
hours while students spend an increased duration of time on campus preparing for exams, and thus
generating and disposing of waste for longer periods of time. Moreover, housing move-out overlaps and
extends longer than the exam period. Students moving out of dorms, family housing, and Greek housing










at the end of the academic school year cause an increase in waste disposal as students clean and move
out of their living quarters. A second peak occurs during the fall semester which is caused by an
incoming class of new students; 'fall' cleaning by faculty, staff, and returning students; and the
commencement of the football season. Tailgating events alone can draw crowds of over 50,000 non-
university fans until the beginning November when the season is nearly over.


1,200.00


1,000.00


800.00


600.00


400.00


200.00


0.00


--2001
-W-2002
2003
2004
--*2005
2006
--2007
..... 2008


2 4 6 8 10


Time, Month


Figure 28: Monthly tonnage trends for the MSW generated at the University of Florida from the data
collected by PPD during 2001 through 2008


4.3.1. CAMPUS SOURCES

To characterize the University of Florida's MSW stream, it was necessary to evaluate and
quantify the contributing sources. Accordingly, the campus was categorized by the source of the waste,
denoted as campus sources. The contribution of each campus source was estimated by classifying each
MSW dumpster, compactor, and roll-off as primarily receiving waste from one campus sources
discussed in earlier Chapter Two.

The data provided by the UF PPD, noting the location, volume, and weekly collection frequency
of roll-off containers, compactors and dumpsters, were used to approximate the maximum volume of
MSW generated by each campus source and sub-source. This is detailed in Appendix B. This was
estimated by assuming each dumpster, compactor, and roll-off was filled to the maximum capacity of
the particular container upon collection, hence, providing the maximum volume of MSW contributed by
each source and sub-source. Accordingly, the values calculated were not necessarily representative of










how each campus source contributes to the UF MSW stream, since each were assumed full and it was
purely volume based. However, it was assumed that the refuse receptacles are placed on a need basis.
Thus, the volume estimates would provide a baseline for how each source affects the UF MSW stream.
With this information, the loads of waste that would best represent the University of Florida's MSW
stream were selected. The volume estimates are provided in Figure 29 and it is apparent that housing
(37%), academic (23%), and administration (13%) are the dominant components of the UF MSW stream.

Miscellaneous*
Recreational
6%









Administration
13%





Medical
12'-'..







Figure 29: Maximum volume estimates for each campus source of MSW


The data annually recorded by PPD on the five waste categories is weight based and the
estimates established from the location, volume, and collection frequency of dumpster detailed in
Figure 29 is volume based. Thus, in order to compare this information, it was necessary to approximate
densities for the waste generated at each campus source and sub-source. Each source and sub-source
density was estimated from the combination of generally accepted densities provided by the US
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) as well as the composition established in the MSW
composition sorts. In general, a base of 200 pounds per cubic yard was assumed for portion of each
source and sub-source MSW stream that paralleled the composition of the 2006 US MSW stream24,
depicted in Figure 30.





24 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2008, November 8). Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) in the United States.
Retrieved April 24, 2009, from Wastes Non-Hazardous Waste Municipal Solid Waste:
http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/msw99.htm











Food waste accounted for only 12.4% of the MSW generated by the US, which was generally
lower than what was ascertained in the waste composition study. Since food waste has a significant
weight associated with its volume, it was the component of primary concern in the campus MSW. Paper
was also considered since it composed 33.9% of the US MSW generated which was equivalent to, or
lower than the composition percentages identified. If the food waste portion was higher than in the US
study, the excess percent was accounted for in the density calculations. A detailed description of density
calculations is found in Appendix B.


Other
3.3%


Food Scraps
12.4"..


RubbfEl i l.l-
T- ,-


Metal
7.6"..


Figure 30: The US MSW composition by waste category from the 2006 USEPA study


According to these density calculations, the weight and volume contributed by each source and
sub-source to the UF MSW stream was determined and is presented in Table 6. The major contributors
to the UF MSW stream in both weight and volume are first housing and then academic sources, Table 6.
By weight housing (47%), academic (20%), and dining (10%) are the three largest contributors, By
volume housing (38%), academic (23%), and administration (13%) are the dominant contributors to the
UF MSW stream. The remaining 23% in weight is represented by administration, medical, recreational,
and miscellaneous sources whereas in volume the remaining 26% is accounted for by dining, medical,
recreational, and miscellaneous sources










Table 6: The weight (tons) and volume (cubic yards) of MSW contributed by each campus source to the
University of Florida MSW stream

Estimated Weight Estimated Volume Estimated
Campus Estimated Weight
Campus Contribution to the Contribution to the Volume %
Sub- % Contribution to
Sources UF MSW Stream otutoo UF MSW Stream Contribution to
Sources UF MSW Stream
(tons) (yd^3) UF MSW Stream

Housing Total 439.4 47.2% 1864.9 37.5%
Dorm 251.2 27.0% 1147.9 23.1%
Greek 126.6 13.6% 377.0 7.6%
Family 61.7 6.6% 340.0 6.8%
Academic Total 182.5 19.6% 1122.0 22.6%
Mixed 86.6 9.3% 751.4 15.1%
Plant
an 21.5 2.3% 69.6 1.4%
Lab
Animal
Animal 53.6 5.8% 133.0 2.7%
Lab*
Library 20.8 2.2% 168.0 3.4%
Medical 77.3 8.3% 599.8 12.1%
Administration 75.4 8.1% 644.3 13.0%
Dining 92.0 9.9% 316.0 6.4%
Recreational 44.7 4.8% 277.8 5.6%
Miscellaneous* 18.8 2.0% 142.7 2.9%
Totals 930.1 100.0% 4967.5 100.0%
*These Sources were not manually sorted, but visually assessed to determine an appropriate composition.


4.3.2. MSW SORT STUDY

A MSW composition study was completed as a component of this audit to characterize the MSW
disposed at the University of Florida. In this study, the generator was exclusively UF and the solid waste
examined was only the non-hazardous trash, refuse and other waste denoted as MSW that is
deposited into dumpsters, compactors, and roll-off containers campus wide. Investigations were not
completed on the entire reported UF waste stream which, as the historical data reports, includes not
only MSW, but also C&D debris, recycled materials as well as medical and hazardous waste.

Three different methods were utilized for assessing the components of the garbage waste
stream generated on campus. These methods are:

Phase 1: Large Scale MSW Sorts conducted at the Transfer Station
Phase II: Small Scale MSW Sorts conducted at the University of Florida
Phase III: Visual MSW Sorts conducted on site at campus dumpsters

The first two methods, denoted as Phase I and II, consisted of large and small scale manual MSW
sorts completed by research team members and volunteers. The MSW sorted was selected from a










predetermined source and brought to a specified sort location. The large scale sorts were completed at
the Transfer Station and the small scale sorts were completed at the PPD recycle yard. Supervisors
would then examine the sample of waste for any material that would pose a risk to volunteers, ranging
from sharps like needles and razors to noxious chemicals. The entire sample would then be sorted into
the predetermined MSW categories and subcategories. The third method, Phase III of the study,
entailed selecting dumpsters that represent each campus source and verifying if the manual MSW sorts
completed during the first two phases were representative. This entailed removing bags of waste,
tearing them open, and visually sorting them on location.

In Table 7 the number of campus sources sampled during the waste composition study is
provided, along with total weight and volume associated with each sample. The weight and volume
samples are not equal because volumes were not reported during the first manual sort of Phase I. The
mean weight sampled is also reported. Since the largest contributors to the MSW portion of the UF
waste stream were the housing and academic sources, 13 of the 22 weight samples and 11 of the 19
volume samples were from these sources.


Table 7: Summary of the sampled campus sources, featuring the total weight and volume of all samples
taken as well as the mean sample weight for each campus source

Campus # Weight Total Mean # Volume Total
Campus
C pus Sub- Based Sampled Sample Based Sampled
Sources
Sources Samples Weight (Ibs) Weight (Ibs) Samples Volume (gals)

Housing Total 6 759.42 118.94 5 1004.09
Dorm 3 453.91 151.30 2 452.71
Greek 2 200.00 100.00 2 335.80
Family 1 105.51 105.51 1 215.57
Academic Total 7 1094.95 126.25 6 1336.44
Mixed 5 895.25 179.05 4 1037.61
Plant Lab 1 105.20 105.20 1 147.30
Animal
0 0
Lab*
Library 1 94.50 94.50 1 151.53
Medical 1 240.51 240.51 0 0.00
Administration 2 267.20 133.60 2 484.08
Dining 4 729.35 182.34 4 763.51
Recreational 2 250.33 125.17 2 316.42
Miscellaneous* 0 0
Total 22 3341.75 154.01 19 3904.55
*These Sources were not manually sorted, but visually assessed to determine an appropriate composition.


In the following sections, composition, weight, and volume percent profiles resulting from the
manual and visual sorts are provided for the portion of UF's waste stream that is recorded as MSW.










Thus, the data represents the composition of MSW, which is 48.25% of the UF waste stream. The
percent of each category and subcategory sum to 100% because they are not weighted with respect to
the five recorded categories that compose the UF waste stream as a whole. The results for Phase I and II
sorting methods are first presented. Subsequently, the data from the large scale sorts is condensed into
the small scale sort format. Therefore, the data is comparable and the overall profile of the MSW
portion of the UF waste stream is generated. The data is displayed as non-weighted and weighted
percent. The non-weighted percent assume that all sources, such as academic, housing, and
recreational, contribute equally to the MSW portion of the UF waste stream. The weighted percent
were determined by categorizing each garbage receptacle; specifically dumpsters, compactors, and roll-
off containers, and denoting which campus source and/or sub-source contributed to the majority of the
waste deposited in the receptacle. It was assumed that the waste in the receptacle was most influenced
by the nearest building source.

4.3.2.1. Phase I: Large Scale MSW Sorts at the Transfer Station
The purpose of the Phase I sorts were to completely characterize the UF MSW stream and visually
inspect how the collection method affects the collected waste. When sorting, supervisors and
volunteers assessed how the MSW likely entered the refuse receptacle and consequent dumpster.
However, in the process, whether the MSW was soiled or wet was noted. The quality of the MSW upon
arrival to the Transfer Station not only affected the weights of each waste category, but it is important
to consider since recovery efforts are less successful when the waste is highly affected by the collection
and transfer method. For instance, the county recycler, SP, will not accept old corrugated cardboard if it
is wet and/or soiled with other waste, such as organic matter, because it is too heavy and difficult to
process. Accordingly, if the potential recyclables are not captured by the campus recovery efforts, the
recyclables will not be recovered prior to landfill disposal.

Phase I MSW sorts were completed in the spring at the Transfer Station. Representative samples
of 200 to 300 pounds of MSW were extracted from preselected trucks. The MSW was then sorted into
over 70 categories and subcategories. The summary of the loads sampled and cumulative results of
Phase I are presented in Table 8 and Table 9, respectively. The individual MSW sort data is provided in
Appendix F.

Since in Phase I, samples were taken from front loading trucks that collect MSW from multiple
campus sources, a summary of the loads is provided. A total of six loads were sorted and for each one
weight of the MSW categories and subcategories were recorded. Volumes were not recorded until the
fourth load of waste, after the importance of having volume information was identified. Since certain
MSW categories like plastics are not well represented by weight measurements. Accordingly, each bin
was weighed and the volume was estimated. Volume measurements were made by assessing the
fullness each bin of waste. The methodology for Phase I MSW sorts is detailed in Appendix F.

In Phase I, a variety of campus sources were investigated in order to get an indication of the
primary components of the UF MSW stream. In Table 8, the campus sources sampled are identified and
range from housing to academic buildings to Shands Medical Center. The total weight sampled from all










six loads was roughly 1400 pounds and the total volume for the last three loads was approximately 1260
gallons.

Table 8: Summary of the loads sampled during Phase I of the MSW sorts

Sample
Campus Sample Sample Vol
Sample Locations Campus Weight (gals
Source (gals)
(Ibs)
Broward, Jennings, Beaty Towers,
Housing,
Sorority Row, Fresh Food,
1 Dining, 213.78
Broward Dinner, PK Young, Vet d
Academic
School
2 South Campus Academic 268.00
3 Shands Compactor Medical 220.57
4 Shands Kitchen Dining 442.81 489.78
Academic:
5 Weimer Academic: 283.19 404.82
Mixed

6 Administration Administration 213.13 370.56

Total 1428.35 1265.16


In Table 9, each waste category and subcategory sorted for during the Phase I sorts are listed.
The total weight and volume recorded for each six loads is provided by category and subcategory. The
percent of total for weight and volume is also provided. By weight, food waste, old corrugated
cardboard (OCC), film25, and compostable/soiled paper material constitute 50% of the MSW stream. By
volume, each film and OCC represent approximately 22% of the MSW stream, at total of 44%, and the
next highest contributors are other rigid plastic food service and compostable/soiled paper at roughly
5% each. Accordingly, it is important to note the large weight but low volume associated with food
waste in contrast to the large volume contributed by plastics, though the weight is not as significant.

















25 Is woven together (e.g. grain bags); contains multiple layers of film or other materials that have been fused
together (e.g. potato chip bags). This category includes supermarket and shopping bags that were contaminated
with food, liquid, or grit during use and used garbage bags. Also included are photographic negatives, shower
curtains, re-sealable bags, newspaper bags, etc.










Table 9: Phase I composition profile of University of Florida's MSW stream by waste category and
subcategory in terms of weight (pounds) and volume (gallons)

Volume
Category/Subcategory Weight (Ibs) W% (gas* V%*
(gals)*
Newspaper 24.06 1.68% 13.50 1.07%
Old Corrugated Cardboard (OCC) 184.50 12.92% 280.80 22.19%
High Grade 52.69 3.69% 32.50 2.57%
Mixed Recyclable 11.19 0.78% 5.75 0.45%
Mixed Recyclable -junk mail 16.75 1.17% 14.00 1.11%
-. Composite 33.82 2.37% 44.13 3.49%
Compostable/ Soiled 148.00 10.36% 72.50 5.73%
Boxboard 40.50 2.84% 39.38 3.11%
Miscellaneous 56.00 3.92% 19.50 1.54%
Other 0.69 0.05% 0.00 0.00%
Total 568.19 39.8% 522.05 41.26%
#1 PET bottles 17.69 1.24% 45.72 3.61%
#2 HDPE 6.50 0.46% 7.38 0.58%
#3-#7 4.75 0.33% 0.00 0.00%
Other Rigid plastic 27.25 1.91% 9.00 0.71%
Other Rigid plastic #2,4, and 5 10.50 0.74% 18.00 1.42%
Other Rigid plastic #1,3,6, and 7 22.00 1.54% 49.50 3.91%
Other Rigid plastic nonfood
7.50 0.53% 54.00 4.27%
Expanded Polystyrene (EPS)
Other Rigid plastic food service 34.81 2.44% 73.25 5.79%
Film 164.44 11.51% 288.40 22.80%
Plastic products 1.75 0.12% 0.00 0.00%
Composite 6.44 0.45% 19.50 1.54%
Other 0.16 0.01% 0.00 0.00%
Total 303.78 21.27% 564.75 44.64%
Yard waste 24.94 1.75% 9.00 0.71%
U Food 215.00 15.05% 50.17 3.97%
m Animal By-products 19.00 1.33% 0.00 0.00%
O Composite/ other organic 35.50 2.49% 0.00 0.00%
Total 294.44 20.61% 59.17 4.68%
Disposable Diapers 0.50 0.04% 0.00 0.00%

*Only accounts for the last three loads sampled at the Transfer Station, numbers 4, 5, and 6










Volume
Category/Subcategory Weight (Ibs) W% als* V%*

aluminum drink containers 10.75 0.75% 11.21 0.89%
aluminum foil/ containers 2.50 0.18% 0.00 0.00%
other aluminum 1.50 0.11% 0.00 0.00%
food and beverage 3.44 0.24% 2.35 0.19%
F other ferrous metals 2.78 0.19% 0.00 0.00%
Other non-ferrous scrap 0.41 0.03% 0.00 0.00%
empty paint & aerosol 2.81 0.20% 2.50 0.20%
empty propane & other tanks 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00%
composite/ other metals 15.19 1.06% 5.00 0.40%
Total 39.38 2.76% 21.06 1.66%
Clear 18.25 1.28% 2.57 0.20%
Colored 0.50 0.04% 0.00 0.00%
SFlat 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00%
comp/other mixed cullet 0.63 0.04% 0.00 0.00%
Total 19.38 1.36% 2.57 0.20%
Clean Wood 1.38 0.10% 0.00 0.00%
Gypsum 2.50 0.18% 0.00 0.00%
Fiberglass Ins 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00%
Rock/concrete/bricks 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00%
c6 Asphaltic Roofing 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00%
U
Ceramics 0.19 0.01% 0.00 0.00%
PVC 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00%
Composite/other C&D 49.00 3.43% 0.00 0.00%
Total 53.06 3.71% 0.00 0.00%
Tires 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00%
Rubber 2.75 0.19% 0.00 0.00%
U Textiles & leather 80.81 5.66% 18.36 1.45%
0 Apparel 15.00 1.05% 0.00 0.00%
Electrical Appliances 73.56 5.15% 19.08 1.51%
S Computers, Related Electronics 7.00 0.49% 0.63 0.05%
O
Portable Electronics 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00%
Total 179.13 12.54% 38.07 3.01%
*Only accounts for the last three loads sampled at the Transfer Station, numbers 4, 5, and 6










Volume
Category/Subcategory Weight (Ibs) W% als* V%*
_____________________________ _________(gals)*
Auto Products/Fluids 1.00 0.07% 0.00 0.00%
Paints & Solvent 0.75 0.05% 0.00 0.00%
Pesticides, Herbicides, Fungicides 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00%
Household cleaners 1.00 0.07% 0.90 0.07%
3 Lead Acid Batteries 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00%
I Other Batteries 0.50 0.04% 0.00 0.00%
Other HHM 0.13 0.01% 0.00 0.00%
Hg Containing Products 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00%
Cathode Ray Tubes 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00%
Total 3.38 0.24% 0.90 0.07%
Carpet/ Upholstery 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00%
Furniture 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00%
m Mattresses 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00%
Total 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00%
Pharmaceuticals 0.38 0.03% 0.00 0.00%
CFLs 0.00 0.00% 0.00 0.00%
Sharps 0.50 0.04% 0.00 0.00%
Residuals >2" 79.25 5.55% 10.40 0.82%
Residuals >1" 30.00 2.10% 25.20 1.99%
Fines/ Super mix 63.50 4.45% 21.00 1.66%
Other (See Notes) 2.63 0.18% 0.00 0.00%
*Only accounts for the last three loads sampled at the Transfer Station, numbers 4, 5, and 6


4.3.2.2. Phase II: Small Scale on Campus

In Phase II, the objective was to represent each campus source. The sorts were completed on
campus at the Physical Plant and where research team members withdrew the samples directly from
predetermined dumpsters. The sample size was half that of the large scale sorts and the sort categories
and subcategories were decreased from over 70 to just over 20, allowing more samples of waste to be
processed by supervisors and student volunteers. Accordingly, a more accurate, though less detailed,
characterization of each campus source was generated since multiple contributors to each major
campus source were sampled.

The results of the Phase II MSW characterization study are presented in Table 10. A composition
profile of UF's MSW stream based on these results can be observed, including the weight and volume of
each waste category and subcategory as well as the weight and volume percent. By weight, food waste,
compostable/soiled paper, and non-recyclable material constitute nearly 70% of the MSW stream. It is
interesting to note that both #1-7 Plastic that is recyclable (2.96%) and is not currently recyclable
(2.13%) are the top five and seven components, respectively. Unlike in the loads sampled at the Transfer










Station, C&D (0.0%) and special waste (0.2%) are appropriately minor constituents. By volume, non-
recyclable material, compostable/soiled paper, and #1-7 Recycled plastics constitute nearly 45% of the
MSW stream. Plastic which is not currently recycled on campus (#1-7 Not Recycled) is the fifth highest
contributor at 7.1% and paper products such as composite (6.6%), boxboard (5.3%), and newspaper
(4.2%). Products represent the 11th highest component with respect to volume. These products are
materials that could have been donated for reuse instead of being disposed. Such examples found were
helmets, clothes, calculators, binders, etc.



Table 10: Phase II composition profile of University of Florida's MSW stream by weight (pounds) and
volume (gallons), these values are not weighted by campus source information

Category/Subcategory Weight (Ibs) W% Volume (gals) V%
Newspaper 83.3 4.38% 132.1 4.1%
OCC 22.0 1.2% 100.2 3.1%
High Grade White 50.1 2.63% 84.1 2.6%
SHigh Grade Colored 9.0 0.5% 27.7 0.9%
Mixed Recyclable 48.3 2.5% 71.1 2.2%
Boxboard 33.0 1.7% 166.0 5.2%
Compostable/ Soiled 315.4 16.6% 646.5 20.2%
Composites/Other 41.1 2.2% 191.1 6.0%
#1-7 Recycled 60.7 3.19% 299.6 9.3%
u #1-7 Not Recycled 46.2 2.43% 238.5 7.4%
SFood Service 18.2 1.0% 116.1 3.6%
SNonfood EPS 2.7 0.1% 25.0 0.8%
Rigid Plastic/Other 8.8 0.5% 64.2 2.0%
Aluminum cans 7.2 0.4% 46.3 1.4%
Food and Beverage 14.6 0.8% 27.5 0.9%
Scrap Metal/ Other 6.9 0.4% 20.8 0.6%
Recyclable Glass 38.8 2.0% 18.1 0.6%
Non-recyclable 258.4 13.6% 444.6 13.9%
Food/Plant Lab Waste 696.6 36.6% 247.5 7.7%
Animal Byproducts/other 63.6 3.3% 48.0 1.5%
o Yard Waste 18.0 0.9% 76.8 2.4%
Products 61.1 3.2% 118.5 3.7%
C&D 0.4 0.0% 0.4 0.0%
Special Waste 3.2 0.2% 3.1 0.1%










4.3.2.3. Phase III: Visual MSW Sorts at specified locations
The third phase of the study was conducted to corroborate the information collected in Phase I
and II. Accordingly, dumpsters that represented each campus source were preselected, visited, and
visually sorted to determine if the MSW composition paralleled the data from the first two phases. MSW
was removed from the dumpsters and dispersed on a tarp, then visually assessed. The waste
components were compared to the weighted percent averages determined from combining the Phase I
and II data.

4.3.2.4. Phase Data Commingled
Total weight and volume profiles were generated by condensing the over 70 categories and
subcategories of the Phase I study into the 23 categories and subcategories of the Phase II study. This
was completed in order to compare the data collected and more thoroughly characterize MSW streams
generated by the campus sources.

For ease of comparison, Figure 31 presents both the weight and volume percentages of each of
the nine MSW categories used for the UF MSW sorts. In Figure 31 A, the percentages depicted are a
weight percent of the total. The major components are paper (33.0%), organic (30.2%), non-recyclable
(17.5%), as well as plastics (7.8%) and products26 (6.0%). It is significant to note that plastic, a relatively
low weight, but high volume component of the MSW stream is within the top 5 contributors. Figure 31
B presents the volume percent of total. The volumes were determined by estimating how filled an 18
gallon recycling bin or a 5 gallon bucket, specifically for food waste, were with each waste category. The
major components are paper (43.9%), plastics (22.5%), non-recyclable (17.2%), as well as organic
(9.8%). In comparison to the weight percentage, these results are similar, though the organic and
plastics have switched the order of contribution.























26 Products are materials that had the potential for reuse, auction, or donation. This includes, but is not limited to,
binders, apparel, textiles, rubber, personal entertainment devices, etc.










(A)

Special
C&D Waste
1.3% 0.8%


(B)


Special
Products
s C&D Waste
0.04% 0.1%


P Metals
Glass 1.8%
1.6%


Figure 31: The weight (A) and volume (B) percent of the nine MSW categories from the MSW sort
commingled phase data



Multiple categories consist of subcategories that more thoroughly characterize the composition.
The division of the paper and plastic categories are subsequently depicted since paper is the primary
contributor by weight and volume and since plastic influences the volume of the UF MSW stream
significantly. Between paper and plastic combined, nearly 40% of the weight and over 65% of the
volume of the MSW stream is represented. Organic waste is the second highest contributor by weight
and fourth highest by volume. The breakdown is not displayed because the organic category only has
two subcategories of food waste and yard waste/other. Food waste represents the majority of the
organic category.

With regard to paper, in Figure 32 A, the largest subcategory by weight is compostable/soiled
paper (39.5%), doubling the second highest contributor of OCC (17.8%). Compostable/soiled paper
consists of the paper towels from bathrooms, napkins, paper plates as well as cups. Unfortunately, even
with a well developed, campus wide paper recycling program only 9.2% and 8.8% of the paper waste
stream was newspaper and high grade white paper. Pertaining to volume, Figure 32 B shows
compostable/soiled paper (37.1%) and OCC (20%) are the largest contributors.


Organics
30.2%





































Figure 32: The weight (A) and volume (B) percent of each paper subcategory in the University of
Florida's MSW stream



Figure 33 A and B present the weight and volume percent of each plastic subcategory is
presented respectively. The largest components contributing to the weight and volume of plastic are
number one through seven recycled plastic (32.2% by weight and 34.2% by volume) and number one
through seven not recycled (32.5% by weight and 31.5% by volume).












(A) (B)

Nonfood
EPS Nonfood
3.6% EPS
7.9%



Food
Service
Service
19.0%
18.8%








Figure 33: The Weight (A) and Volume (B) Percent of each Plastic Subcategory



A detailed profile of UF's overall MSW is provided in Table 11, the weight and volume of each
waste category and subcategory as well as the weight and volume percent. This data represents the
MSW stream, which is approximately 48.25%, of the UF waste stream as a whole. As can be observed,
food waste, non-recyclable material, and compostable/soiled paper constitute over 50% of UF's MSW by
weight. Again, it is interesting to note that both #1-7 Plastic that is not currently recycled (2.58%) and is
recyclable (2.55%) are the top ten and eleven components, respectively. The C&D (1.3%) and special
waste (0.8%) are high due to loads from the Transfer Station that had significant quantities in
comparison to the subsequent 20 loads where the weights were consistently below 0.5%, if not 0%. By
volume, non-recyclable material, compostable/soiled paper, and OCC constitute nearly 45% of the UF
MSW stream. Plastic which is currently recycled on campus (#1-7 Recycled) is the fourth highest
contributor at 7.7%. Products represent the tenth highest component with respect to volume. These
products are materials that could have been donated for reuse instead of being disposed. Such
examples found were helmets, clothes, calculators, binders, etc.










Table 11: Composition profile of University of Florida's overall MSW stream by weight and volume,
these values are not weighted by the campus source information.


Category/Subcategory Weight (Ibs) W% Volume (gal) V%

Newspaper 107.4 3.02% 145.6 3.3%
OCC 208.0 5.8% 381.0 8.6%
High Grade White 102.7 2.89% 116.3 2.6%
a High Grade Colored 9.6 0.3% 27.7 0.6%
Mixed Recyclable 132.2 3.7% 110.4 2.5%
Boxboard 73.5 2.1% 205.3 4.6%
Compostable/ Soiled 463.4 13.0% 719.0 16.3%
Composites/Other 74.9 2.1% 235.2 5.3%
#1-7 Recycled 90.8 2.55% 340.1 7.7%
U #1-7 Not Recycled 91.7 2.58% 313.5 7.1%
SFood Service 53.0 1.5% 189.3 4.3%
SNonfood EPS 10.2 0.3% 79.0 1.8%
Rigid Plastic/Other 36.2 1.0% 73.2 1.7%
m Aluminum cans 17.9 0.5% 57.5 1.3%
Food and Beverage 18.0 0.5% 29.1 0.7%
Scrap Metal/ Other 29.6 0.8% 28.3 0.6%
Recyclable Glass 57.6 1.6% 21.0 0.5%
Non-Recyclable 623.3 17.5% 761.4 17.2%
Food/Plant Lab Waste 911.6 25.6% 297.7 6.7%
Animal Byproducts/other 63.6 1.8% 48.0 1.1%
o Yard Waste 97.4 2.7% 85.8 1.9%
Products 213.5 6.0% 156.0 3.5%
C&D 45.0 1.3% 1.6 0.0%
Special Waste 29.0 0.8% 3.1 0.1%



4.3.3. RESULTS WITH RESPECT To CAMPUS SOURCE AND MSW CATEGORY
The campus source estimations were merged with the commingled results from Phase I and II of
the MSW composition study to illustrate the individual composition of each campus source. In the
following tables, each campus source and sub-source is presented with the affiliated MSW composition
as a weight percent. For example, from the manual sorts and the visual verifications over 80% of the
dormitory MSW stream is organic (31.1%), paper (28.3%), and non-recyclable (23.8%), as displayed in
Table 12. However, dorm waste is a subset of housing as a whole. In this table, the percent in which
each campus source is estimated to contribute to the MSW stream is not considered. However, it is
clear which MSW categories paper, organic, and Non-recyclable primarily influence the composition
of the MSW stream generated from each source.













Table 12: Comparison of University of Florida's MSW by source and MSW category presented as non-
weighted weight based percent

Campus
Campus Campus Non- Special
Sub- Paper Plastic Metals Glass Organics Products C&D Totals
Sources Sources recyclable Waste

Housing Total 25.0% 7.7% 2.8% 3.6% 22.6% 34.8% 3.2% 0.0% 0.7% 100%

Dorm 28.3% 8.4% 3.0% 0.9% 23.8% 31.1% 4.4% 0.0% 0.2% 100%
Greek 15.8% 7.5% 2.8% 11.3% 12.3% 48.3% 1.8% 0.0% 0.5% 100%
Family 28.8% 5.5% 2.2% 0.9% 37.0% 24.8% 0.8% 0.0% 0.0% 100%

Academic
37.4% 9.5% 1.3% 1.3% 15.7% 21.1% 9.2% 4.1% 0.3% 100%
Total

Mixed 38.5% 9.0% 1.5% 1.4% 16.4% 18.3% 9.7% 5.0% 0.2% 100%
Plant
a 16.7% 12.4% 0.0% 0.0% 9.9% 46.8% 13.7% 0.0% 0.6% 100%
Lab
Animal
n 16.7% 12.4% 0.0% 0.0% 9.9% 60.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100%
Lab*
Library 50.3% 11.1% 1.1% 1.6% 15.9% 19.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5% 100%
Medical 29.1% 9.7% 1.1% 0.0% 31.4% 16.8% 3.0% 0.0% 8.8% 100%

Administration 48.9% 10.8% 2.9% 2.4% 19.2% 15.0% 0.4% 0.0% 0.4% 100%

Dining 29.6% 4.9% 2.5% 1.2% 14.9% 41.5% 5.2% 0.0% 0.1% 100%

Recreational 34.2% 3.3% 0.6% 0.2% 8.0% 45.1% 8.4% 0.0% 0.0% 100%

Miscellaneous* 46.4% 5.3% 0.1% 0.3% 13.3% 17.2% 17.2% 0.0% 0.0% 100%

*These sources were not manually sorted, but visually assessed to determine an appropriate composition. It was determined that
there were comparable loads.



An assumption that each source of MSW on campus contributes equally to the UF MSW stream
is inaccurate, therefore, efforts were made to identify the sources of waste. Upon categorizing each
waste receptacle under a specific campus source, a contribution to the MSW portion of the UF waste
stream was established. The percent contribution was discussed earlier and is presented again in Table
13. The weighted weight based percent demonstrates how the waste category from each campus
source contributed to the MSW stream and is presented in Table 13.











Table 13: Comparison of University of Florida's MSW by source and MSW category, these weight based
percent are weighted by the campus source contribution

Estimated
Campus Weight % Special
Campus Sub- Contribution Paper Plastic Metals Glass Non- Organics Products C&D
sources S sources to U MW recyclable Waste
Sources to UF MSW
Stream

Housing Total 47.20% 11.80% 3.67% 1.33% 1.84% 10.63% 16.74% 1.47% 0.00% 0.12%

Dorm 27.00% 7.71% 2.27% 0.81% 0.24% 6.48% 8.46% 1.18% 0.00% 0.05%
Greek 13.60% 2.16% 1.03% 0.38% 1.54% 1.68% 6.62% 0.24% 0.00% 0.07%
Family 6.60% 1.93% 0.37% 0.15% 0.06% 2.47% 1.66% 0.05% 0.00% 0.00%
Academic
Academic 19.60% 6.15% 2.12% 0.17% 0.17% 2.72% 6.78% 1.24% 0.48% 0.05%
Total
Mixed 9.30% 3.66% 0.86% 0.14% 0.13% 1.56% 1.73% 0.92% 0.48% 0.02%
Plant
lant 2.30% 0.39% 0.29% 0.00% 0.00% 0.23% 1.09% 0.32% 0.00% 0.01%
Lab
Animal
Ana 5.80% 0.97% 0.72% 0.00% 0.00% 0.57% 3.51% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00%
Lab*
Library 2.20% 1.14% 0.25% 0.02% 0.04% 0.36% 0.44% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01%
Medical 8.30% 2.01% 0.67% 0.07% 0.00% 2.17% 1.16% 0.21% 0.00% 0.61%

Administration 8.10% 3.99% 0.88% 0.24% 0.20% 1.57% 1.22% 0.03% 0.00% 0.03%

Dining 9.90% 2.95% 0.49% 0.25% 0.12% 1.48% 4.14% 0.52% 0.00% 0.01%

Recreational 4.80% 1.85% 0.18% 0.03% 0.01% 0.43% 2.44% 0.45% 0.00% 0.00%

Miscellaneous* 2.00% 0.94% 0.11% 0.00% 0.01% 0.27% 0.35% 0.35% 0.00% 0.00%

*These sources were not manually sorted, but visually assessed to determine an appropriate composition. It was determined that
there were comparable loads.



4.4. RECYCLING

According to the UF PPD monthly weight records, recyclable material accounts for an average of
36.51% of the entire UF waste stream. In addition to these five categories, UF PPD records the monthly
weight of the eight recyclable material components recycled campus wide. Currently, the University of
Florida tracks and recycles paper, scrap metal, cans and bottles, sludge, yard waste, masonry, as well as
miscellaneous products such as batteries, toner cartridges, paints, and oils. Recyclable materials are
collected in recycling containers, dumpsters, and compactors. The two exceptions are sludge which is
handled by GRU and yard waste which is collected by front loading trucks. After collection, all materials
are sent directly to the appropriate handling facilities or stored until transport, as discussed in Chapter
Three.

The categories of recyclables that are diverted from the landfill and the composition of the MSW
stream as determined by the MSW composition study were examined to identify the potential for
increasing campus wide collection efforts as well as expanding the categories recycled. The average











weight percent was calculated for the categories contributing to recycled material and the results are
displayed in Figure 34. From 2001 to 2008, yard waste, paper and masonry were the chief components
of the recyclable material at 47%, 28% and 10%, respectively.


Sludge 4%













Yard Waste
47%


Electronics
2%


Maso
10o


Cans & Bottles
2%


-7 'Misc
Scrap MIetal M
1%


nry
/0


Figure 34: Mass percent average of recycled material categories for 2001 through 2008



The cumulative monthly recycling rate remains relatively steady, ranging between 400 and 650
tons recycled each month, Figure 35 The peak of nearly 2,400 tons in October 2004, which was triple
the monthly average, was a direct product of yard waste weighing over 2,000 tons as a result of an
active hurricane season. In June 2001, masonry generated from renovation and demolition work caused
a 900 ton peak. Masonry consisted of concrete and bricks which can be recycled.













1,000.00

900.00

800.00 -02001

700.00 A__ 2002
S600.00 2003
0
S 500.00 __2004

S400.00 -- 2005
V 2005
300.00 2006
300.00 -- 2007

200.00
2008
100.00

0.00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time, Month

Figure 35: Monthly recycling for each year from 2001 through 2008 by weight and month



The yearly fluctuations of each component of recyclable material are displayed in Figure 36. The
primary fluctuations, especially monthly, result from the highly variable yard waste component. Also
note the peak in 2004 is from an active hurricane season. The second major contributor to the deviation
in recycling is paper, which is observable in the detailed yearly data provided in Appendix D. Most
categories remain relatively constant through the years, though a decrease in Masonry from 2001 to
2008 is apparent.




















- Paper
-- Misc
Scrap Metal
Masonry
- Cans & Bottles
Yard Waste
I- Sludge
Electronics


~t~ZU-.


2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005


2006 2007 2008


Time, Year

Figure 36: Average weight recycled by component from 2001 through 2008


4.5. COMPREHENSIVE SUMMARY/ANALYSIS

To identify each component of the UF waste stream, it was necessary to characterize the MSW
generated from campus wide activities that accounted for 48.25% of the waste stream. The MSW
weight percent were determined by first separating the data into campus sources and weighting them
accordingly. The data was then weighted by the UF Waste Stream (48.25% MSW); the results of this are
displayed in Table 14 for weight.

By weight, Housing (22.97%), Academic (9.60%), Dining (4.81%) sources are the primary
contributing campus sources, with dormitories (13.13%) and Greek housing (6.62%) contributing the
most waste from any single campus sub-source. In the waste category column, the percent contributed
by each source or sub-source is denoted. For instance, with regard to paper waste which amounts to
14.33% of the UF waste stream, the majority of paper waste is contributed by dormitories (3.72%),
Administration (1.93%), Mixed Academic (1.76%) and Dining (1.42%).


600.00


500.00



400.00


300.00


200.00



100.00


n n0


~cC~-


.











Table 14: Weight based average percent weighted by influence of the campus source and then the UF
waste stream (48.25%)

Estimated
Campus Weight % Special
Campus Sub- Contribution Paper Plastic Metals Glass Non- Organics Products C&D ea
Sources recyclable Waste
Sources to UF waste
Stream

Housing Total 22.97% 5.69% 1.77% 0.64% 0.89% 5.13% 8.08% 0.71% 0.00% 0.06%

Dorm 13.13% 3.72% 1.10% 0.39% 0.11% 3.13% 4.08% 0.57% 0.00% 0.03%
Greek 6.62% 1.04% 0.50% 0.18% 0.74% 0.81% 3.19% 0.12% 0.00% 0.03%
Family 3.22% 0.93% 0.18% 0.07% 0.03% 1.19% 0.80% 0.02% 0.00% 0.00%

Academic
9.60% 2.97% 1.02% 0.08% 0.08% 1.31% 3.27% 0.6% 0.23% 0.04%
Total

Mixed 4.58% 1.76% 0.41% 0.07% 0.06% 0.75% 0.84% 0.44% 0.23% 0.01%
Plant
lant 1.13% 0.19% 0.14% 0.00% 0.00% 0.11% 0.53% 0.15% 0.00% 0.01%
Lab
Animal
Anma 2.80% 0.47% 0.35% 0.00% 0.00% 0.28% 1.69% 0.00% 0.00% 0.02%
Lab*
Library 1.09% 0.55% 0.12% 0.01% 0.02% 0.17% 0.21% 0.00% 0.00% 0.01%
Medical 3.34% 0.97% 0.32% 0.04% 0.00% 1.05% 0.56% 0.10% 0.00% 0.29%
Administration 3.94% 1.93% 0.42% 0.12% 0.10% 0.76% 0.59% 0.01% 0.00% 0.02%

Dining 4.81% 1.42% 0.24% 0.12% 0.06% 0.72% 2.00% 0.25% 0.00% 0.01%

Recreational 2.61% 0.89% 0.09% 0.02% 0.00% 0.21% 1.18% 0.22% 0.00% 0.00%

Miscellaneous* 0.98% 0.45% 0.05% 0.00% 0.00% 0.13% 0.17% 0.17% 0.00% 0.00%

Totals 48.25% 14.3% 3.9% 1.0% 1.1% 9.3% 15.9% 2.1% 0.2% 0.4%


These sources were not manually s
were comparable loads.


but visual y asses e


The composition of the UF waste stream was estimated via the combination of historical data
and the MSW composition study data. The average historical data for C&D debris, medical waste,
hazardous waste, and each recyclable component was combined with the average weighted data from
the MSW composition study. These five recorded waste stream categories are color coded in Figure 37.
The MSW sort categories were totaled and were then used to represent the overall composition of
MSW for the comprehensive diagram, displayed in Figure 37, of the waste stream generated by the
University of Florida. Only the weight data was utilized for the comprehensive figure because the
historical data only details the weights of each category and not the volume. This comprehensive
overview provided insight for the assessment and recommendation process.

In Figure 37, the five major contributors to the UF waste stream are identifiable as yard waste
(17.52%) from the recyclable material category, organic (15.85%) and then paper (14.33%) from the
MSW category, then the C&D debris category (12.91%), and finally paper (10.50%) from the recyclable
material category. Accordingly, paper waste composes approximately 24.8% of the UF waste stream.










Since landfill tipping fees are derived from weight, reducing or recovering the organic waste stream
would provide a noticeable decrease in the annual landfilling cost.

Of the recyclable material generated and recorded, the five largest contributors are yard waste
(17.52%), paper (10.50%), masonry (3.89%), and sludge (1.38%). Can and bottle recycling accounts for
approximately 0.3% of the UF waste stream.













O Medical O Hazardous MSW


Sludge Electronics
1.38% 0.15%


Scrap
Metal
2.24%
Misc.
0.49%


Figure 37: Comprehensive diagram of the waste stream generated by the University of Florida. The five
waste categories monthly recorded by PPD are depicted by colors and are MSW (48.25%, 8,740 tons
annually), C&D Debris (12.91%, 2,339 tons annually), Recyclable Material (36.50%, 6,613 tons annually),
Medical Waste (1.81%, 328 tons annually), and Hazardous Waste (0.52%, 95 tons annually). The
components of the MSW, determined from the MSW composition study, and recyclable material, which
is recorded monthly by PPD, streams are denoted in detail.


* C&D Debris


0Recycled Material










The currently and potentially recyclable components of the MSW stream were identified by the
MSW sorts. The materials that are currently recyclable in Alachua County, but are escaping the UF
diversion techniques, are denoted as Currently Recoverable. Thus, the Currently Recoverable portion of
the MSW stream is definitely recoverable with the recycling provided by SP Recycling Corp. Conversely,
the waste that is feasible to recycle or recover, but is not currently accepted on campus or in the county,
is denoted by Potentially Recoverable. The results are displayed in Table 15 and detail how the currently
or potentially recoverable waste categories and sub-categories contribute by weight to the UF waste
stream.

As displayed in Figure 37, the top two waste categories that influence the UF waste stream are
organic (15.85%) and paper (14.33%). Table 15 details the tonnage and percent by which the
recyclable stream can be increased through successfully capturing recoverable wastes. If the Currently
Recoverable organic (1.44%) and paper (6.85%) wastes were completely recovered, a recycling rate
increase of nearly 8% would result. If all Currently Recoverable items were recovered, a recycling rate
increase of 15% would occur. Accordingly, with a baseline recycling rate of 36.5% and an increase of
15%, the potential recycling rate would be just over 50%.

Similarly, if the Potentially Recoverable organic (14.41%) and paper (7.48%) wastes were
completely recovered, a recycling rate increase of over 21% would result. If both the Currently
Recoverable and Potentially Recoverable wastes were captured by diversion techniques, the recycling
rate would reach nearly 75%.










Table 15: Percent of UF waste stream that is escaping the diversion techniques for current recyclables
and other waste that is potentially recyclable


Weight (tons/year)


Percent by Weight


Currently Potentially Currently Potentially
Category Subcategory
Category SubcateRecoverable Recoverable Recoverable Recoverable
Newspaper 114.74 1.31%
Old Corrugated Cardboard (OCC) 222.30 2.54%
High Grade White 109.79 1.26%
High Grade Colored 10.22 0.12%
Paper Mixed Recyclable 141.33 1.62%
Compostable/ Soiled 495.25 5.67%
Boxboard 78.55 -0.90%
Composite/Other -80.07 0.92%
TOTALS: Paper 598.37 653.87 6.85% 7.48%
#1-7 Recycled 110.25 1.26%
#1-7 Not Recycled -111.31 1.27%
Food Service -64.34 0.74%
Plastic
Nonfood EPS -12.38 0.14%
Rigid Plastic/Other -43.95 0.50%
TOTALS: Plastic 110.25 231.98 2.54% 1.38%
Yard waste 125.84 1.44%
Animal Byproducts/Other 82.14 0.94%
Organic
Food/Plant Lab waste 1177.34 13.47%
TOTALS: Organics 125.84 1259.48 1.44% 14.41%
Aluminum drink cont. 24.14 0.28%
Food and beverage 24.30 -0.28%
Metal
Scrap Metal/ Other 39.85 -0.46%
TOTALS: Metal 88.29 -1.01%
Recyclable Glass 113.61 -1.30%
Products 180.07 2.06%
Potential Increase in Recycling Rate 1216.45 2145.33 13.92% 24.54%
Potential Recycling Rate, including 7829.45 8758.33 50.42% 61.04%
baseline
Cumulative Potential Recycling Rate 9974.78 74.96%



4.5.1. ORGANIC

Organics is the single largest contributor to UF's waste stream (33%) and MSW stream (15.85%).
The UF waste stream includes both the 17.52% recovered as yard waste and the 15.85% organic lost as
MSW. Organic MSW ranges from food waste, both pre and post consumer, to plant waste generated at
greenhouses or from lab experiments to the animal byproducts and yard waste discarded.










4.5.1.1. Composition

The composition of the organic portion of the MSW stream is predominately food and plant
waste (80.3%) as visible in Figure 38. Recovery efforts exist for yard waste (9%) through Wood Resource
Recovery, hence the minimal contribution to the organic MSW stream. Animal byproducts (6%) and
Plant Lab Waste (4.6%) represent the lowest portion of the organic MSW stream.


Plant Lab
Waste
4.6%


Animal
Byproducts
/ Other
6%


Food
Waste
80.3%


Figure 38: Composition of Organics in the University of Florida MSW stream


4.5.1.2. Campus Sources

According to Table 14 (where the values are weighted by how the campus source contributes to
the MSW stream and how the MSW stream contributes to the UF waste stream), the majority of the
15.85% organic MSW stream is generated at dormitories (4.08%), Greek housing (3.19%), and dining
halls (2.00%). However, with respect to Table 12 (where the exact percent of total is not weighted), the
source streams composed of primarily organic MSW are animal labs (60.5%), Greek housing (48.3%),
plant labs (46.8%), recreational (45.1%), and dining (41.5%). The organic fraction of Greek housing,
recreational, and dining waste is primarily food waste where as for animal labs it is animal byproducts
and for plant labs it is plant waste (e.g. clippings, fruit, plants, etc).



4.5.2. PAPER

Paper is the second largest contributor to the UF waste stream at 24.83%, with 10.5% recycled
through campus recovery efforts and 14.33% lost as MSW. Paper also ranks second to organic in terms
of contribution to the MSW stream










4.5.2.1. Composition

The composition of the paper MSW stream is detailed in Figure 39. The primary component of
the paper waste stream is compostable paper (39.5%), which is currently not recovered. Highly
recyclable paper components OCC (17.8%), mixed recyclable (11.3%), and newspaper (9.2%) are the
next highest contributors to the paper portion of the MSW stream.


Boxboard
6.35..


Composite/
Other
6.4%


Comp'o:.atb-e
39.1ed


High Grade
Colored
0.8%


Figure 39: Composition of Paper in the University of Florida MSW stream


4.5.2.2. Campus Sources

According to Table 14 (where the values are weighted by how the campus source contributes to
the MSW stream and how the MSW stream contributes to the UF waste stream), the majority of the
14.33% paper MSW stream is generated at dormitories (3.72%), administration (1.93%), and mixed
academic (1.76%). However, with respect to Table 12 (where the exact percent of total is not weighted),
the source streams composed of primarily paper MSW are library (50.3%), administration (48.9%),
miscellaneous (46.4%), and mixed academic (45.1%). Compostable paper is primary component of the
paper fraction in each of these instances.

4.5.3. PLASTICS

Plastic is the third largest contributor to the MSW stream at 3.92% weight based. The
composition and major sources of the plastic are discussed below.










4.5.3.1. Composition
Figure 40 details the plastic composition. The largest component of the plastic waste stream,
according to the MSW Sorts, is number one through seven not recycled plastic (32.5%). Directly after
that is the recyclable number one through seven plastics (32.2%) and then food service plastics (18.8%).


Nonfood
EPS
3.6%


Food
Service
18.8%


Figure 40: Composition of Plastics in the University of Florida MSW stream


4.5.3.2. Campus Sources
According to Table 14 (where the values are weighted by how the campus source contributes to
the MSW stream and how the MSW stream contributes to the UF waste stream), the majority of the
3.92% plastic MSW stream is generated at dormitories (1.10%), Greek housing (0.50%), and
administration (0.42%). However, with respect to Table 12 (where the exact percent of total is not
weighted), the source streams with higher plastic MSW components are plant labs (12.4%), animal labs
(12.4%), libraries (11.1%), administration (10.8%), medical (9.7%), and mixed academic (9.5%).










5. OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Currently, there are campus wide efforts to reduce consumption, improve reuse and recycling,
as well as foster knowledge and impart skills through education and outreach activities. However, to
meet UF's waste reduction goals, the current management and diversion techniques must be
supplemented. The results of the waste audit reveal materials that are either escaping current recovery
efforts or are not currently being targeted for recovery. For certain materials (e.g. high grade paper, PET,
and aluminum), feasible recovery techniques already exist; while for other materials (e.g. dirty film,
other rigid plastic, non-standard sized pallets), markets and availability of appropriate recycling facilities
will require further assessment before the viability of recycling can be determined. This chapter details
the following: how recycling rates at UF compare to other benchmarks set in the nation, how the
diversion techniques implemented by UF compare to other universities nationwide, and the implications
and recommendations associated with the MSW sorts, as well discuss general recommendations.


5.1. COMPARISON OF RECOVERY BENCHMARKS

This section illustrates how the University of Florida compares to the recovery benchmarks set
at the national, state, county, and university level. The average recycling rate from the historical data
collected by PPD was compared to the average recycling rates for the nation, state, and county. Only
years 2004 through 2007 were examined since recycling rates for years 2001-2003 were not completed
nationally. At the university level, the recycling rates and waste management techniques were
investigated to evaluate UF's current management strategy as well as identify any successful and
potentially implementable practices.

5.1.1. NATIONAL, STATE, AND COUNTY RECYCLING RATES
The recycling rates were estimated for the United States (US), Florida (FL), Alachua County (AC),
and UF from the total MSW generated yearly and the fraction of MSW that was reported as recycled by
the USEPA, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and UF PPD. Table 16 depicts the
results of this investigation. The tonnage associated with MSW and recycled material is provided to
quantify the yearly percentages of recycled material. From 2004 through 2007, UF had the highest
recycling rates with an average of 36.5% and a low of 32.4% in 2007 and a peak in 2004 at 43.5%. The
2004 peak was due to the severe hurricane season which increased yard waste recycling. The United
States as a whole has the next highest recycling rates with an average of 32.2% and ranging between
31.2% in 2004 and 33.5% in 2007. Alachua County, then Florida follow with recycling rate averages of
28.7% and 26.2%, respectfully.











Table 16: The total tons of MSW generated, of recycled material, and the consequent percent recycled with respect to the United States, Florida,
Alachua County, and the University of Florida during 2004 to 2007

United States Florida Alachua County University of Florida
Total
Year Total MSW Recycled % Total MSW Recycled % Total MSW Recycled % Total Recycled %
MSW
(tons) (tons) Recycled (tons) (tons) Recycled (tons) (tons) Recycled ) (tons) Recycled
(tons)
2004 249,800,00027 78,000,00027 31.2% 31,803,59928 8,468,77928 26.6% 250,76828 74,62428 29.8% 20,951.53 9,118 43.5%
2005 250,400,00027 79,400,00027 31.7% 36,577,71529 9,240,09729 25.3% 235,35029 76,27029 32.4% 17,718.66 6,070 34.3%
2006 254,200,00027 82,200,00027 32.3% 35,106,79230 8,561,90330 24.4% 284,61430 62,83130 22.1% 17,499.67 6,004 34.3%
2007 254,100,00027 85,000,00027 33.5% 32,340,96431 9,270,71931 28.7% 412,26031 125,24831 30.4% 16,457.87 5,336 32.4%
Totals 1,008,500,000 324,600,000 32.2% 135,829,070 35,541,498 26.2% 1,182,992 338,973 28.7% 72,628 26,529 36.5%


Figure 41 more clearly compares the average recycling rates achieved. It is visible that the recycling rate attained by UF (36.5%) is
comparable and higher than those attained by the county (28.7%), state (26.2%), and nation (32.2%). However, it is important to note that the
reporting method and recyclable materials counted may be different for UF verses AC, FL, and the US. For instance, only FL businesses which
exceed 600 tons per year of any recovered material (paper, glass, plastic, metals, textiles, and/or non-tire rubber) are required by law report
their recovered materials



2 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2008, November 10). Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) in the United States, 2007 Facts and Figures. Retrieved August 29, 2009, from
Wastes Non-Hazardous Waste Municipal Solid Waste: http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/msw99.htm

28 Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (2009, July 9). Recycling 2004 Solid Waste Annual Report Data. Retrieved September 1, 2009, from Bureau of Solid &
Hazardous Waste: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/recycling/SWreportdata/04_data.htm

29 Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (2009, July 9). Recycling 2005 Solid Waste Annual Report Data. Retrieved September 1, 2009, from Bureau of Solid &
Hazardous Waste: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/recycling/SWreportdata/05_data.htm

30 Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (2009, July 9). Recycling 2006 Solid Waste Annual Report Data. Retrieved September 1, 2009, from Bureau of Solid &
Hazardous Waste: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/recycling/SWreportdata/06_data.htm

31 Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (2009, July 9). Recycling 2007 Solid Waste Annual Report Data. Retrieved September 1, 2009, from Bureau of Solid &
Hazardous Waste: http://www.dep.state.fl.us/waste/categories/recycling/SWreportdata/07_data.htm











40.0%
36.5%
35.0%
32.2%
30.0% 28.7%
26.2'.'.
25.0%

20.0%

15.0%

10.0%

5.0%

0.0%
United States Florida Alachua University of
County Florida


Figure 41: Comparison of the average recycling rates achieved by the United States, Florida, Alachua
County, and UF during 2004 through 2007



5.1.2. UNIVERSITY

At the university level, both the recycling rates and methods utilized to manage the waste
generated were examined. Waste generation and recycling rate information at other campuses were
not readily available, thus the UF data from UF PPD 2008 records was compared to other university
information reported for the 2009 RecycleMania competition. Universities that excelled in the MSW
generation per capital and recycling per capital were investigated to identify any methods) of success.
Moreover, the waste management strategies were researched to distinguish differences that may
support the successful programs.

5.1.2.1. Recycling Rate

The RecycleMania program proved to be the most efficient resource for gaining comparative
data on university recycling rates as well as amount of waste and recyclables per capital. This is because
RecycleMania sets rules and standards on which materials are considered recyclables. The only
materials considered recyclable are glass, metal and plastic containers, and paper. All data are reported
as weights as opposed to volumes. This weight must be based on actual observed trash and recycling
generation, unless schools receive infrequent waste results or have a hard time tracking sections of
campus. For the latter, RecycleMania administrators must be contacted and approved estimates may be
used for up to 25% of their reported weights. Whenever possible, actual weights are preferred. Where
weights cannot be obtained, volumes may be estimated using observed container volumes and the
approved weight to volume conversion factors.

Utilizing RecycleMania and UF PPD data exclusively for the comparison has drawbacks, resulting
in varying degrees of error. For instance, the materials considered in the recycling calculations are
narrow, thus numerous innovative recycling programs are neglected (e.g. UF recycles masonry and scrap










metal, but this cannot be included). Issues may also arise in the reporting methodology utilized, since
there is no means of corroborating the figures reported. For instance, whether or not schools report the
waste that is recycled, but is not included under the recycling category, as MSW. Moreover, the only
schools available for comparison are those that participate in RecycleMania.

Ultimately, when only considering recyclables as glass, metal and plastic containers, and paper,
UF still appeared to rank average to above average among other schools across the nation. UF was not
setting benchmarks; however, UF was clearly ahead of the curve. Considering the universities setting
benchmarks had one tenth the population of UF and less, UF is competing well.

Top institutions may capture more recyclables due to a higher ratio of collection receptacles to
campus population. Unfortunately, this information was not available for comparison. There are also
differences in the variety of recyclables that schools accept. An additional non-measurable variable is
the campus attitude toward waste reduction and recycling. This can be affected by both education and
outreach programs. Lastly, as noted, a clear difference is that benchmark institutions are much smaller
in population than UF.

It was found that some institutions accept a larger variety of recyclables than UF. For example,
California State University32, Franklin W. Olin College33, Kalamazoo College34, and New Mexico State
University35 collect and recycle boxboard. If UF collected boxboard, an approximate 1% increase in the
recycling rate would be seen. California State University collects some food service plastics, whereas,
Olin College collects aseptic packages and #3 plastics. New Mexico State does not collect #2 plastic or
glass. More recyclables can be collected if there is greater campus participation. The schools listed
above have very good education/outreach programs that promote a sustainable attitude on campus.
Also many of the communities may be moving towards a more sustainable trend. These programs and
attitudes are difficult to compare.

5.1.2.2. Management
When comparing the University of Florida's waste management to other universities the MSW
and recycling techniques were investigated. The chief observable differences are the size of UF in
comparison to other universities and that UF coordinates solid waste management primarily through
the Physical Plant Division. Often schools manage their waste via contracts and agreements with private
companies such as Waste Management. Institutions have adopted similar recycling programs and
implemented diversion techniques. However, the degree of participation and cooperation between


32 California State University San Marcos. (2008). CSUSM:Recycling. Retrieved September 2, 2009, from
http://www.csusm.edu/facilities/sustainability/recycling.html
33 Franklin W. Olin College of Engineering. (2009). Sustainabliity: Recycling Program. Retrieved September 2, 2009,
from http://www.olin.edu/sustainability/recycling.aspx
34 Kalamazoo College. (2006, January 23). Kalamazoo College/recycling. Retrieved September 2, 2009, from
http://www.kzoo.edu/recycle/old/index.htm
35 New Mexico State University. (2008). NMSU: Aggie Recycling. Retrieved September 2, 2009, from
http://www.nmsu.edu/aggierecycling/index.html










departments differs among schools. Overall, the waste management approach adopted by UF is
empowering and more easily adaptable to new regulations and more sustainable initiatives.

Of the universities investigated, the majority hire private companies to collect and dispose the
generated solid waste. This leaves the management details at the discretion of the private company, not
the university. Moreover, if the institution wants to record data (e.g. monthly weights generated) on the
campus solid waste, the university must rely on the company to provide the information.

Since UF not only oversees the campus waste, but also directly collects and transports waste to
proper disposal (e.g. MSW dumpster collection and disposal, can and bottle recycling, etc), UF has more
control over how the campus waste is managed and greater leverage to implement changes. UF has the
ability to tailor the waste management strategies to the campus needs and goals, which is an aspect that
private companies may be unwilling to accommodate. Thus, UF has the leverage of self-management
and can negotiate agreements depending on the type of waste, hence adopting solutions that are the
most economically feasible and/or environmentally responsible.

Institutions worldwide have adopted recycling programs and initiatives; however, each program
differs in structure and support. Many schools contract private companies to manage their recyclables
much like they do for their waste. Though the degree of cooperation differs, source reduction and
diversion techniques are implemented and/or recommended at many other universities. The degree of
cooperation differs though. UF has developed infrastructure such as, the Office of Sustainability, to
coordinate efforts campus wide. This is much more effective in assessing the feasibility of small scale
experimental procedures and implementing them across the entire campus. Many of the schools that
lack this infrastructure seem to be missing diversion opportunities. Additionally, this infrastructure helps
unite the campus making education and outreach programs much more successful.

Diversion of organic is the next step in sustainable waste management among the more
advanced campuses. Many schools have experimented with composting food waste, but most have
found that the program as a whole proves to be too difficult to manage and, thus, unsuccessful. UF
does successfully recover their yard wastes through a private company, but is not currently diverting
food waste. UF departments and organizations are experimenting with converting organic to energy
through digestion, and small scale food waste composting initiatives are underway. Furthermore, UF has
been converting oil from dining halls into biodiesel. These programs are in their infancy and are still
being assessed as an opportunity for campus wide organic recovery.

While UF is ahead of many universities in their waste management strategies, there are a few
institutions that have tried innovative solutions. The University of Colorado at Boulder (CU) has
constructed and employed their own materials recovery facility to process recyclables before selling
them to a private company for recovery. The University of Oregon, CU, Penn State, and the University of
California-Davis (UC) had some success with zero waste events where they collect recyclables and
compostables, and encourage reusable serve ware. Penn State and UC have successful composting
programs where they metabolize food waste into a product that is then land applied. See Appendix J for
more detailed information on other university practices.










Based on the management and diversion techniques employed at other campuses, UF is moving
in the right direction. Quantitatively, comparing UF's management to other universities is difficult, since
most universities do not publish their recycling/diversion rates. When rates are calculated, discrepancies
arise on how materials are measured and which materials are included. Currently, no standard for
measuring diversion rates exist. Even the RecycleMania program has its faults in benchmarking
institutions as seen in the previous section. Furthermore, as noted earlier in this report, it is difficult to
measure the impacts of source reduction programs.


5.2. MSW SORT IMPLICATIONS AND DIVERSION OPPORTUNITIES

Investigating and characterizing the municipal solid waste portion of the UF waste stream,
accounting for approximately 48.25% of the waste stream, was a critical component of properly
assessing, managing, and recommending improvements to the campus solid waste management
system. Currently, the PPD tracks the weight of MSW disposed monthly; however, the composition of
this MSW had yet to be qualified and quantified by component. Detailing the component and
proportion contributed to the MSW stream gave necessary information regarding the quantity of refuse
that is recoverable or even reducible. Moreover, it provided a means of assessing the success of current
campus wide recovery efforts.

The investigations completed on the MSW stream identified the primary components as well as
an overall composition. Paper, organic, non-recyclable items, and plastics account for 90.0% of the
MSW stream and, thus, approximately 43.4% of the 48.25% contributed to the UF waste stream. The
data received from the MSW sort subcategories demonstrate that recyclable goods are escaping campus
wide recovery efforts. These four principal contributing wastes are further examined by identifying
which campus source disposes the highest quantity of each waste, which subcategories most
significantly compose each waste category, and finally, present potential diversion techniques that could
be utilized. The percent discussed are all weight averages.

5.2.1. ORGANIC
Organics compose the largest portion of UF's MSW stream at 15.85%, as seen in Figure 37. The
campus sources that contribute most to this MSW portion are housing (8.08%), academic (3.27%), and
dining sources (2.00%). Of the academic sources, 0.53% is exclusively from plant labs. The organic
found in the MSW were primarily food waste related products (12.84%). The detailed analysis in terms
of the UF waste stream is available in Table 15 and Table 11 has the categories and subcategories listed
in terms of the MSW stream.

Potential diversion techniques for organic include conversion to energy and composting.
Anaerobic digestion could also be employed for the food waste portion of the organic. However,
compostable paper is not as efficiently managed through digestion because it is difficult for the
anaerobes to breakdown cellulous. Small scale composting, like that started by the Butterfly Garden,
could be pursued for the campus sources that were identified as high quantity or high density
contributors. During the MSW sorts, the waste disposed of by the Florida Museum of Natural History
and Butterfly Garden was examined. Approximately 61% by weight 81.0 pounds) and 32% by volume










(54.0 gallons) of the sampled load (132.57 pounds and 170.96 gallons) was food waste. With the
addition of composting, 52% by weight (69.2 pounds) and 27% (46.1 gallons) by volume of the load was
diverted from the MSW stream.

Composting feasibility studies could be performed given the encouraging recovery rate from
just the FMNH and Butterfly Garden. A prime location to initially implement composting would be in
close proximity to plant labs and greenhouses, since there is green space available, they are low traffic
areas, and would be in close proximity to an immediate source of organic waste (0.53%). In the case of
dining halls, a composting area may not be readily available, but the plant labs, greenhouses, and dining
halls could partner in the composting initiative. This would entail determining the logistics of collecting
and transporting the food waste from dining halls to the composting mechanism in the greenhouse and
plant lab area. If a more remote location is selected, for instance near the swine unit, collection bins and
transportation would need to be determined for both the food and plant waste.

Moreover, since compostable paper is a substantial contributor to the paper MSW stream, it
may behoove UF to consider integrating this component with composting initiative. Initially convenient
academic buildings (e.g. buildings that are already on the transportation route determined for dining
halls and plant labs) could be added to the composting study. When selecting academic buildings to
participate, the location for instance the proximity to either the compost devices or the dining halls -
and the presence of a food source or vendor should be considered. For instance, in the New Engineering
Building (NEB) a vendor, Java City, is located downstairs that sells drinks and food; such as coffee, tea,
and sandwiches. During the MSW sorts, NEB was sampled and the MSW was found to have nearly 40%
by weight and 5% by volume organic food waste components. This included unfinished meals, drinks,
and waste from the vendor such as an 18 pound bag of coffee grounds.

Additionally, it is important to identify who will fund and manage the composting operation,
which could entail funding the composting devices, collection containers, vehicles, employees,
maintenance and/or organizing volunteer efforts. For dining halls, the collection could be focused on
pre-consumer food waste whereas for academic buildings, collection could be focused on waste
generated at vendor facilities and bathroom waste. In order minimize the contamination in the
bathroom waste, proper signage would be required and announcements made. The best collection and
transportation route can be determined once the locations) for the composting devices is established
and approval from all participating units is gained.










5.2.2. PAPER


Paper is the second largest contributor to the UF waste stream at 24.83%, with 10.5% recycled
through campus recovery efforts and 14.33% lost as MSW. The campus sources that contribute most to
paper waste are housing (5.69%) and academic (2.97%) sources, as seen in Table 14. With regard to the
paper disposed of as MSW, the most substantial contributor was compostable/soiled paper, composing
5.67% of the MSW stream. However, readily recycled paper products such as OCC (2.54%), high grade
(1.37%), and newspaper (1.31%) were among the top contributors to the MSW stream. The detailed
analysis in terms of the UF waste stream is available in Table 15 and Appendix I. Table 11 has the
categories and subcategories listed in terms of the MSW stream.

Potential diversion techniques for the compostable/soiled paper would be composting or
replacing the bathroom paper towel dispensers with electric hand driers or the textile hand wipe
machines. With regard to capturing the recyclable portion of the paper MSW stream, education on both
available recovery techniques (i.e. OCC dumpsters, indoor office paper recycling receptacles, etc) and
the importance of properly recovering recyclable goods would be the priority.

5.2.3. NON-RECYCLABLE
Non-recyclable items represent the fraction of the UF waste stream that will be difficult to
recover through recycling, reuse, repair, re-sale, or donation due to the lack of applicable recovery
options, markets available, and contamination. According to the MSW composition study, approximately
9.31% of the UF waste stream is non-recyclable. The items denoted as non-recyclable include, but were
not limited to dirty film, used feminine products and diapers, glass that is broken or from a lab, as well
as residuals and fines. Currently, there are either no or limited recovery options available for these
items.

The non-recyclable quantity disposed could be reduced, however, if the residuals and fines
portion received appropriate filtering. The residuals and fines could then be diverted from the landfilled
waste through use as cover soil for landfills or, with adequate treatment, composted. Encouraging
source reduction could reduce this component. For example, the building staff should be instructed to
consolidate partially filled containers while leaving the original bags. This would reduce the film
produced on campus while saving the university materials.

5.2.4. PLASTICS
Plastics, a light weight, but often larger volume waste category, was found to be the fourth
largest contributor to the UF MSW waste stream at 3.92%, which is weighted by the load and the UF
waste stream. The primary campus sources that contribute to the plastic waste are housing (1.77%),
academic (1.02%), and administration (0.42%). The plastics found in the MSW portion of the UF waste
stream primarily consisted of currently not recycled number one through seven plastic (1.27%),
currently recycled plastic (1.26%), and food service (0.74%). Table 15 has the detailed analysis in terms
of the UF waste stream and Table 11 has the categories and subcategories listed in terms of the MSW
stream.










5.2.5. CONCLUSION


Ultimately, since UF has the solid waste collection and disposal infrastructure established, the
fundamental recommendation to enhance recovery efforts is through the coupling of campus wide
education, increased awareness, and budgeting to accommodate the departmental and unit solid waste
needs. Education would primarily involve identifying the current goods that are recyclable, available
recycling programs campus wide, reduction and reuse techniques, and most importantly detailing the
benefits of reusing, reducing, and recycling as well as recovering.

Increased awareness would result from improving the communication within the hierarchal
network by encouraging or supplementing job requirements of employees who collect the refuse and
recyclables to include an active and observant role in the solid waste management system. Accordingly,
their observations would be relayed to their supervisors and the cumulative information would give
insight on how to better provide for campus faculty, staff, and students.

Lastly, it is important to note though the MSW stream was investigated in detail in this audit, it
is not the only waste category with room for improvement. Construction and demolition debris account
for 12.91% of the UF waste stream. As detailed in prior chapters, C&D debris is ultimately disposed of in
a landfill; however, there are still many recyclable or recoverable components in the C&D debris stream.


5.3. RECOMMENDATIONS

To amplify current recovery efforts and secure a more sustainable future for campus wide
activities, there are distinct areas necessitating improvement. UF as well as universities nationwide need
to develop and/or improve their communication and cooperation between academic departments,
units, administrative bodies and levels of authority in regards to waste management, recovery efforts,
and sustainable initiatives. This would include augmenting as well as enhancing and targeting education
and outreach programs.

Another opportunity for further research would be to expand the list of accepted recyclables.
Finally, formulating and updating maps with locations of refuse and recycling containers would support
in assessing success in capturing recyclables.

5.3.1. COMMUNICATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY
Communication, cooperation, and accountability are critical components of a successful
recycling program. The UF Office of Sustainability has established the infrastructure through Green
Team Captains (GTCs) in over 100 departments and units, such as the museum, dining halls, and
academic departments around campus. Since an infrastructure is in place, UF needs to both promote
green initiatives and increase the ease of communication within this infrastructure. Empowering faculty,
staff, and students by announcing sustainability as a priority and publicizing a sustainable campus will be
achieved through the combined efforts of the University and each individual within.

A grassroots approach of setting goals through awareness and education should be established
as well as providing support and incentives from the University. This could commence by formulating a
uniform method of reporting successes as well as failures experienced, including document formats and










terminology, for the GTCs. Reporting encourages departmental accountability by providing a means to
assess progress. Once in place, all efforts would be recorded and shared with the solid waste
coordinator, OOS, and archived in an online database all departments can access.

Accordingly, with UF establishing a green campus as a priority, which includes supporting
sustainable initiatives whether by appropriately budgeting so to endorse and/or providing incentives
such as competitions, and cultivating responsibilities on both individual and departmental levels, the
GTCs will be adequately empowered in their departments. For instance, GTCs can promote awareness,
generate discussion about recovery techniques, and present sustainable initiatives that could be
investigated or implemented at departmental meetings. These efforts and information can then be
documented for evaluation.

5.3.2. EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
Education and outreach programs should be implemented in a similar way. Once a diversion
technique is found to be successful, advertise this practice for implementation over the entire campus.
Many programs such as double sided printing defaults have been found successful, but are not
implemented in all departments or accepted by all faculty members.

As an education initiative, the program directives need to help everyone understand the harm
caused by contamination. Volunteers should be well informed so their efforts are not
counterproductive. For example, if a paper load is contaminated with too much boxboard, the value
drops significantly, and may even need to be landfilled. By advertising success and encouraging
departments as well as individuals to get involved and educated, greater capture rates could be
achieved.

5.3.3. RECYCLABLES ACCEPTED
While communication between university facilities and proper education would encourage
better capture of recyclables and implementation of source reduction as well as diversion techniques,
expanding the list of materials that are accepted by the campus recycling program would increase the
opportunity for recovery. This would require investigating not only local recycling options, but the
availability of markets.

Currently, there are few locals recyclers, thus options on what can be recycled are limited.
Research exploring new recyclers would require analyzing the cost and benefit of sending recyclable
materials greater distances. Another possibility would be to examine the potential for a campus or
county materials recovery facility to compete with the local recycler. This would be a capital intensive
initiative; therefore, it would be best to investigate partnering with Alachua County or other
government programs. Furthermore, an awareness of recycling markets is imperative to determine the
feasibility and sustainability of such a facility.

5.3.4. SPATIAL IDENTIFICATION
The final recommendation involves mapping the location and type of disposal/recovery
containers as well as the necessity according to both the MSW sorts and observations completed upon










collection. This initiative enables UF to assess the current logistics and identify opportunities for
capturing more recyclables. UF would then need to maintain this information by recording when
containers are removed, added, or moved and tracking how much use each bin receives.

With respect to the outdoor bins, the majority of the recycling bins available to commuting
traffic and buildings/units are detailed on the UF map. Figure 42, visible to UF website visitors, displays
the can and bottle bins for commuting traffic (blue) as well as the paper dumpsters and compactors
(orange). These existing records would only need to be updated with the recent additions, including the
three-tiered bins, and maintained.


I : ersi of Floridinifin r inr nii
Figure 42: Map of the University of Florida identifying recycling opportunities


The employees of PPD who empty these receptacles should be encouraged or required to take
an active role in assessing and recording the effectiveness of current placements, hence, identifying
locations that need improvement. This could be completed with a form where employees select how full
or empty containers are or simply by providing them with instructions to make note of containers that
are repeatedly overfull or under used. Labeling all containers by GPS coordinates provides a manageable
method for coordinating and tracking changes. Moreover, the information provided from the PPD
employees could be recorded and tracked to further asses the bin usefulness.

To enhance the optimization of indoor bin locations, the information from the MSW sorts could
be integrated in the mapping system. This would allow the University to more readily identify
appropriate locations for trash, paper, can and bottle bins. For instance, in Table 12 the composition of
each source is detailed as a percent of the total loads that reflect each source. In considering the










composition of the Academic sub-source waste streams the necessity of different types of solid waste
disposal containers is displayed. According to the composition identified from the 2009 MSW sorts,
Mixed Academic (38.5%) and Libraries (50.3%) necessitate more paper recycling containers than the
Plant (16.7%) and Animal (16.7%) Labs. However, Plant (46.8%) and Animal (60.5%) labs generate more
organic waste, such as plant, food, and animal byproducts that may be readily diverted from the landfill
stream, if composting or digestion initiatives are pursued. Ultimately, the MSW sort information can be
utilized in assessing specific disposal/recovery bins that should be available in buildings representing
each source or sub-source.

The University of Florida could spatially identify the need of bins more effectively, if the location
and type of bin information is commingled with the usefulness of each bin according to employee and
sort assessments. Bins receiving low use can be relocated to problematic areas identified by employees,
optimizing the use of existing bins. If the current receptacle placement is sufficient, then the low use
bins may be emptied on a less frequent schedule, hence saving employee time. In optimizing bin
placement, UF will be providing sufficient structural support to the Zero Waste initiative.















APPENDICES










A. GLOSSARY


Aseptic container- container that is composed of paper, plastic, and metal that holds the shelf life
of food without refrigeration (e.g., juice boxes, milk cartons).

Class I Landfill -In Florida, facilities that are used to dispose MSW and receive an average of 20
tons or more waste a day.

Class II Landfill-In Florida, facilities that are used to dispose MSW that receive less than 20 tons of
waste a day

Class III Landfill- Class III landfills are those which receive only yard trash, construction and
demolition debris, waste tires, asbestos, carpet, cardboard, paper, glass, plastic,
furniture other than appliances, or other materials approved by the FDEP which
are not expected to produce leachate which poses a threat to public health or
the environment. Class III landfills do not accept household waste(Townsend,
Determination of Appropriate Waste Management Options, 2008).

Construction and demolition (C&D) debris waste generated at construction, renovation, and
demolitions sites. This includes, but is not limited to, lumber, wire, sheetrock,
broken brick, shingles, glass, pipes, concrete, paving materials. Paint, solvents,
asbestos, any liquid, compressed gases or semi liquids, and garbage are not
included in C&D debris.

Diversion technique any method of that decreases the waste sent to a landfill. Includes
reduction, reuse, recycling, as well as methods that retrieve energy from waste
like anaerobic digestion or waste to energy.

Hazardous Waste Waste that could cause or contribute to mortality or serious illness. Any waste
that could pose substantial risk to human health or environment. (10)

LEED Certification- LEED is an internationally recognized green building certification
system, providing third-party verification that a building or community was
designed and built using strategies aimed at improving performance across all
the metrics that matter most: energy savings, water efficiency, CO2 emissions
reduction, improved indoor environmental quality, and stewardship of resources
and sensitivity to their impacts (US Green Building Council, 2008).

Medical Waste .Waste generated in the diagnosis, treatment, or immunization of humans or
animals. (9)

Municipal solid waste garbage, refuse and other solid waste from residential, commercial,
industrial and community activities that the generator of the waste aggregates
for collection. MSW does not include autos, street sweepings, ash, dedicated
construction debris, mining waste, sludge, agricultural wastes, and other
materials collected, processed and disposed of as separate waste streams.










Recycle Mania


- RecycleMania is a friendly competition and benchmarking tool for college and
university recycling programs to promote waste reduction activities to their
campus communities. Over a 10-week period, schools report recycling and trash
data which are then ranked according to who collects the largest amount of
recyclables per capital, the largest amount of total recyclables, the least amount
of trash per capital, or have the highest recycling rate (Welcome to the
Recyclemania Web Site, 2009).


Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) primary statute governing solid waste.

Solid Waste garbage, refuse, sludge from a waste treatment plant, water supply treatment
plant, or air pollution control facility and other discarded material, including
solid, liquid, semisolid, or contained gaseous material resulting from industries,
commercial, mining and agricultural operations and from community activities.,

Special Waste waste items that are deemed difficult or pose a danger when handled by the
onsite volunteers.

Yard trash Waste composed of leaves, branches, and soil. (7)











B. CAMPUS SOURCES


B.1. CAMPUS SOURCES IDENTIFICATION

The campus was categorized by the source or generator. Every roll-off, compactor and dumpster
which is emptied by the Physical Plant or contracted out was then classified. The following categories
were established for the UF campus. These categories were determined based on the types of wastes
anticipated from each source. Table B.1.A lists and describes these campus sources.

Table B.1.A The University of Florida was separated into sources of MSW, referred to as campus sources

Campus Source Description

Academic: Animal Lab Laboratories whose research activities involve animals

Academic: Plant Lab Laboratories whose research activities predominantly involve plants

Academic: Library Exclusively involves library

Academic: Mixed Includes a combination of lecture halls, laboratories, libraries, and offices

Administration Mostly composed of offices

Dinning Food service locations

Recreational Recreational facilities and fields

Housing: Dorms Exclusively involves dorms

Housing: Family Exclusively involves family housing

Housing: Greek Sororities and fraternities

Miscellaneous Unclassifiable, such as storage units, hay barns, building services, etc

Waste produced in buildings where research is primarily medical in nature

Medical (not to be confused with the medical waste type) This would include any
Medical
waste that is thrown in regular containers that are not specifically for bio-
hazardous or any other special waste.


Table B.1.B indicates how each campus category contributes to the UF waste stream, as well as
the total weight and volumes that each source contributes. The calculations for weight determination
are detailed in Appendix C. Figure B.1 shows the percent that each campus category and sub category
contributes to the UF waste stream.












Campus Campus Weight
Campus -Capus Volume (yd^3) Volume% Weight (Ibs)
Sources Sub-Sources %


Housing Total


1864.9


38.0%


878,851.5


47.6%


1 Dorm 1147.9 23.4% 502,378.3 27.2%
2 Greek 377.0 7.7% 253,114.3 13.7%
3 Family 340.0 6.9% 123,358.9 6.7%
Academic Total 1131.3 23.1% 367,192.2 19.9%
4 Mixed 760.6 15.5% 175,262.8 9.5%
5 Plant Lab 69.6 1.4% 43,092.3 2.3%
6 Animal Lab* 133.0 2.7% 107,149.4 5.8%
7 Library 168.0 3.4% 41,687.6 2.3%
8 Medical 495.2 10.1% 127,652.5 6.9%
9 Administration 644.3 13.1% 150,845.9 8.2%
10 Dining 316.0 6.4% 183,944.3 10.0%
11 Recreational 310.0 6.3% 99,900.8 5.4%
12 Miscellaneous* 142.7 2.9% 37,521.1 2.0%


TOTAL
Assuming 1,845,908.40 Ibs wkly
Containers 4,904.23 yd^3 wkly tons
Filled922 wkly
Actual 1,456,715.63 Ibs mo
3,870.22 yd^3 mo
Average 728.36 tons mo











Waste from Campus

Categories by Volume

Miscella
Recreatio neous*
nal 3%
6% M


Waste from Campus

Categories by Weight

Miscella
Recreatio neous*
nal 2%
5%


Figure B.1 Campus categories contribution to the UF Waste stream











B.2. WASTE CHARACTERIZATION BY CAMPUS SOURCE


The University of Florida waste stream was categorized by the source of the waste detailed in
Chapter Two of this audit. The waste was also characterized by the container type and the type of waste
it contained (e.g., garbage, paper, cans & bottles, etc). Using known container volumes and the
frequency collected, we were able to estimate a baseline for how much waste each category
contributed. All containers were assumed to be full during this analysis. The following tables present
this waste characterization by building. For special arrangement reasons, the table was divided into two
parts. Both parts list the building number and description, but the rest of the characterization is broken
into two tables. This characterization did not include any containers whose contents would ultimately
end up in a dumpster or compactor. This kept volumes from double counting.

This file is available for direct use on the attached compact disc (CD) as
"Comingled.Waste.Recycling.lnfrastructure.2009.xlsx."










Bldg


Description


MO
I-


TU_


WIE
V


TH_


HL


Mont


CY-
V


1329-001 1329 GLASS BUILDING 1 1 8.60 8.00 UF
1329-002 1329 GLASS BUILDING 1 1 8.60 I8.00 UF
0019-001 Academic Advisement 1 1 1 1 1 21.50 6.00 UF
0019-002 ACADEMIC ADVISING CENTER 1 1 8.60 6.00 UF
0252-001 Agricultural Eng. Field Lab 1 4.30 4.00 UF
1237-001 Agronomy Field Office 0.23 1.00 2.00 UF
0413-001 Alpha Chi Omega 1 1 1 12.90 6.00 UF
0409-001 Alpha Delta PI 1 1 1 12.90 6.00 UF
0417-001 Alpha Epilon Phi 1 1 1 12.90 6.00 UF
0408-001 Alpha Omicron PI 1 1 1 12.90 6.00 UF
1371-001 Animal Care I BARC 1 4.30 4.00 UF
0459-002 Animal Science 1 1 8.60 8.00 UF
0459-003 ANIMAL SCIENCE BUILDING 1 _1 8.60 3.00 UF
0268-001 Architecture Buildind 1 1 1 1 1 21.50 8.00 UF
04.36-001 Austin Cary 1 4.30 8.00 UF
0142-001 AistinCay Conferete Bldg. 1 4.30 8.00 UF
0292-001 Baby Gator 1 1 8.60 6.00 UF
0255-001 BandsheuI 1 1 1 12.90 6.00 UF
0255-002 Bandshell 1 1 1 12.90 6.00 UF
0255-003 Bandshell 1 1 1 12.90 6.00 UF
0747-001 Bartram Hall 1 1 1 1 1 21.50 6.00 UF
0562-001 Beard Track Stadium 41 0.23 1.00 8.00 UF
0562-002 Beard Track Stadium #2 0.23 1.00 8.00 UF
0751-004 BEATY TOWERS 1 1 8.60 6.00 UF
Bee Unit
0798-001 0.23256 1.00 I 4.00 UF
On Call I
0894-001 Beef Resch North (Sand Hill Farm) 1 4.30 3.00 UF
0721-001 Benton Hall 1 1 8.60 8.00 UF
0430-001 Beta Theta P1 1 1 1 12.90 6.00 UF
1041-001 Biotee Dev Inst 1 1 1 12.90 8.00 UF
S1040 Biotechnology 1 1 1 12.90 6.00 UF
1040-001 Biotechnology 1 1 1 12.90 6.00 UF
0724-001 Black Hall 1 1 _8.60 8.00 UF


Collector











Waste Typ C Container TyneT
yll 7|


Category_,
'


Sub-Categoari
L=_


Volume
(y,3IwJE


Volume
(yd3.mi,


1329-001 1329 GLASS BUILDING Paper Dumpster Academic Plant Lab 16.00 68.8
1329-002 1329 GLASS BUILDING Paper Dumpster Academic Plant Lab 16.00 68.8
0019-001 Academic Advisement Garbage Dumpster Admin 30.00 129.0
0019-002 ACADEMIC ADVISING CENTER Paper Dnmpster Admin _12.00 51.6
0252-001 Amicultural Eng. Field Lab Garbage Dumpste Academic Plant Lab 4.00 17.2
1237-001 Agronomy Field Office Garbage Dumpster Academic Mixed 0.47 2.0
0413-001 Alpha Chi Omega Garbage Dumpster Homing Greek 18.00 77.4
0409-001 Alpha Delta PI Garbage Dnmpster Housing Greek 18.00 77.4
0417-001 Alpha Epsilon Phi Garbage Dampter Housing Greek 18.00 77.4
0408-001 Alpha Omicron PI Garbage Dampster Housing Greek 18.00 77.4
13'1-001 Animal Care # I BARC Garbage Dumpster Medical 4.00 17.2
0459-002 Animal Science Garbage Dampster Academic hI'ied 16.00 68.8
0459-003 A..IMAL SCIENCE BUILDING Paper Dampster Academic Mixed 6.00 25.8
0268-001 Architecture Building Garbage Dumpster Academic Mixed 40.00 172.0
0436-001 Austin Cary Garbage Dumpster Academic Plant Lab 8.00 34.4
0142-001 Austin Cary Conference Bldg. Garbage Dumpster Recreational 8.00 34.4
0292-001 Baby Gator Garbage Dumpster Academic Librar; 12.00 51.6
0255-001 Bandshell Garbage Dumpster Recreational 18.00 77.4
0255-002 Bandshell Garbage Dumpster Recreational 18.00 77.4
0255-003 Bandshell Garbage Dumpster Recreational 18.00 77.4
0747-001 Bartram Hall Garbage DIlmpter Admin 30.00 129.0
0562-001 Beard Track Stadium 1 Garbage Dumpster Recreational 1.86 8.0
0562-002 Beard Track Stadium #2 Garbage Dnmpster Recreational 1.86 8.0
0751-004 BEATY TOWERS Pape Dnmpster Housing Dorm 12.00 51.6
Bee Unit
0798-001 n Garbage Dmpster Academic Plant Lab 0.93 4.0
On Call
0894-001 Beef Resch North (Sand Hill Farm) Garbage Dumpster Academic Animal Lab 3.00 12.9
0721-001 Benton Hall Garbage Dampster Admin 16.00 68.8
0430-001 Beta Theta Pl Garbage Dumpster Housing Greek 18.00 77.4
1041-0011 Biotec Dev Inst Garbage Dunpster Academic Animal Lab 24.00 103.2
S1040 Biotechnology Garbage Dumpster Academic Animal Lab 18.00 77.4
1040-001 Biotechnology Garbage Dumpster Academic Animal Lab 1 00 77.4
0'24-001 Black Hall Garbage Dumpster Academic Mixed 16.00 68.8


Blg
H


Description




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs