Incineration affects the environment due to release of toxic metals and dioxins into the air and problems of ash disposal. The primary toxic metals found in incinerators emissions and ash residue is seen in table 10. Most of 210 molecular types of chlorinated dioxins have been detected in incinerator emissions. Fly ash, left over after burning the waste, contains high levels of carcinogenic or hazardous metals such as chromium, lead, and cadmium.(3)
Landfills are comprised of primarily paper and yard wastes(Figure 11). In addition they accumulate chemicals, PCBs, metals, and other hazardous substances in conjunction with the accumulation of waste. Potential for runoff or leachate into the groundwater system or waterways exists. However, probability of contamination can be minimized by use of Òsanitary landfillsÓ that have liners, soils with low permeability, and are located away from water tables. Air emissions exist mainly in the form of methane gas, one of the greenhouse gases.(4)
Recycling aims to put discarded materials into valuable uses and therefore reduce litter and conserve resources. Recycling focuses primarily on materials with viable markets including mixed paper, cardboard, motor oils, aluminum, glass and plastic. Products made from recycled materials typically require less energy to manufacture and create less overall pollution.
The most environmentally sound means to manage waste is through waste reduction methods. Waste reduction focuses on reusing materials and reducing the overall amount of wastes produced. Reuse prevents the need to consume new materials and prevents the environmental effects associated with producing those materials. Reduction, on the other hand, prevents the need to use a product. The environmental benefits can be seen in table 12.
| Table 12: Benefits of Waste Reduction |
|---|
| 1) Environmental benefits reduced throughout the life cycle - extraction, production, distribution, disposal. |
| 2) Less clutter and less filing. |
| 3) Less mailing and potentially less handling costs |
| 4) If made available through economic means, more efficient access. |
2. Have any waste-composition studies been conducted? If so please provide information on the composition of campus solid waste.
3. For the past academic year, how much solid waste was: Landfilled? incinerated? recycled? composted and mulched? Information should be given by volume, in cubic yards, or by weight in pounds or tons.
4. What were the costs of solid-waste disposal for the last academic year?
5. How have they changed over the past five years?
6. Does UPenn have a recycling program? When was it started and who operates the program?
7. Is there any regulations relevant to the recycling program?
8. What is the budget for the program? How is it funded? What are the revenues from recyclables sold.
8. How many tons of each material were recycled during the last academic year? newsprint, glass, white ledger/computer paper/, mixed color paper, aluminum, other metals, cardboard, plastic
9. Please describe any programs UPenn has implemented to promote source reduction (such as a reusable mug program, switching from disposable to washable dishes )
Overall the amount of solid waste has increased for dramatically over the recent years(Figure 12). The trends are due to a 12% decrease in tipping fees between 1994 and 1995 and an error induced by management information systems. Originally Penn just tracked its waste in the dumpsters and not in the trash compactors. Beginning in 1995, waste tracked included trash compactors and dumpsters.
The costs of waste disposal, independent of labor costs, in 1995 were $357,325 or an average of $51.59/ton. Waste composition studies conducted in academic and administrative buildings such as Franklin Building in 1991 revealed waste to be 60% paper, 10% cardboard, and 30% mixed food and other waste.
Penn began its recycling program in 1990. Presently Penn is the number one institutional recycler in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The University recycles a variety of mixed paper including:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Glass, plastic, and aluminum and steel cans are also recycled through eight drop off locations strategically positioned throughout campus.
The program, which was originally begun as a voluntary measures, now must comply with the recycling laws set by the City of Philadelphia. The city requires recycling of glass, aluminum, steel, cardboard, and mixed paper. Penalties for non compliance can amount to $300 per day per violation.
The University has steadily increased the amount of recyclables over
the first three years of the program(figure 13). In 1995 the tons of recycled
materials decreased 6% due to suspected scavenging. The totals of approximately
2600 tons per year are expected to remain constant within ±10% in
future years according to Recycling Superintendent Al Palanti due to the
familiarity of workers and students with recycling procedures. Mixed paper
which represents an average of 96% of our recycled waste by weight, is
not tracked based on paper grade. Overall though Penn recycled approximately
27.5% of its solid waste in 1995. This computation excludes waste construction
and debris waste which is not handled by the University.
There are two primary source reduction efforts undertaken by the University. First, the Penn Environmental Group administers a CUPPS(Can't Use Paper Plastic Styrofoam) program and distributes reusable mugs to all freshman. Approximately 80% of the food vendors in the Penn community support the program by offering discounts for using a Penn CUPPS mug. In addition Penn, requires under City Ordinance of Philadelphia that all dining services and food suppliers remove food waste through food disposals. This ensures that no wet waste is disposed of in trash or recycling bins.
Solution 1: Maximize double sided copying. This involves first instituting a policy and corresponding educational material requiring when applicable the usage of double sided copies. Second when purchasing copy machines, the University should strive to purchase machines with double sided copying capabilities. In the all University libraries there are no double sided machines available for student use.
Solution 2:Understand office information flows. By analyzing the flow of information within and between offices, opportunities arise to make information available electronically and reduce waste production.
Solution 3: Purchase materials with less packaging. By incorporating waste prevention into purchasing efforts, less waste arrives on campus.
Solution 4: Reduce junk mail. The University should distribute forms to all students to give them the opportunity to stop receiving junk mail.
2. Problem: The University doesn't maximize reuse of materials.
Solution 1: Create a materials exchange. An electronic distribution service can be created to allow departments to swap unwanted materials. Potential reusable items include office supplies, file cabinets, and furniture supplies. An example at University of Wisconsin can be seen at http://env.fpm.wisc.edu/swap/swap_homepage.html.
Solution 2: Reuse packaging materials. Boxes, pallets, and other material transport mechanisms can be reused around campus or returned to supplier for reuse.
Solution 3: Coordinate a special projects collection system. For events with a lot of valuable wastes, like dormitory move out, there are extraordinary opportunities to gather valuable materials either for Penn itself or local community organizations. Examples include fans, rugs, lights, mirrors and more.
Solution 4: Educate employees and students about simple waste reduction measures including reuse of old papers for note taking, old photocopy paper for interoffice memos, returning hangers to local cleaners, and donating newspapers to pet stores.
3. Problem : The University never underwent a formal and comprehensive analysis of its waste composition. There were only statistics available for Franklin building. By conducting an in-depth analysis, Penn can better understand if their ultimate recycling potential.
Solution : Penn should get students to conduct a waste composition
study which will reveal waste elements seen in table 13.
4. Problem : Students do not maximize opportunities to recycle in dormitories(Comment of Al Palanti, Penn Recycling Coordinator)
Solution 1: Student recycling education should be formalized to maximize students participation. If students understand the mechanisms for recycling before coming to campus and while being ÒorientedÓ to campus, they will recycle more.
Solution 2: Dormitory rooms should be distributed two waste receptacles one for trash, one for recycling. At Princeton University all dormitory rooms have separate receptacles which encourages waste separation and recycling.
Back to the top of the page
Back to the Penn Environmental
Group Homepage
1Office of Solid Waste, Recycling Works! U.S. EPA , January 1989. EPA/530-SW-89-014 p. 3. 2Office of Solid Waste, Recycling Works! U.S. EPA , January 1989. EPA/530-SW-89-014 p. 1. 3 An Environmental Review of Incineration Technologies, Institute for Local Self Reliance, 1986. 4Homer Neal, Solid Waste Management and the Environment, Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1987. 5Jullian Kerry, Ecodemia, National Wildlife Foundation, Washington, DC, 1995, pg. 138. 6Jullian Kerry, Ecodemia, National Wildlife Foundation, Washington, DC, 1995, pg. 150.