Waste Management

Edward McLaughlin, Kevin Lynch, Nick Cordivari, and Tom Haynes

ENVL 4300
Dr. Daniel Moscovici
September 19, 2019
Abstract
In the last 40 years the issues surrounding solid waste and recycling have grown
exponentially. Waste to energy, proper recycling techniques, landfills and composting are just a
few of the major topics of discussion that require critical thinking and modern solutions. In a
small experiment conducted on Stockton University campus we examine the ratios of waste and
recycling from several receptacles marked for each respectively. Hoping to educate ourselves
and fellow students we have arranged data and discuss possible solutions for not only our
campus but perhaps county and state as well.
Experimental
As the population keeps increasing, so does the amount of waste that is produced.
Where garbage goes after it is placed on the curb is often overlooked by many since that is
where their involvement with it ends. Unfortunately this is a problem because many people don’t
know what should be thrown in the trash and what should be recycled. As per the
Environmental Protection Agency in 2012 approximately 215 million tons of municipal solid
waste was generated. Of 251 million tons generated only one third was recyclable (Trudel,
2016). These constraints can vary based upon the landfills stipulations. For Atlantic County the
majority of waste ends up at the ACUA (Atlantic County Utilities Authority) landfill. In Atlantic
County the following can be recycled:
● Empty plastic bottles #1-2 with necks that are smaller than the base, caps must be
removed and thrown into the trash
● Paper, cardboard, and paper cartons, cardboard boxes must be flattened
● Metals: aluminum, tin, or steel cans
● Glass: bottles and jars of all colors (ACUA, 2019)
There are also many common misconceptions on what people think should be recycled,
but actually shouldn’t, they are as follows: wrapping/tissue paper, shredded paper, pizza boxes,
paint cans, aerosol cans, clam shell containers, plastic drip tape, photo paper, single-use coffee
cups, and frozen food boxes (ACUA, 2019). It has been observed that an individual’s decision
to trash or recycle an item often depends on the condition of the item, regardless of its
recyclable classification. If the item is compromised, such as a greasy pizza box or paint can it
is more likely to be thrown in the trash (Trudel, 2016).
Results
Our experiment was conducted by sampling trash and recycling bins at four locations
surrounding Lake Fred. Site 1 and site 2 are along high traffic areas between the dormitories
and Arts and Science building. As such these bins were full and gave us the best results. Site 3
and site 4 were located near the lake house and contained much less per bin than sites 1 and 2.
The majority of items in both recycling and trash bins was drink containers; plastic and
glass bottles, aluminum cans, paper, plastic and styrofoam cups and paper cartons. Site 1
trash contained 15 pounds of material, approximately 65% of which was trash, with 30%
compostable material and only 5% recyclable items. The recycling bin at site 1 contained nine
pounds of materials with a 60%/40% recycling to trash ratio. Trash items found within the
recycling container include pizza boxes and plastic-lined cups. Similarly the trash bin at site 2
contained 16.5 pounds of materials, 55% of which was actual trash and 40% compostable
items, including apple cores and sandwich parts. Only 5% was recyclable. The recycling bin at
site 2 weighed nine pounds and was a 50%/50% trash-to-recycling ratio with the majority of
trash items being plastic cups. The trash bin at site 3 weighed just over seven pounds and
contained 85% trash. The items found in the recycling bin at site 3 weighed just over two
pounds and were approximately 70% recyclable with 30% being trash. Our lowest data
reported was a site 4 where the trash only weighed two pounds and contained 100% trash. The
recycling bin at site 4 weighed just one pound and was a 50%/50% trash-to-recycling ratio, of
which the trash items were primarily plastic cups. Thankfully no toxic materials were found in
either bin at any location.
Figure 1:​ Approximate breakdown of the garbage found in the trash can and recycling can at
site​ 1.

Figure 2:​ Approximate breakdown of the garbage found in the trash can and recycling can at
site 2.

Figure 3:​ Approximate breakdown of the garbage found in the trash can and recycling can at
site 3.
Figure 4:​ Approximate breakdown of the garbage found in the trash can and recycling can at
site 4.

Figure 5:​ Map of sites 1-4 along Lake Fred.

As landfills continue to fill and present a problem for the growing population alternate
methods of disposal are being researched. Waste to Energy plants are able to convert the
garbage into electricity mainly through combustion. While this is not without its negative
environmental impacts, it emits significantly less greenhouse gases and produces more
electricity when compared to burying it (Psomopoulos et al., 2009). One of the most effective
and green methods for managing waste and capturing energy is thermal plasma gasification.
Through the process of thermal gasification a high purity H2 is obtained through a thermal
process that converts the garbage into synthesis gas, which is primarily carbon monoxide and
hydrogen (Byun et al., 2011). This can be used as fuel to produce electricity and synthetic fuels
(Byun et al., 2011). Unfortunately this process has economic drawbacks and it will be more
challenging on a larger scale (Gomez, 2009). Another way to collect energy from landfills is
through their methane emission. About 50-60% of the gas emitted from landfills is methane
(Jung et al., 2009). Without any method of collecting this gas, it would just be released into the
environment.
Due to a decline in exported recyclables countries now have a buildup of waste items
and few options to convert them. However in Australia a solution has been proposed to turn
mixed glass items into valuable building materials without having to be reprocessed at a rate of
100%. This will not only help with a surplus of recycled glass but boost the economy as well
(Sahajwalla, 2018). Another potential solution to recycling compostable waste may be to create
an initiative on campus for food waste collection. Collections have proven successful in cities
like San Francisco already, and start-up initiatives have begun locally in Princeton, New Jersey.
As of 2011 Princeton has partnered with Premier Food Waste Recycling to offer food collection
services to residences, schools and businesses for $20/month (Yepsen, 2012).

Discussion
Our research concluded that proper recycling continues to be a problem. However,
unexpectedly, we found that the issue was not necessarily neglecting the act of recycling, but
instead, excessively recycling non-recyclable materials. Students at Stockton University are
making a valiant effort to do what they think is the right thing by recycling but are not educated
enough in the matter to know that they are actually harming the recycling system. 16% of the
public recognize a need for further publicity and information regarding recycling rules (Evision &
Read, 2011). Recent changes in the ACUA recycling guidelines and a lack of clear instructions
on bins are causing problems in the University recycling system. When a non-recyclable item is
recycled it can contaminate the legitimate recyclable materials. We suggest that Stockton
University places straight-forward recycling guidelines in plain sight on top of each bin (see
figure 6). As well as this, writing “When in doubt, throw it out,” can prevent individuals from
contaminating the bins (Hawaii County, 2019). Studies have shown that simple
accommodations to the public can increase recycling rates. For example, a study done in
Roseville, Minnesota showed that when the public was provided with wheeled recycling bins,
total recycling increased by 7% while participation was raised by 15% (Lane, G. W., & Wagner,
T. P. , 2013). Current recycling guidelines on campus are found knee high on some bins and
are virtually unreadable to a passer by do to the extensive, small fonted list (see figure 6). Pizza
boxes and other commonly mis-recycled items will be less likely to enter the bins if an individual
has to stare at a sign on top of the bin before letting go of the waste. . Because there is no
continuity of what is allowed to be recycled at different municipalities, a loud, bold sign depicting
what is to be recycled in Atlantic County can prevent students from contaminating the
University's bins.
We also suggest that Stockton University changes the bin openings for recycling. The
small, circular openings only allow for certain materials to be recycled. Items such as cardboard
are not able to easily fit into a typical recycling bin along Lake Fred without being manipulated.
Trash bins have a larger opening and often have recyclables such as cardboard placed in them
as a result (see figure 7). This could be solved by using different sized openings to fit items such
as cardboard like the ones found in Washington D.C. which have different holes for cans, glass,
etc. (see figure 7). Small changes like this can have a large scale impact by helping students
make the right choices.

​Photo Courtesy of the County of Hawai’i

Department of
Environmental Management
Figure 6:​ Stockton University current recycling guidelines placed on near ground-level of bin
(left) and proposed simple guidelines for recycling to be placed on top of bin (right)

Figure 7​: Stockton University’s recycling bin (left) and a recycling bin with separate slots for
different recyclables (right).

Stockton University’s trash and recycling that is on campus is disposed of by the Atlantic
County Utilities Authority (ACUA). Stockton also owns all of their trash trucks, so the trash and
recycling on campus is collected privately by the trucks and brought to the ACUA facility to be
disposed of. According to David Wood of Stockton University, the University averages
approximately 1,000 tons of trash per year. The cost of the disposed trash is $55 per ton.
Therefore, the total cost of Stockton’s waste disposal is $55,000 per year (Wood, 2019).

References

Byun, Y., Cho, M., Chung, J. W., Namkung, W., Lee, H. D., Jang, S. D., … Hwang,
S.-M. (2011). Hydrogen recovery from the thermal plasma gasification of solid waste. ​Journal of
Hazardous Materials​, ​190​(1-3), 317–323. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2011.03.052
Evison, T., & Read, A. D. (2001). Local Authority recycling and waste—awareness
publicity/promotion. ​Resources, Conservation and Recycling,​ ​32​(3-4), 275-291.

Gomez, E., Rani, D. A., Cheeseman, C., Deegan, D., Wise, M., & Boccaccini, A. (2009).
Thermal plasma technology for the treatment of wastes: A critical review. ​Journal of Hazardous
Materials​, ​161(​ 2-3), 614–626. doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2008.04.017

Hawaii County. (2019). 2-Bin Recycling (Cardboard/Boxboard, Paper, Plastic, Aluminum/Tin

and Non-HI-5 Glass). Retrieved from https://www.hawaiizerowaste.org/recycle/2-bin/

Jung, Y., Imhoff, P. T., Augenstein, D. C., & Yazdani, R. (2009). Influence of
High-Permeability Layers for Enhancing Landfill Gas Capture and Reducing Fugitive Methane
Emissions from Landfills. ​Journal of Environmental Engineering,​ ​135​(3), 138–146. doi:
10.1061/(asce)0733-9372(2009)135:3(138)

Lane, G. W., & Wagner, T. P. (2013). Examining recycling container attributes and household
recycling practices. ​Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 75,​ 32–40. doi:
10.1016/j.resconrec.2013.03.005

Psomopoulos, C., Bourka, A., & Themelis, N. (2009). Waste-to-energy: A review of the
status and benefits in USA. ​Waste Management​, ​29​(5), 1718–1724. doi:
10.1016/j.wasman.2008.11.020

Recycling Guidelines. (n.d.). Retrieved from ​http://acua.com/recycling101/

Sahajwalla, V. (2018). Big challenges, micro solutions: Closing the loop in Australia’s waste
crisis. ​AQ: Australian Quarterly,​ ​89(​ 4), 13-18. Retrieved from
https://www.jstor.org/stable/26529678

Trudel, R., Argo, J. J., & Meng, M. D. (2016). Trash or Recycle? How Product Distortion Leads
to Categorization Error During Disposal. ​Environment and Behavior​, ​48(​ 7), 966–985.
https://doi.org/​10.1177/0013916515577635
Wood, D. (2019, September 18). Email.

Yepsen, R. (2012). RESIDENTIAL FOOD WASTE COLLECTION IN THE U.S.​ Biocycle, 53(​ 1),
23-33. Retrieved from
https://login.ezproxy.stockton.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/918217008?a
ccountid=29054