Running head: WASTE MANAGEMENT LAB 1

Waste Management Lab

Environmental Issues
Jack Higgins, Nicki Hyde, Mason Kuri & Jon Malpass
Stockton University
Running head: WASTE MANAGEMENT LAB 2

Waste Management Lab

Introduction
Municipal solid waste (MSW) has grown to become the third largest local government
expense in the United States. Waste management practices have evolved over time in
response to human population growth, industrialization and environmental protection laws.
Nations around the world, like the United Kingdom, have since sought alternative waste
management practices to limit non-recyclable waste and the percentage of waste that enters
landfills. Approximately 90% of the 20 million tonnes of household waste generated in the
United Kingdom in 1995 was disposed in landfills (Davoudi, 2000). However, recent waste
management practices have favored material recovery through recycling and energy recovery
through incineration (Davoudi, 2000).
The average American is estimated to generate 1.9 kg MSW per person per day, while the
dominant composition of MSW in the United States is estimated to be approximately 23.6%
organics, 28.5% paper amd 10.6% plastic (Staley et al., 2009). MSW in the United States is
typically collected, sorted and stored by public agencies or private contractors. For instance,
waste management services in Atlantic County, New Jersey, and by extension Stockton
University, are primarily provided by the Atlantic County Utility Authority (ACUA), a public
agency that operates a 100 acre landfill in Egg Harbor Township, New Jersey (Atlantic County
Utility Authority, 2018). New Jersey has historically stood on the forefront of environmental
protection and alternative waste management techniques. Former U.S. Representative and
New Jersey Governor James Florio is credited with drafting or promoting key pieces of
environmental protection legislation, including Superfund legislation, the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Safe Water Drinking Act, which all seek to remediate
hazardous and contaminated waste sites throughout the United States (Heines, 2009).

Methods
Waste was collected from garbage and recycling bins at four locations around the Campus
Center coffeehouse (Figure 1). The contents of each garbage bag and recycling bag were
divided into true trash, compost, and recyclable material. Weight percent trash, compost, and
recycling was calculated for each garbage and recycling bag collected. During the collection we
chose to stay as close to Dunkin Donuts and the Campus Centers coffee lounge, which is why
we assume that’s why we gathered so much compost in the garbage. The recycling was better
Running head: WASTE MANAGEMENT LAB 3

sorted because of ACUA’s single stream recycling methods. This is a more convenient and cost
efficient method of recycling that collects material to one container (Lakhan, 2015). The fact that
there are not signs on the garbage and recycling cans could be a reason for the lack of proper
disposal of people’s refuse.
Although most of the recycling cans, as Table 2 shows, were mostly recycling products and
not filled with garbage and compost, there were still problems with how people were recycling
certain items. Although plastic bottles are very recyclable, lids and caps are not at the Atlantic
County Utility Authority (ACUA). Another problem with the recycling is the fact that the lids of the
Dunkin Donuts cups are recyclable, but the styrofoam is not and commonly ends up in landfills
(Siyal et al., 2012). It is possible that people assume that since the top is recyclable, the whole
container is, which isn’t the case.

Results
Garbage 1 contained 90.16% garbage, 7.65% recyclables, and 2.19% compost.
Garbage 2 contained 37.50% garbage, 37.50% recyclables, and 25.00% compost. Garbage 3
contained 3.15% garbage, 2.36% recyclables, and 94.49% compost. Garbage 4 contained
Running head: WASTE MANAGEMENT LAB 4

33.66% garbage, 33.33% recyclables, and 33.01% compost (Table 1). Recycling 1 contained
10.34% garbage, 89.66% recyclables, and 0.00% compost. Recycling 2 contained 2.44%
garbage, 97.56% recyclables, and 0.00% compost. Recycling 3 contained 3.36% garbage,
96.64% recyclables, and 0% compost. Garbage 4 contained 7.63% garbage, 92.37%
recyclables, and 0% compost (Table 2). The garbage bins varied in the amount of garbage,
recyclables, and compost (Figure 2), while the recycling bins were consistently dominated by
recyclable material (Figure 3).
Running head: WASTE MANAGEMENT LAB 5

Discussion
ACUA manages all of stocktons waste that can be disposed of in either a trash or a
recycle container on campus. However their facility can accept much more variety. When
normal household trash and recycling is brought in to the facility, the contents enter the
elaborate screening and separation process. This step ensures the purity of the recycled
material and the elimination of any contaminants that is recyclable, but not compatable to
recycle as a common plastic. It is this reason that waste facilities now sort through all material to
achieve a better recycle efficiency. For things that do not fit in a bin, ACUA also allows the drop
off of larger and more difficult items to dispose of. Yard trimmings take up a lot of space and are
accepted by ACUA, then they’re mulched. Hard plastics are able to be recycled when dropped
off separately because they undergo a different process than thin bottle plastics. Plastic bags
can be recycled by the local Shop Rite, but not by any other means. ACUA also accepts
household appliances and electronics that can be parted out and recycled on campus. Metals
such as copper, aluminum, and steel are relatively easy to separate from these appliances. All
meticulous partouts greatly reduce the amount of waste that would have otherwise ended up in
a landfill. Items that once contained hazardous substances can sometimes still be recycled if the
hazardous material is able to be removed. Refrigerators can be recycled after all the freon is
drained but containers that have held hazardous materials can not be recycled.
The garbage we collected was predominantly plastic cups, paper cups, paper bags,
straws, and food. Most of the trash collected came from the Dunkin Donuts located in the
coffeehouse, as the waste was commonly labeled with Dunkin Donuts logos. The municipal
solid waste (MSW) collected contains items that are commonly disposed of daily. The ACUA
Running head: WASTE MANAGEMENT LAB 6

charges a 67.50/ton tipping fee for municipal waste. At this rate, it would cost $0.13 to dispose
of the waste collected from our samples. The recycling collected is considered single stream
recycling which includes glass bottles, plastic bottles, paper bags, etc. The ACUA accepts these
materials into their recycling center at no charge (Atlantic County Utility Authority, 2018).
The ACUA’s relatively low tipping fee provides little economic incentive to reduce MSW.
However, concerns over environmental impacts and landfill capacities may influence more
sustainable MSW practices (Kollikkathara et al., 2010). Management techniques implemented
at point sources of waste accumulation, such as the aforementioned waste locations, can also
have a significant impact on landfill capacity and incineration rates. Since the composition of the
garbage bins was often discarded food items, the campus dining areas may benefit from the
addition of compost bins that can later be used as soil by the Stockton’s Division of Facilities
and Operations. Illustrations depicting which items are able to be recycled at the waste location
sites may also lead to an awareness of what constitutes single-stream recycling (Luyben et al.,
1979). At Dunkin Donuts, discounts for bringing in reusable cups may help reduce plastic cups.
These suggested policies would aid in the reduction of landfill use. This is environmentally
beneficial, as landfills are sources of greenhouse gasses (McDougall, et al., 2001). New Jersey
is also a densely populated state, especially in urban regions, limiting the amount of landfill
space available (Melosi, 1981). This is particularly an issue in Atlantic County as the ACUA
predicts its last landfill will be filled by 2026 (Menzel, 2018). These suggested policy
recommendations may help reduce waste and its disposal practices, while increasing recycling
rates.
Running head: WASTE MANAGEMENT LAB 7

Works Cited

Atlantic County Utility Authority. (2018, January 1). ​Rules and regulations for use of the solid
waste and recycling facilities.​ Retrived from
http://acua.com/uploadedFiles/Site/Disposal_And_Recycling/Location_and_Landfill/RUL
ESandREGULATIONS.pdf
Davoudi, S. (2000). Planning for waste management: changing discourses and institutional
​ , 165-216.
relationships. ​Progress in Planning, (53)3
Heines, V. (2009, November). Governor James J. Florio. A fighter for environmental issues.
​ 1, 1933-1936.
American Journal of Public Health, (99)1
Kollikkathara, N., Feng, H., & Yu, D. (2010). A system dynamic modeling approach for
evaluating municipal solid waste generation, landfill capacity and related cost
management issues. ​Waste Management,​ ​30(​ 11), 2194-2203.
Lakhan, C. (2015). A Comparison of Single and Multi-Stream Recycling Systems in Ontario,
Canada. ​Resources,​ ​4​(2), 384-397
Luyben, P., Warren, S., & Tallman, T. (1979). Recycling beverage containers on a college
campus. ​J. Environmental Systems, (9)​2, 189-202.
McDougall, F. R., & White, P. (2001). ​Integrated solid waste management: A life cycle
inventory.​ Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science.
Melosi, M. V. (2005). ​Garbage in the cities: Refuse, reform and the environment.​ Pittsburgh
(PA): University of Pittsburgh Press.
Menzel, A. (2018, September 11). ​ACUA Facility Tour.​ Lecture, Egg Harbor Twp.
Siyal, A. N., Memon, S. Q., & Khuhawar, M. (2012). Recycling of styrofoam waste: Synthesis,
characterization and application of novel phenyl thiosemicarbazone surface. ​Polish
Journal of Chemical Technology,​ ​14(​ 4), 11-18.
Staley, B., & Barlaz, M. (2009, October). Composition of municipal solid waste in the United
States and implications for carbon sequestering and methane yield. ​Journal of
Environmental Engineering, (135)​10.