In the fall of 1997, an environmental engineering senior design class produced a pollution prevention program for Michigan Technological University: a solid and hazardous waste assessment of the Michigan Tech campus. During the ten week study the class conducted an audit of waste residuals and then developed solutions to reduce or reuse waste. These solutions were evaluated based upon their implementability and cost effectiveness. 

    In order to implement a pollution prevention program at MTU, an understanding of the current situation was needed. This was accomplished through an engineering analysis of the entire campus, which helped establish what programs and work practices were already in place. Concurrently, a release identification and assessment was conducted to help identify possible waste streams that could be eliminated, minimized, or recycled. 

    Solid waste is a major concern because of limited landfill space, diminishing daily. The need to employ the three R’s (Reduce, Reuse, Recycle) is more pressing now then ever. Prevention of waste production is an easier, more economical, and socially acceptable way of ameliorating the landfill dilemma. 

    In order to understand what solid waste MTU generates, an in-depth analysis of the solid waste stream was performed. The main goal of this analysis was to characterize the solid waste stream. The specific solid waste audit goals were: 

    • Assess composition of the major contributing waste streams
    • Determine composition by weight for cost analysis purposes
    • Determine costs associated with transportation and disposal of solid waste
    The solid waste audit was conducted by first performing an extensive custodial survey of all campus buildings. Secondly, a detailed characterization of one day's worth of Michigan Tech's solid waste was performed on two different days. A characterization from one of these days is shown in the pie chart below. Results showed that Michigan Tech generates 1,200 tons of solid waste annually at a cost of $115,000. The generation rate is approximately 1 pounds per student per day, which is much lower than the U.S. population (4.3 pounds per person per day) and lower than at other universities, as well. Paper makes up over one third of the waste stream. Glass, tin and aluminum, and plastics make up only a few percentage points a piece. Currently, most food waste is sewered, yard waste is disposed of on campus, the motor pool performs maintenance off campus, and Michigan's bottle bill appears to minimize the disposal of many carbonated beverage containers. 
Figure 2. 
Solid waste distribution (% mass) for a total truck load of 5.3 tons of which about 20-25% was sampled. Sample date was 9/24/97. The "other" category consists of items such as food containers, hardware, and nonrecyclable paper. 
 

    Several solutions were evaluated to reduce the solid waste production and included recycling magazines, newspaper, pizza boxes, cardboard, glass, and tin; reusing paper; and, reducing paper consumption. Because of Michigan Tech's distance from many recycling markets and the lack of State of Michigan mandates for recycling, it was determined that the most feasible method to recycle materials was at the local private solid waste transfer station. This alone could result in monthly savings of close to $1,500 for the university. 

    Suggested solutions for each of the categories focused on included some form of the following: waste minimization, recycling, and cost analysis. Waste minimization involves pinpointing key target streams and evaluating solutions, which can be practical and effective. Another factor in developing waste minimization lies in education of the campus community in regards to the significance and procedure of such a program. This educational program will entail how minimization can benefit MTU’s campus environmentally, as well as economically. In addition, MTU could benefit greatly from regional and national exposure due to its waste minimization efforts. 

    Conducting a cost analysis of the campus waste stream was a vital component in order to gain administrative support in the future. This cost analysis focuses on weight of potential recyclables, currently disposed at a cost for collection and landfilling. Indicating ways in which the university can implement waste minimization and recycling programs to reduce the solid waste collection costs was the main goal of the cost analysis. 

    Table 1 shows an overview of the materials and the solutions that were investigated as possible ways to reduce or recycle within each respective recycling category. 

Table 1 Solid waste recycling solutions investigated in this report and the feasibility of implementing a particular solution.  

 The total weight of recyclables per 12 months was based on the school year. The potential for recyclables was based on 40-80% potential for recycling, unless otherwise stated. This range of values is based on recycling values from other waste audits investigated. This would encompass the realistic opportunities for recycling, whether the program was run by facilities or by a student group. These two groups are the two most likely to be involved in a campus program. The former would be utilized in the case of monetary support from the administration, whereas the student groups, or grass roots approach would most likely be the option entertained. Suggested student groups to contact were Society for Environmental Engineering (SEEn), Pugwash, and the MTU student chapter of Michigan Water Environment Association (MWEA). There is also a semi-formed group on campus that focuses on recycling issues, who could be contacted, as well. Finer details will have to be worked out by the volunteers involved in the various programs. 

The following tables (2 & 3) detail tons produced, potential recycling, and cost savings: 

Table 2 Cost analysis for "Other" Recyclable Materials for Public Recycling Programs. 
 
Item
Total 
(tons/12 months)
Potential for Recyclable (tons/12 months)
Savings 
($/12 months)
-
-
40% recycled
80% recycled
40% recycled
80% recycled
Newspaper
-
-
-
-
-
Lode
-
-
-
-
-
(Total)
14.96
-
-
-
-
(Campus)
12.00
4.80
9.60
$249.63
$499.26
Glass
-
-
-
-
-
MUB
8.91
3.56
7.13
$185.12
$370.76
Total*
13.94
5.58
11.15
$289.96
$579.92
*Total for campus 

Table 3 Cost analysis for "Other" Recyclable Materials for Internal Recycling Programs.  
 
Item
Total (tons/12 months)
Potential for Recyclable (tons/12 months)
Savings ($/12 months)
Newspaper
-
-
-
-
-
Library
12.00
@ 95% recycled
11.40
-
592.80
Tin Cans
-
-
-
-
-
Cafeterias
6.42
@ 95% recycled
6.09
-
316.93
Magazines
-
-
-
-
-
Library
0.45
@ 95% recycled
0.43
-
22.23
Total
18.87
-
17.92
-
931.96
  

    For a sustainable pollution prevention program to work, there must be a continued reevaluation of the various components. Active participation is necessary in order to keep the waste minimization and recycling programs successful. Taking into account that pollution prevention is largely a proactive endeavor, a passive program will not work. This will be a difficult task and will take a committed grass roots program due to the campus economic and geographic situation. 

    This proactive approach of decreasing the targeted waste streams being presently landfilled, will be beneficial economically and environmentally. By reducing the amount thrown out, university savings will be made from smaller disposal fees. Furthermore, with a pollution prevention and waste minimization plan, Michigan Technological University would be promoted as an environmentally conscious leader of the future. 

    If you would like to learn more about this report you can direct your questions to Dr. Jim Mihelcic in the Civil and Envrironmental Department. Dr. Mihelcic can also allow you to view a copy of this report. Much more in depth analysis and discussion of results and solutions can be found in the report beyond what is given in this electronic summary.
Home