The team conducted a waste assessment of the Spencer Chemistry & Biology Building over two days. They sorted waste into categories and weighed each category to determine percentages. They found that the majority of waste could have been recycled or disposed of more properly. Large amounts of food, reusable containers, and hazardous materials were thrown away. The team concluded that students and staff need to improve proper waste disposal and recycling at this location to reduce waste.

1. 1
Spencer Chemistry & Biology Building Waste Assessment
Fall 2012
Andrew Barchak
Harris Gbomina
Taylor Barton
Samantha McKee
Tommy Rebecchi

2. 2
Table Of Contents
Heading Page Number
Summary 3
Introduction 3
Methodology 4
Discussion 5
Conclusion 5
Acknowledgements 6
Team Member Performance Log 6
Data: Table 1 – Waste Sort Form #1 7
Data: Table 2 – Waste Sort Form #2 8
Data: Table 3 – Waste Totals 9
Pie Chart: Total Waste Collected 10
Pie Chart: Waste Audit Breakdown 11
Pictures 12
Works Cited 14

3. 3
Summary
A waste assessment is defined as an on-site assessment of the waste stream and recycling
potential of an individual business, industry, institution, or household which involves observing,
measuring, recording data and collecting and analyzing waste samples. Our assignment was to
perform a waste assessment for the Spencer Chemistry & Biology Building located on the
UMKC Volker Campus. Our team felt that the best way to perform this waste assessment was to
start on it as soon as possible to get the initial investigation out of the way and to use what
remaining days we had left to compile and analyze the data we collected. When performing the
actual assessment, we were very organized in how we conducted ourselves, wore personal
protective equipment to protect ourselves from any harmful substances we came across,
managed our time wisely, and chose samples that had a wide variety of waste. Utilizing these
strategies, we were able to conduct a successful and informative waste assessment.
Introduction
‘‘Waste is simply resources out of place” is a common adage amongst environmental
resource managers and those involved in related disciplines. Management of resources both that
are discarded and those that are extracted fresh from natural sources by man impact the
environment and the Earth’s natural reserve of resources available to all living beings
(Kollikkathara et al., 2009).
In today’s economic times, it is critical to conserve resources and save money. Many
companies are also considering the social impacts of the decisions they make on a daily basics.
With all this activity surrounding the environmental, economic and social impacts of doing

4. 4
business, many organizations are pursuing a more sustainable path while growing their products
and services. Examples of direct cost savings include reductions in energy use, landfill tipping
fees, raw material use, reuse and recovered materials, reducing climate change impacts, etc.
(Hasan and Johnson, 2012).
This report is a comprehensive summary of the waste assessment and waste reduction
and recycling survey recently conducted at the Spencer Chemistry and Biology Building on
Volker Campus by Team A. The exercise is to expose students offering “Introduction to Waste
Management” to the various kinds of waste being generated within the University of Missouri-
Kansas City (UMKC); and to determine the level of awareness of students, and faculty staffs on
reuse and recycling of materials.
Methodology
Team A met on October 29th and 31st, 2012 at 1230 at the Spencer Chemistry and
Biology building to do the waste assessment. First, the team put out all materials needed to keep
the area clean and to gather the much needed data that will make up our report, such as laying
out the tarp and setting up and familiarizing themselves with the scale. Next, the team picked out
a number of bags of trash making sure that we got a good variety of garbage to sort through.
Some of the bags were thin enough that the contents of the bag could be clearly seen whiched
helped with the wide variety.
The team wore face masks and gloves for the entire time to help protect themselves from
any unsanitary substances they came across. After sorting the materials into separate piles due to
their category, each category was then weighed and then put back into trash bags. Once the data

5. 5
was collected, the team then did the necessary math to discover just what percentage each
category was of the trash for that day. When both days were completed, the team then combined
the data and did the necessary math to finish the overall waste assessment.
Discussion
The team was amazed to find that a large majority of the garbage were materials that
could be recycled. Another large portion of the trash were things that should not be disposed of
in a normal landfill but instead should go to a hazardous material/waste facility to be properly
disposed of. Also, there was a large majority of food and equipment that was unused and them
being in the garbage was nothing less than wasteful. The team found an entire vegetable tray of
food, unused and perfectly acceptable Tuperware, almost an entire box of unused latex gloves, a
perfectly acceptable and clean Styrofoam box, and what seemed to be an entire bag full of plastic
tubes with dead insects.
Conclusion
The team concluded that the majority of the contents of the garbage were just wasteful
and the materials improperly disposed of. There were better methods of disposing of the
materials than just throwing them in the trash. A lot of the materials could have avoided the trash
and saw better usage by reusing them, such as the Styrofoam box and the Tuperware. The
vegetable tray could have easily gone to another office or home with someone to be eaten and
not carelessly thrown away, as this vegetable tray most likely cost around six to twelve dollars at
the supermarket. While the students and teachers that work in the Spencer Chemistry and

6. 6
Biology building may be very intelligent in their fields, they still need much work on properly
disposing of their materials and wastes.
Acknowledgements
The team would like to thank the Lead Custodian of the Spencer Chemistry and Biology
building, Mr. Jose Quezada as well as Kaye Johnston for their assistance in helping us complete
this project.
TeamMember Performance Log
Team Member Responsibility Performance
Andrew Barchak Presentation Coordinator 100%
Harris Gbomina Photographer 100%
Taylor Barton Scribe 100%
Samantha McKee Data Coordinator 100%
Tommy Rebecchi Team Coordinator 100%

7. 7
Data
Table 1: Waste Sort Form #1 Date: 10/29/12
Waste
Component
Full
Container
Weight (lbs)
Empty
Container
Weight (lbs)
Net Waste
Component
Weight (lbs)
Total
Waste
Generated
(lbs)
Waste
Component
Percentage
(%)
Mixed Office
Paper
7.8 5.2 2.6 74.8 3.47
Corrugated
Cardboard
8.6 5.2 3.4 74.8 4.54
Paperboard
(thin cardboard)
7.4 5.2 2.2 74.8 2.94
Newsprint - - - - -
General Waste 7.7 5.2 2.5 74.8 3.34
Magazines 8.6 5.2 3.4 74.8 4.54
Plastics (#'s 1-7) 9.0 5.2 3.8 74.8 5.08
Glass 6.5 5.2 1.3 74.8 1.73
Aluminum Cans 6.0 5.2 0.8 74.8 1.06
Food Waste 23.2 5.2 18 74.8 24.0
Styrofoam 6.1 5.2 0.9 74.8 1.20
Pallets 40.9 5.2 35.7 74.8 47.7
Batteries - - - - -
Electronic
Waste
5.4 5.2 0.2 74.8 0.26
Totals 137.2 62.4 74.8 74.8 100

8. 8
Table 2: Waste Sort Form # 2 Date: 10/31/12
Waste
Component
Full
Container
Weight (lbs)
Empty
Container
Weight (lbs)
Net Waste
Component
Weight (lbs)
Total
Waste
Generated
(lbs)
Waste
Component
Percentage
(%)
Mixed Office
Paper
5.9 5.2 0.7 41.9 1.67
Corrugated
Cardboard
- - - - -
Paperboard
(thin cardboard)
6.8 5.2 1.6 41.9 3.81
Newsprint - - - - -
General Waste 19.4 5.2 14.2 41.9 33.8
Magazines 7.2 5.2 2 41.9 4.77
Plastics (#'s 1-7) 12.4 5.2 7.2 41.9 17.1
Glass 5.8 5.2 0.6 41.9 1.43
Aluminum Cans 5.4 5.2 0.2 41.9 .047
Food Waste 5.4 5.2 0.2 41.9 .047
Styrofoam 6.4 5.2 1.2 41.9 2.86
Pallets - - - - -
***Plastic
Styrofoam
containers
19.2 5.2 14 41.9 33.4
Batteries - - - - -
Electronic
Waste
- - - - -
Totals 93.9 52 41.9 41.9 100

9. 9
Table 3: Waste Sort Totals
Materials Form # 1
(lbs)
Form # 2
(lbs)
Total Net
Waste (lbs)
Total
Weight
(lbs)
% of Total
(%)
Ranking
Mixed Office
Paper
2.6 0.7 3.3 116.7 2.82 9
Corrugated
Cardboard
3.4 - 3.4 116.7 2.91 8
Paperboard
(thin
cardboard)
2.2 1.6 7.1 116.7 6.08 6
Newsprint - - - - - -
General Waste 2.5 14.2 23.8 116.7 20.3 2
Magazines 3.4 2 5.4 116.7 4.62 7
Plastics (#'s 1-
7)
3.8 7.2 11 116.7 9.42 5
Glass 1.3 0.6 1.9 116.7 1.62 11
Aluminum
Cans
.8 0.2 1 116.7 0.85 12
Food Waste 18 0.2 18.2 116.7 15.5 3
Styrofoam .9 1.2 2.1 116.7 1.79 10
Pallets 35.7 - 35.7 116.7 30.5 1
Batteries - - - - - -
Electronic
Waste
.2 - 0.2 116.7 0.17 13
Plastic
Styrofoam
Containers
- 14 14 116.7 11.9 4
Totals 74.8 41.9 116.7 116.7 100 -

10. 10

11. 11

12. 12
Total Daily Waste
Categorizing Waste

13. 13
Plastic Containers with Deceased Organic Specimens
Unused Box of Latex Gloves Found in Waste

14. 14
Works Cited
1) Kollikkathara, N.; H. Feng; and E. Stern, 2009, A Purview of Waste Management
Evolution: Special emphasis on USA, Jr. Waste Management, vol. 29, pp. 974-985.
2) Hasan S. E.; and Johnson R. K, 2012, Recycling and Waste Management Manual, Geol
335 Waste Audit Project Manual, pp.2