The Collection Process

It has been stated that Americans throw away about 180 million tons of trash each year. With this statistic on the rise, the EPA estimates that within twenty years, 80% of the existing landfills with permits will close. In themselves, campus communities generate huge amounts of waste, much of which could be recycled, reused, or composted (Smith, 1993 ). Because of this disturbing fact, we decided that it would be valuable to assess the actual quantitative results of our waste generating habits.

To gather this data, we first picked 5 buildings to look at. These buildings included Palmer, Clough, Frazier-Jelke, Bellingrath, and Blount. We then assigned a certain color to each building (ex. Palmer = red) so that we could accurately know which trash bag came from which building. With the assistance of the grounds crew and housekeeping, we were able to gather and label the bags of trash from each building for three days (Monday Feb. 15, Wednesday Feb. 17 and Thursday Feb. 18).

After the trash was collected from each building, we sorted each bag into nine different categories: metal, cardboard, paper, styrofoam, plastic, organic, rubber, aluminum, and glass. Once the garbage had been sorted for each building, it was weighed in pounds and each category was calculated as a percentage of the whole weight for that day. Surprisingly, our data was very similar across the board.

For the Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday collectings, paper averaged 52%, 54%, and 51% respectively. Paper, in fact, accounted for the largest percentage of garbage weight. Organic products such as food, flowers, and hair resulted in the second highest waste product at 16%, 11%, and 13%. Plastic products weighed in as the third highest waste product at 13%, 10%, and 14%. Obviously, it is important to note that weight is not always the best indicator of numbers or amount. Many materials, like aluminum and styrofoam, simply do not weigh much. So, despite their shear numbers, their percent weights did not signal them as an important waste factor.

Waste Habit Results and Conclusions

By carefully looking at our data, many interesting conclusions can be made about the current Rhodes recycling program, our waste habits, and where our energy needs to be focused. In an effort to save space and the readers time, we will highlight the waste habits of only two buildings: Palmer and Bellingrath. For the quantitative data on all the other buildings, see the attached data sheet at the end of this report.

*Throughout this report, we will mostly focus on paper, cardboard, and aluminum recycling. The reason for this is simply because the market desires these materials the most. They are the easiest to get rid of as well as the most successful at money generating.

Palmer.

By far, Palmer generated the most paper waste. Palmer accumulated 190.5 pounds of paper trash over our three-day study. That is roughly 63.5 pounds per day. At the time of the study, there were two Weyerhaeuser paper recycling bins: one in the copier room of the English Department and one in the copier room on the eastern-most part of the first floor. With pickups every Thursday evening, Campus Green never saw a need for more bins in Palmer. However, due to the alarming results of this study, we have increased the numbers of recycling bins in Palmer and provided individual administrative offices with their own small paper recycling bins. Through education and awareness, we have helped to inform Palmer workers of the important role they have in decreasing recycables from getting into the waste stream.

Palmer also accumulated 7 pounds of aluminum trash over the three days. There is one blue aluminum can bin in Palmer. It too is located on the eastern most part of the first floor. Ideally, more blue bins should be added but with the size and manpower of Campus Green, we felt like paper recycling was a more pressing issue.

There is no means of collecting discarded cardboard in the Palmer building or any other building on Rhodes College campus. Our study showed that Palmer generated 19.5 pounds of cardboard over the three days. We feel like this estimate is not indicative of the truth. Due to our forgetfulness as well as the housekeeping crew, cardboard waste was often not included. Normally, Palmer, like every other building, simply discards cardboard as trash. It is eventually thrown into the BFI trash bin behind the rat or at the back gate.

Bellingrath.

Over the three-day period, Bellingrath accumulated 97 pounds of paper trash. This is roughly 32 pounds of paper every day. Once again, due to Campus Greens lack of manpower, there are no paper recycling bins in this female dormitory.

14.5 pounds of aluminum trash were generated over the three-day study. This averages out to 2.5lbs of aluminum trash each day. It is interesting to note that blue aluminum recycling bins are located on every floor of Bellingrath.

11 pounds of cardboard trash were discarded over the three days. Once again, there is no means in collecting cardboard waste in the dorms.

Bellingrath holds a total of 114 residents. Using this number as well as our gathered garbology data, we concluded that each resident in Bellingrath generates an average of .5lbs of trash a day. For a 240-day school year, that is 120lbs of trash per person per school year. Now, it is important to note that this value is of course lower than it should be due to the fact that residents do not always use the trash cans in their dorms to discard trash.

Why Recycle?

Despite the fact that BFI earns a living by hauling trash to its landfills, they will tell you straight up that people must recycle more. Why are they not promoting their bank accounts by chanting "Make more trash"? Well, it is simply because they realize that landfill space is becoming more and more scarce. Today's landfills are filling up at an alarming rate. In 1979, there were more than 20,000 landfills in operation in the US. Today, there are less than 4,000 working landfills (Porro and Mueller, 1993).

In Memphis alone, the South Shelby landfill only has a few more years to go before it has reached its maximum capacity. In addition, the EPA claims that the state of Tennessee only has 5-10 years of remaining landfill capacity.

Despite the immediate concern of losing areas to place landfills, other concerns are facing our nation. According to one source, today's technology with state-of-the-art plastic landfill liners and plastic pipes can not possibly stop chemicals and gases from leaking into our ground water. Plastics are not inert and will eventually become brittle, swell, and breakdown. (Zero Waste America, 1999).

Leachate is yet another pressing problem with today's landfills. Currently, the federal government allows household and industrial hazardous waste into municipal landfills. Unfortunately, many landfills are typically located next to large bodies of water. This combination can and does lead to harmful health effects for humans when leachate leaks from the landfills and contaminates ground and surface water.(Zero Waste America, 1999)

Unfortunately, the "burn it" philosophy harms the environment and human health as well. The combustion of garbage has the potential of releasing toxic chemicals into the atmosphere. Some of these pollutants may include heavy metals, dioxins, and acid gases. The EPA allows the ash created by these toxic incinerators to be used as daily landfill cover instead of soil.

Economics of Recycling

Recycling is extremely economical. Currently, Rhodes receives no money from Weyerhaeuser for their recycled paper or aluminum cans. The amount that student recyclers can save is not enough to officially generate the college money.

Instead, we generate just enough to indirectly pay for Weyerhaeuser's transportation to and from Rhodes as well as their services. Instead, however, we save Rhodes money. Through our labor, we saved tons of paper and aluminum from going into the BFI dumpster. In the 1998 school year, we recycled the following:
 

Through Campus Green's presence and tireless efforts this year, we will without a doubt, have saved many more tons of recycables from going to the landfills.

The compactor behind the rat can hold a maximum of 12 to 13 tons of trash. According to Gene Metcalf, Major Accounts Manager of BFI, we normally empty our compactor with only 9.3 tons of trash in it. Metcalf, however, explains that this average is NOT representative of our trash habits. Instead, this average of 9.3 tons, was calculated from very inconsistent weights ranging from 6 to 11 tons. This data presents an issue in and of itself.

Rhodes pays BFI for their garbage services. The dumpster behind the rat is picked up once a week for $475/pickup. This adds up to roughly $1,000 a month for BFI services on one garbage dumpster. Since recycling diverts potential "garbage" from entering our BFI dumpsters, we are helping to save Rhodes money. According to the weights of aluminum and paper that we recycled in 1998 and the fact that it is not unusual for us to call for BFI services with only 6 tons in the dumpster, we essentially saved Rhodes $475 that year.

Although $475 may not mean a lot to a business like Rhodes, the implications for increased savings is tremendous. If, for instance, we focused on diverting 25% of Rhodes paper waste out of the compactor and into the recycling bins, we would only require 3 pickups a month and therefore save $475 a month. This would end up saving Rhodes $5,700 a year. Based on our garbology results, Rhodes could ideally recycle all of its paper and essentially divert 50% of its waste stream from going to the landfill. This would then lead to only 2 BFI pickups a month and a savings of $11,400. It should also be noted that by recycling so much paper, Rhodes could even generate a profit from Weyerhaeuser. The money gained through recycling would essentially offset the price of BFI services even more.

It is not as easy to assess how much money Rhodes could save via recycling cardboard. This is simply because our garbology results are not an accurate indicator of cardboard quantities in our waste stream (as explained above). However, it is known and visually documented that cardboard takes up a huge amount of space in our compactors (see attached pictures). Not only does it take up lots of room because it is big and bulky but it also can lead to jams which may create deception for grounds crew workers who determine if the compactor is ready to be picked up.

At the time of our study, Rhodes had a BFI cardboard container. This container was primarily for the purpose of recycling cardboard. Rhodes paid BFI $96/month for two pickups of the container a week. It was located about 20 feet away from our trash compactor. Despite its close proximity to the compactor, groundscrew and Rat workers alike have been noted to throw cardboard into the trash compactor. This essentially fills the compactor up quicker than it normally should be and eventually costs Rhodes more money for removal costs. It should be noted that the recycling market favors cardboard the most above paper and aluminum.

Feasibility of Recycling

With student, faculty, and staff participation, recycling can easily become a good and easy habit for Rhodes College. This semester, Campus Green has successfully extended its recycling efforts to include the help of all realms on campus. Now, every Thursday evening, you can see not just students pushing around paper bins but also your suited professor.

Through the encouragement of an Associated Colleges of the South (ACS) conference, we have recently started another environmentally concerned group on campus. The Rhodes Planning Cooperative (RPC) has succeeded this semester in joining the ideas and opinions of students, faculty, and staff to tackle environmental issues on our campus. With the input of all sectors on campus, RPC discusses everything from cardboard recycling to applying for ACS grant money. This open discussion group has been an encouraging and motivating influence on all who attend.

Campus Green has the student leadership intact. We have provided educational forums, news briefs, updated web sites, etc this year to educate our campus. With these continued efforts as well as the support from the administration, we can promote good habits as well as common sense..both economically and environmentally.

Future Recommendations