A Study into the Disposable Products
Stream in Smith College
Kelly Aguilar (in collaboration with Caitlin Gossett)
Smith College
May 7, 2004
Keywords: disposable products, solid waste stream, elimination, recycling, purchasing
Abstract
Waste accumulation is an issue that the world population faces in the 21st
century and one that is increasing exponentially. With increased demands from
populations for governments to find a solution, many environmentalists are turning to
institutions to determine the best course of action. Smith College is a leading liberal
arts institution that prides itself in being the forefront of women’s education and
progress. However, in sustainability Smith is behind in comparison to other schools and
requires massive overhauls, to achieve similar levels. While radical changes need to
occur within the institutions prioritization towards environmentalism some changes can
be implemented now that would provide some relief to the increasing cost of waste
transportation on campus. One potential outlet we studied was the use of disposable
products (paper cups, plates, napkins, plastic utensils, and bowls). We completed an
in-depth survey through Dining Services and individual dining halls to determine the
amount of disposable products used. This allowed us to determine what the best
course of action was in terms of elimination, recycling, or purchasing. We also looked
at other institutions to determine how effective their waste policies were in comparison
to Smith College. Overall, current disposable products used on campus are extremely
harmful to the environment and provide equal or more cost to the college. In contrast,
other options create little to no waste.
Introduction
Waste is an ever present problem, particularly for environmentalists, because it
grows exponentially with the population and there seems to be little effort to find
methods to reduce through alternatives or education. Various studies have
demonstrated that this decade in comparison to previous has the highest waste
production with highest concentrations found within industrial nations (CIWMB, 2004;
EPA, 2004). In the United States, 200 million tons of waste produced out of which 82
million tons were compromised of paper and paperboard (CIMWB, 2004). While paper
is a large portion of the waste stream, another important component is plastics, which
have been estimated by the Environmental Protection Agency to compromise from 14 to
21 percent of the municipal solid waste stream (MWS) equal to almost 25.4 million tons
(EPA, 2004). One problem lies in that the production of these products is linear--virgin
material (trees or petroleum) are consumed. These raw materials are either not
replaced or only partially and as the materials are refined a large amount of energy is
consumed increasing not only waste down the stream but pollutants found in the
atmosphere and ground. These two major components produce a deficit and recovery
rates through recycling still represent a relatively small return in contrast to how much
finishes in the MWS, which is further aggravated by the fact that energy consumed and
pollutants in the environment cannot be retrieved once dispelled. Recycling of plastics
overall in 1999 was 1.4 million tons, almost 5.6%, while almost 37% of paper waste is
recycled (EPA, 2004). The low amount of recycling occurring and the large amount of
resources being used to continue production of these products makes it imperative that
current and future generations search for alternatives in order to decrease production
rates and increase recycling.
Another factor in diverting all potential recyclables from the recycling stream is
found in that most plastics that can be treated in recycling facilities are only level 2 and
below. Approximately 19,400 U.S. communities collected plastics for recycling, primariy
PET and HDPE bottles (EPA, 2004). What determines what the “recyclability” of a
plastic is based on the amount of resin present which also represents how durable the
plastic is. PET or polyethylene terephthalate (i.e. soda bottles and HDPE or highdensity polyethylene (i.e. milk jugs) tend to have a lower percentage of resin signifying
that during their manufacturing the reaction required to produce the product was not
irreversible as occurs for higher resin content plastics which produces a more durable
plastic used for plumbing, cars, and housing (EPA, 2004). Paper also can be diverted
from the recycling stream if it is contaminated with food or any other product which
would render it un-recyclable according to each facilities standard. This creates a
problem in that all potential recyclable items are not recycled but rather can end up in
the waste stream where their degrading time can be more than a century.
According to David Orr (2002), in The Nature of Design, university campuses are
the breeding ground for discovering these new solutions. Orr’s point is that radical
changes need to be made at the institutional level to make conscientious choices to
become more sustainable and be responsible not only for the immediate needs but for
the greater world. Yet it is important to note that he feels that while these larger changes
are implemented, smaller ones need to begin to make that shift in thinking occur. It is
not necessary to develop a new idea rather it is necessary to become better observers
of our surroundings and see where sustainable changes have been implemented and
work seamlessly with the community that had previously been unaware of
environmental impact their practices had.
On the Smith College campus sustainability has been a difficult concept to sell
both to the student population and the institution largely due to the up front cost involved
since most of the technologies are still in development and tend to be expensive, both
with the initial purchase and maintenance fees. Therefore, Smith needs to look at ways
to implement changes that have little effect to the infrastructure already in place, but
that would yield high impact on campus sustainability. These changes would also assist
in increasing campus awareness of waste and the effects Smith College has on the
greater environment, both positive and negative. A college student alone produces
almost 640 lbs. of waste per year and at Smith alone 4 tons of waste are sent to the
landfill weekly (Columbia University, 2000; Wraight, 2003). One of the areas where we
observed high amount of waste being produced was from disposable products. From
personal observation in dining halls many students tend to use disposable products
both for hygienic reasons as well as for convenience and these are valid reasons for
distributing disposable products throughout the campus population. Therefore, we
decided to look at how much of disposable products is actually being used (volume and
cost) and determine greener alternatives that would be both cost-effective and
environmentally friendly.
Methodology
In order to determine the amount of disposable products being used in dining
halls at Smith College we needed determine both yearly and monthly rates of
disposable products in each dining hall. This would allow an understanding of the rates
of use and allow us to determine the amount of money being budgeted for solely
disposable products. This would give us both an average volume and cost of
disposable products for both the wide campus as well as the individual dining halls. We
would retrieve this information from interviews with Dining Services personnel.
We also needed to determine what use rates were for a dining hall during a
week. This would permit us to understand what trends were involved with use either
during weekdays when classes were in session or weekends when students spent more
time studying. Therefore, we would look at our respective houses (Chase/Duckett and
Gillett) during the week of April 11-17, 2004 and look at the amount of products
remaining in a case (looked at cups, plates, and utensils) after dinner. This allowed us
to look at how much a house uses during a week and determine if usage was high or
low dependent on weekday or weekends.
In order to create a full web of how much and when disposable products were
used we needed to determine the source of these products and their final destination.
Interviews with Dining Services would provide information about distributors. Looking at
packaging would provide both brand name and which company produced them.
Research on the internet would provide where these companies made their products
and where most of these products ended up after use. This would allow an
understanding of where Smith College fit within a disposable products life from its
production to final resting point, if this existed.
These three survey point would allow us to determine which alternatives would
best fit Smith College and prove most effective both in cost and sustainability.
Results
Interviews with Kevin Martin, involved with purchasing for Dining Services,
revealed an abundant amount of information. Our distributor is Vistar, which is
responsible for bringing all disposable products on campus. However, our products are
produced at different locations. We found that our plates, cups, and bowls were made
by International Paper, Co. and our utensils (Dixie™) and napkins (Coronet™) where
made by Fort James Corporation and intermediate company for Georgia-Pacific, Co.
International Paper, Co. holds both its headquarters and production line in Stamford,
CT, while Georgia-Pacific, Co. produces its Dixie™ and Coronet™ products in
Leedsminister, MA. This signifies that the overall cost of our current disposable
products must include not only production cost but also transportation cost of these
products from their production site to their storage area to their consumer and
eventually the landfill and based on loose estimates an individual cup would cost more
than $5,000 based on gas cost and landfill fees, but excluding environmental impact
cost, which cannot be currently determined based on available information ($1.844 per
gallon of gas based on May 3,2004 listing and mileage based on distance from
Stamford, CT to Hartford, CT (88.6miles) then to Northampton ,MA (34.26 miles) and
landfill fees at $100/ton).
We also learned from interviews with Martin that average use of disposable
products is relatively high with almost 55,000 paper cups and 63,000 plastic utensils
being used on average per dining hall in 2003 (Table 1). However, the pattern from our
study on weekly use in our own dining halls seems to demonstrate the use occurs
largely during the weekends (Figure 1). This demonstrates that use of disposable
products is high but increases almost two-fold during the weekend (Figure 1; Table 2).
We also found that both plastic and paper disposable products have a longer cycle from
production to final destination and invoke both high energy and raw material costs which
end up for the most part in the MWS (Figure 2), which would also need to be included in
cost of current disposable products.
Furthermore, looking at average use we found that despite the relative low cost
of purchasing disposable products to greener options the amount of waste produced
cost more to send to the landfill in contrast to the zero amount of waste produced from
the greener options (Table 1; 2; 3). However, what the cost difference would be cannot
be determined due to the unavailability of information pertaining to the environmental
impact extraction of raw materials, transportation, long-term effect of these extractions,
production, consumption, landfill, atmospheric and land effect, etc. Alternative solutions
used in other institutions have demonstrated to be both more sustainable and despite
having high up front cost have lower overall cost since current practices must factor the
afore mentioned factors (Table 4). Furthermore, alternatives can be implemented into
recycling systems already in place on campus, such as composting, and produce no
waste, but must include transportation cost which can offset the positive effect of using
these products (Table 3; 4).
Amount of cups counted
450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
M
T
W
Th
F
Sa
Su
Weekdays
Figure 1. Usage of paper cups in Chase/Duckett and Gillett Houses throughout the
span of a week of April 11-17, 2004 from counting amount of cups remaining after
dinner (Diamonds- Chase/Duckett; Square-Gillett)
Figure 2. Web illustrations of the life cycles of a) plastics and b) paper.
Figure 2a. Cycle demonstrating how recycling of plastics occur and the input of both
recycled plastics and virgin plastic pellets in plastic production. (Image retrieved from
http://www.plasticomnium.com/services/Recycl/RE_IN_01.htm)
Figure 2b. Demonstrates the process from 1) wood cut down for paper production, 2)
wood pulped in paper mill, 3) paper reels produced from both virgin and recycled
sources, 4) used to make both paper and paperboard products, 5) these products are
used in packaging and other areas, 6) partial recycling used in energy production, 7)
other paper is collected, 8) recycling of paper that is returned to production (Image
retrieved from http://www.watermanswebworld.com/code/education.html).
Table 1. Amount and cost of disposable products used on average per house between
January 2003-December 2003 (Source data from interview with Kevin Martin, 2004)
Item
Count per
Amt/ Case $ Cases
Cost
Case
Purchased
Plates
500
26
114
2964
Bowls
1000
23
36
828
Lids
1000
13
12
156
Napkins
5000
28
247
6916
Cups
1000
35
55
1925
Spoons
1000
21
32
672
Knives
1000
21
31
651
Total $
Forks
1000
21
38
798
16,625
Table 2. Total average use of disposable products in Chase/Duckett and Gillett dining
halls during the span of the week of April 11-17, 2004 (Source data from interview with
Kevin Martin, 2004)
Items
Chase/Duckett
Gillett Quantity
Quantity
500
70
Plates
1500
200
Cups
1000
130
Utensils
Table 3. Cost analysis for greener disposable products from Green Home, Inc. based
on Smith College average usage (excludes bowls and lids). (Source data collected
from Green Home,Inc. website, 2004)
Item
Count per
Amt/
Cases
Cost $
Case
Case
$
Plates
1000
90
114
10260
Napkin
6000
54
247
13338
Cups
1000
73
55
4015
Spoons
1000
35
32
1120
Knifes
1000
35
31
1085
Grand Total
Forks
1000
35
38
1330
$31148
Table 4. Potential alternatives that would be more sustainable based on options already
implemented in other institutions of either the same size or larger and the cost and
impact these options would have if implemented at Smith College.
Institution(s)
Plan
Retail Price $*
Est. Cost $ **
McGill
University,
Hampshire,
Oberlin, Bates,
Rice, Clark GA,
Bowdoin,
Mount Holyoke,
Amherst
Reusable
Travel Mugs
~16.00-20.00
~52,000 (all upfront)
Mount Holyoke,
Amherst
Limited Access
(students
would be
required to
demonstrate
need for
disposable
product either
due to
scheduling
conflict, etc.)
Smith College
(Hubbard and
Capin)
Honor Mug
System
Variable,
dependent on
college
purchasing
practices (at a
high
acceptance an
almost 50%
decrease in use
could be
expected since
students would
need to prove
an explanation)
Free of charge
N/A
Environmental Impact
•
•
•
•
Zero Waste
No maintenance
No Landfill fees
Transportation
fees
• Replacement
fees (if the
college decides
to assist
students)
Eco-Friendly With Eco-friendly choice:
Current
Choice
• 100%
~16,000
~10,000
Biodegradable
(Dependent
(Dependent
• Composting
on student
on student
• No Landfill fees
acceptance
acceptance
• Transportation
and only 50% and only 50%
fees
of campus
of campus
• Not harming local
demonstrated demonstrated
or global
need)
need)
environment
through use of
unsustainable
materials
•
•
•
•
•
No upfront cost
No transportation
fees
No Landfill fees
Enhances
recycling from
products already
in the students
grasp
Requires strong
hygiene
regulation
* Based on extensive internet search on various commercial companies that provide these services
** Based on a set student population of 2,600 and extrapolation from that point forward.
Discussion and Recommendations
Our study found that there are many changes that need to occur in Smith
College in order to reach the goal of being a sustainable campus. Based on our
findings we have determined that current purchasing practices are at an extremely high
rate with 28,500 cups being distributed and disposed of by the student population per
week not including other disposable products which would top a total of 57,000
disposable items being used weekly by the student population. If the cost of one cup
exceeds $5,000 based loosely including gas cost, landfill fees and production cost but
excluding environmental impact cost, which would roughly increase the price at almost
$10,000 (based on the doubling price if impact cost was equivalent to current retail cost
for all fees afore mentioned), demonstrates that alternatives need to be implemented.
Conducting a cost analysis of alternative products would reduce landfill fees and a
partial amount of environmental impact but would still include all other fees which may
prove to not be the best sustainable option available. However, a more in-depth survey
on total cost of disposable products is required in order to asses a comprehensive cost
analysis of all aspects involved in disposable products from source to final destination.
Since current data did not provide cost and would have been difficult to determine under
this study.
Our study also found that disposable products are largely used during the
weekends and account for almost half of total products used. This signifies that
products are largely used when almost half of the student population dines outside of
their residences and study in exterior locations since a large amount of dining halls
close during the weekend and consolidated dining is implemented. This trend
demonstrates that students largely utilize disposable products when food services are at
a distance from their residence and finding an alternative that would address this need
may serve to decrease the pattern of use. However, it is important to note that the
study did not determine how much of product use can be attributed to houses that have
no dining services forcing students to commute to dining halls. This may have a
significant impact on overall product use and if it can be attributed to this then changes
could be potentially implemented in these residencies.
Based on our findings and coupled with previous studies conducted for EVS 300
implementing any change could prove to be extremely positive (Wraight, 2003; Elmer,
2003). Trends demonstrate that if policy is implemented the student population tends to
follow, such as the enactment of pay-for-paper policy implemented in 2004 academic
year coupled with paperless month campaign by GAIA (environmental group on
campus) which has significantly reduced total paper waste (Personal observation).
Based on our study we believe that the best recommendations that we can make
fall into three categories:
1) Elimination: Remove all disposable products while providing substitutes such as
mugs that when used at the student cafe would receive a 10% discount and also
consistent use would be promoted since other options would become unavailable. This
program could be coupled with a campaign to initiate campus awareness of
environmental issues and specifically explaining why disposable products have been
removed and the overall impact these have on both the local and global environment.
This program could be implemented through a slow phasing out of disposable products
such as limited access leading to an eventual complete removal of all products and the
replacement with mugs such as already used in McGill, Bates, etc. or the Honor Mug
System used in Hubbard and Capin House.
2) Recycling: Napkin composting would provide immediate assistance in the amount of
waste sent out of the college such as the one implemented at Bates College. However,
a more comprehensive infrastructure for recycling that would remove more trash cans
from all areas on campus and replace them with recycling bins would provide an
increased rate of recycling and less amount of recyclable material entering the waste
stream. This is specifically important within the residences where recycling bins,
located on the 1st floor of every house, are less accessible in comparison to trash cans,
located on each floor. Furthermore, switching disposable products that can be in the
recycling stream would be an improvement from current products which due to their wax
covering cannot be recycled and any contaminated (food, etc.) paper products cannot
be recycled. Striving to find alternatives that would enter the recycling stream would be
extremely beneficial and compliments our third alternative of switching purchasing
practices.
3) Purchasing: Choosing to purchase biodegradable products coupled with limited
availability policy would minimize the high cost of these products while at the same time
increasing student understanding of true limitations of world resource. Furthermore, the
impact of making this type of purchasing choice would increase awareness within the
institution and would move the college in a greater way towards a more sustainable
campus than the other options do. Purchasing impacts directly the economic heart of
college policy and would reflect a greater commitment on behalf of the institution to
strive to sustainable practices as well as ensuring that students understand why these
choices are being made. Furthermore, changing purchasing would either complement
any of afore mentioned alternatives as well as increase rates of recycling and
composting while decreasing waste and maintenance cost.
Literature Cited.
Aguilar, Kelly. Interview with Kevin Martin. Rec. 1 April 2004. Email. Smith College
Dining Services Purchasing. 30 Belmont, Smith College.
California Integrated Waste Management Board Plastics Information and Resources
Site. April 15, 2004. California State Website. 28 April 2004
<http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov/Plastic/Recycled/>
Columbia Trash into Cash for Nonprofits Site. 2000. Columbia University Website. 28
April 2004 <http://www.columbia.edu/cu/cssn/greens/waste.html>
Elmer, Kate. 2003. Sustainability at Smith Project: Environmental Impact in Smith
Residences. Unpublished report. 14 pp.
Green Home, Inc. Website. May 3, 2004 <http://www.greenhome.com/>
Orr, David W. 2002. The Nature of design: ecology, culture, and human intention.
Oxford University Press, New York, NY.
United States Environmental Protection Agency Municipal Solid Wastes Site. April 23,
2004. Environmental Protection Agency Website. 28 April 2004
<http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/osw/index.htm>
<http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/paper.htm> (Paper)
<http://www.epa.gov/epaoswer/non-hw/muncpl/plastic.htm> (Plastics)
Wraight, K. 2003. Wasting Away. Unpublished report. 14 pp.