Princeton Environmental Reform Committee (PERC) Environmental Audit of Princeton University

Chapter 1 - Solid Waste

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Following the 1987 passage of the New Jersey Statewide Mandatory Recycling and Source Separation Act and subsequent state mandates to recycle 60% of its municipal solid waste (MSW), Princeton University established a comprehensive recycling program that sought to provide adequate recycling facilities for the entire university community. For its efforts, Princeton was awarded the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection's Outstanding Achievement Award for Recycling (Institutional Division) in 1991, and continues to display exemplary performance in relation to state guidelines. Currently, Princeton fully recycles its organic waste (leaves, branches, trees) and its construction waste (stone, asphalt, scrap metal) through Grounds and Maintenance, while its recycling of such items as newsprint, mixed paper, plastic HDPE 1 and 2, cans, bottles, juice/milk cartons, and cardboard are handled by Building Services. The former category of recyclables makes up 87% of the mass of recycled materials due to its sheer weight; this allows Princeton to claim a 66% recycling rate per year. When the former category is removed and only the latter considered, 25% of the university's MSW is diverted from disposal in a landfill.

Financial benefits obtained from recycling have little to do with recycling revenues and much to do with avoidance of landfill costs. At a cost of $118 per ton placed in a landfill, the 25% of the university's recycled waste yields a savings of over $136,000. In the same year, Princeton spends about $409,000 to send its remaining, non-recycled MSW to an landfill. If the university were to raise its percentage of recycled MSW to 35%, a figure that Building Services believes is possible, it would save an additional $77,000 each year through landfill avoidance.

Members of all populations of the university community may contribute to the recycling effort; undergraduate students, graduate students, faculty, administration, and staff, particularly janitors. Recycling appears effective in certain sectors of this community and less so in others, primarily the undergraduate sector. Reasons for this lesser degree of participation include a lack of knowledge regarding proper recycling protocol, a sense that janitors do not bother to recycle during waste collection, and the inconvenience of recycling over simply disposing of one's waste.

Some simple, inexpensive recommendations towards the increased efficiency of Princeton's recycling system are 1) developing a standard job description for the residential college environmental chairs in order to make them more effective, 2) promoting year-round education through the advertisement of recycling facilities in currently-circulating publications such as the Housing department newsletter, the Guide to Undergraduate Living, and the residential college newsletters, 3) establishing a contact number that people may call with questions or comments about university recycling, and 4) generating a twine-distribution system in the upperclass dormitories. More large-scale recommendations include 1) creating a university president-appointed committee to focus purely on campus recycling and 2) hiring a full-time employee to serve as recycling coordinator.

INTRODUCTION

As one of the most densely populated states in the nation, New Jersey is more than familiar with the many challenges that a burgeoning population may pose for a stateís infrastructure. Perhaps most problematic to the state has been the disposal of its large quantities of solid waste. Unable to establish facilities capable of handling its full load, New Jersey exports well over 50% of its waste to neighboring states. These pressures led to the 1987 passage of the New Jersey Statewide Mandatory Recycling and Source Separation Act, a piece of legislation aimed at reducing this costly dependence upon neighboring states. Obeying subsequent state mandates to recycle 60% of all its municipal solid waste (MSW), Princeton University established a comprehensive, broad-based recycling program, providing facilities for all sectors of the university community: the student body, faculty, administrative staff, and Grounds and Maintenance personnel. For its efforts, the university was awarded the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection's Outstanding Achievement Award for Recycling (Institutional Division) in 1991, a year in which it recycled approximately 66% of the total tonnage of its solid waste.

It is evident that many populations within the Princeton University community contribute to the recycling effort - students, faculty, and administration through Building Services, and Grounds and Maintenance personnel through Facilities. Since only final tonnages of recycled materials are recorded, no means currently exists of accurately gauging the respective contributions of each of these groups. A gross analysis of available data from the past four years, however, indicates that an overwhelming majority, 87% by weight, of the materials recycled by the university consists of yard and construction wastes recovered by Grounds and Maintenance (essentially 100% of the waste gathered by this group is recycled). Student, faculty, and administrative recycling amounts to 13% of the total mass of recycled material. If one considers the percent of total solid waste recovered for recycling from the academic and administrative populations of the university, excluding the contribution by Facilities, 28% (rather than 60%) of the waste stream is favorably diverted.

While the effectiveness of Facilitiesí efforts are clear, few attempts have been made to accurately gauge the efficiency of those programs which are coordinated by the department of Building Services and designed to facilitate student, faculty, and staff recycling. Though well over $100,000 a year is invested in these programs - providing receptacles, vehicles, and staff for the collection of recyclables - it is unclear whether this considerable university investment is met by a satisfactory degree of student, faculty, and administrative participation. Statistics concerning the degree of student interest and education, however, when coupled with the general consensus of opinion amongst students and administrators, suggest that this is not the case. While university employees and those members of the graduate student body housed by university facilities participate actively in recycling efforts, attempts to involve the undergraduate student body - the largest single sector - have met with questionable success.

Furthermore, this status shows few signs of changing, as recycling by these groups seems to have reached a steady state. The percentage of MSW redirected for recycling has not risen significantly over the past four years, and remains at relatively low levels. This is not due to a lack of facilities provided by the department of Building Services; indeed, Princeton University supplies the university community with a broad spectrum of receptacles, allowing the recycling of a significant variety of wastes. Absence of university-sponsored education and promotion regarding recycling is likely partially responsible for this situation. Lacking a specific mandate from the university administration, and in the absence of further state pressures, few steps have been taken to educate the student body concerning the ease and benefits of recycling and to promote year-round use of the available facilities. Princeton University is essentially ìprimedî for a potentially highly successful student recycling program; student enthusiasm need only match the universityís investment.

OVERVIEW

Statistical Analysis of Recycling Trends.

Recovery and recycling of yard and construction wastes by the department of Grounds and Maintenance clearly supports the universityís recycling effort. By tonnage, these materials constitute 87% of Princetonís total recycled mass, and include the following: concrete, asphalt, heating oil, wood, stumps, yard waste, and scrap metal. The remaining 13% is composed of those materials collected by Building Services: mixed paper, cardboard, co-mingle (aluminum and steel containers, glass, appropriate plastics, juice/milk cartons), and newsprint. While the university composts the majority of its yard waste on-site (later using these materials on-campus or distributing them to the local community) and handles the collection of student, administrative and faculty recyclables, numerous contractors are involved in the removal of many other recyclables; this information is presented in Table 1.1. Regardless of the path taken by these materials once collected and handed to the appropriate contractor, they have escaped the fate of the MSW that remains: Growís landfill in the state of Pennsylvania. The total mass of recycled or composted materials constitutes over 60% of total MSW generated (true MSW plus tonnage of those items targeted for recycling) per year, though this figure varies in accordance with the quantities of yard and construction waste generated per year. This figure does not vary significantly with changes in other types of MSW generated per year, however, as they currently individually constitute only minor portions of the total tonnage.

Grounds and Maintenance currently operates at an impressive 100% recycling rate, effectively recovering all recyclable materials from the waste stream. Another area of focus is the recycling effort sponsored by the universityís department of Building Services. In terms of sheer tonnage, the university has collected increasingly larger amounts of materials destined for recycling over the past four years. This is depicted in Figure 1.1. Figures 1.2-1.5 show the breakdown of this gross tonnage into its constituents. It should be noted that, while the collection of co-mingle, newsprint, and mixed paper has indeed improved over the years noted, the modest increase shown by these three materials seems incongruous with the sharper rise seen in Figure 1.1. Cardboard recycling has clearly shown an amazing increase over the past four years and likely makes the largest contribution to this rise. Figure 1.6 depicts the tonnages shown in Figure 1.1 minus the cardboard contribution, proving that the rapid rise in cardboard recycling accounts for the majority of the increase in total recycling.

Table 1.1 Recycling contractors of Princeton University.

Most of this cardboard comes from either Dining Services or the University Store, both of which involve much shipping in their daily operations and therefore utilize a great deal of cardboard. However, cardboard recycling at Princeton was not an overnight success. To check the levels of recycling throughout the year, trucks from the university bearing MSW are inspected at random at Mercer County Improvement Authority. If these vehicles are discovered bearing an excessive amount of recyclables, the university is fined; repeat offenses result in the revoking of the universityís contract. An initial warning prompted Building Services to reemphasize the consistent recycling of cardboard, one of the most visible of recyclables. Combined with a simultaneous increase in the amount of cardboard set aside by the University Store and Dining Services, this most likely explains the impressive rise in cardboard recycling and consequently the apparent rise in total recycling by Building Services.

When considered in relation to the total quantity of MSW generated by the university - which has also been increasing over the past four years - total levels of recycling through Building Services have remained essentially constant. Figure 1.4 details the amount of materials, excluding those gathered by Grounds and Maintenance, collected for recycling in relation to total mass of MSW gathered for disposal. Following an initial significant rise in the level of recycling during the first two years examined, the percentage of material recovered by these programs has now stabilized at approximately 27-28%. Recently collected data for the first semester of the ë94-í95 year suggests a continuation of this non-mobile trend.

Figure 1.1 Trend of total recycling by quarter.

Cost-Benefit Analysis. Using a base that consists of all Municipal Solid Waste (MSW), Princeton was projected to recycle 25% of that waste during the 1993-1994 school year. This indicates a savings of around $136,000 through avoidance of fees paid to place this garbage in a landfill. Several thousand additional dollars could be generated through the sale of recyclable waste to individual recycling centers, although this amount is by comparison minimal. In the same year, Princeton will be spending about $409,000 ($118/ton) to send its remaining, non-recycled municipal solid waste to a landfill. If the university were to raise its percentage of MSW recycled to 35%, it would be saving an additional $77,000 each year through landfill avoidance.

Current University Policy. It has been suggested that this recycling percentage could be much higher. Floyd Phox, one of the managers of Building Services, states that "you could go out there to any dumpster, take any given bag, rip it open, and you'd find lots of recyclables". George Frierson, head director of Building Services, gives a more quantitative answer: "No one really knows the maximum percentage. It's 60% by law; with technology the way it is, 80-90% is possible. But I would never go and guesstimate beyond 35% [for the Princeton campus]". Jane Hulik, current head of recycling on the

Figure 1.2 Trends of various recyclables by quarters. Legend is identical to Figure 1.1.

Princeton University campus suggests that undergraduate recycling ìcertainly needs improvementî. Indeed, the common belief is that while administrative and faculty offices and the graduate student population are performing well, undergraduate recycling has stalled. For this reason, it is necessary to study, in greater detail, the current facilities and educational and promotional materials made available to each group contributing to this effort: the student body, the administration, and the faculty. Another area of focus will be the education of and the facilities made available to those collecting these materials, the janitorial staff.

Figure 1.3. Trend of total recycling minus cardboard by quarter.

Upperclass

Facilities -- Mixed paper cans are provided to all rooms, and co-mingle containers placed in all bathrooms. No student groups currently distribute twine to upperclass housing.

Education -- Upperclass students also receive the Guide to Residential Life. Again, attempts have been made by several student groups to distribute twine to this population, and disseminate educational and promotional materials. Since these students are no longer within the college system, though, convenient, widespread forms of communication are less frequent within this population.

Graduate

Facilities -- Graduate students living within the Graduate College or Hibben/McGee, Butler, or Lawrence apartments receive mixed paper cans, and may recycle mixed paper, co-mingle, and newsprint by deposition of these materials at recycling ìhutsî located around the housing complexes. It has been noted by a number of students that pickups are relatively infrequent, and that these huts often overflow with recyclables. This is being studied at present, but may pose an obstacle to graduate student recycling.

Education -- None.

Figure 1.4. Total MSW and recycled material. The recycling data does not include yard waste composting, concrete, asphalt, batteries, or scrap metal.

Faculty

Facilities -- Faculty are provided with mixed paper cans. While many offices and laboratories independently gather aluminum cans, or are provided with receptacles, this is not uniformly encouraged nor organized by the university.

Education -- None.

Administration

Facilities -- All member of administrative offices are provided with mixed paper cans, and many offices independently gather aluminum cans and newspaper.

Education -- Though recycling is highly encouraged by members of the administration, no formal information is distributed.

Janitorial Staff

Facilities -- Though provided with all appropriate receptacles for the deposition of recyclables collected from students, janitors are not currently encouraged to report chronic contaminators or act independently on that knowledge. Additionally, no mechanisms currently exist to allow discourse between janitorial staff and those offenders.

Education -- No formal recycling training is given, nor is facilitating recycling an element of the janitorial job description.

Comparison with other University Systems

Although the facilities provided by Princeton Universityís Department of Building Services are more than adequate, a lack of institutional promotion of recycling and education of students concerning the available facilities is evident. This is especially true when viewed in comparison to the efforts taken by numerous other institutions. Of the three institutions examined - Georgetown, the University of New Jersey-Rutgers, and the University of Illinois, all are endowed with institutionally appointed recycling coordinators, and all provide extensive educational and promotional materials to all members of the community through the work of this coordinator. The following are brief descriptions of the educational and promotional programs enacted by the three noted institutions.

Georgetown University

Georgetown University excels in publicizing its recycling program to students, faculty, and administration. To a great extent, this is due to their recycling administration and staff headed by Jon Miller. The Georgetown recycling program updates flyers, publicizes new developments in their program in student and faculty/staff newspapers, and publishes a very attractive pamphlet about recycling protocol, which is given to incoming student and employees. Although their facilities are roughly equivalent to those of Princetonís, the work of their recycling administration has placed Georgetownís recycling program above those of other institutions.

Rutgers University

One of the greatest strengths of the Rutgers University Recycling Program is its Recycling/Waste Minimization Programs Committee chaired by Kevin L. Lyons, the schoolís Procurement Officer and Chair. The committee has members representing applicable sections of the university, students and custodial staff. Kevin Lyons stresses the importance of involving students in the ìuniversity president-appointed committeeî in order to show that the university supports student involvement and encourages participation. Furthermore, he stresses a constant year-round information flow for the education of students as well as custodial staff and faculty and feels that the university must promote interaction between the groups.

University of Illinois

The University of Illinois also has a hired recycling coordinator, Tim Hoss, who organizes and documents all recycling practices on campus. Under his guidance, the university increased its total recycling amount from 1,039 tons to 4,593 tons in a matter of 5 years (this figure includes construction waste but not organic waste). Hoss also helps integrate and organize recycling systems for student organizations, such as fraternities. Orientation meetings scheduled at the beginning of the year inform incoming students as to the recycling system that is in place at the university. There are also monthly janitor meetings during which recycling is frequently discussed. Some professors even incorporate recycling awareness into their course curricula; Dr. Sebasto of Illinois "attempts to convey to students the message that the incentive [for recycling] is ecological sustainability".

Previous Princeton Environmental Groups

Though Princeton at one point considered hiring an individual to provide management, promotional, and educational services, this proposal was ultimately struck down. In lieu of such an institutionally-designed recycling program, numerous students, representing four environmental concerns on campus, have made significant attempts to independently fulfill these perceived needs. The following are descriptions of each group and its respective efforts.

Princeton Environmental Action

The longest lived of student-based environmental groups, Princeton Environmental Action (PEA) campaigns on many issues of environmental concern. Though the majority of these campaigns have addressed issues of more national or global significance, PEA has also been involved with attempts to improve the environmental habits of the student body. Current efforts to improve on-campus recycling and promote source reduction have included the mug distribution and trash audit campaigns. The first, begun soon after the 1990 Earth Day celebration, sought to produce and freely distribute reusable plastic mugs for the use of the student body. Though PEA no longer handles the production and distribution of these mugs, they are still generated and given to entering first-year students through Dining Services. The trash audit, conducted this year, has been an attempt to estimate student involvement in recycling efforts through a quantitative analysis of student garbage.

Princeton Recycles

In 1992, when Building Services established a door-to-door policy for recycling newspaper and mixed paper, a branch of PEA entitled Princeton Recycles was formed; its mission was to inform the campus of the change and explain the specific days of collection for various recyclables. Princeton Recycles also took charge of twine distribution to dormitory rooms for bundling newspaper. Although no longer in existence, this group has had its duties reassigned to two other systems: PERC and the residential college environmental chairs.

The Ad Hoc Environmental Committee

A university organization headed by Assistant Dean of Students Rick Curtis, Ad Hoc had also worked, in conjunction with Princeton Recycles, to increase awareness about recycling on the Princeton campus. Also no longer in existence, the duties of this group have been primarily assumed by PERC.

Princeton Environmental Reform Committee

In 1993, the Princeton Environmental Reform Committee (PERC), a working group of students, faculty, and administrators that focuses exclusively on campus environmental practices, came into existence. This organization has assumed the responsibility of informing people about the university's recycling system; together with Building Services, the newly-established PERC is taking steps to educate the campus community about recycling, especially those incoming first-year students whose practices will predict the future success of the Princeton recycling program.

PERC has made two attempts to date to specifically improve recycling practices on campus. First, through funding from Facilities, PERC generated and distributed the "Green Page", a poster-sized document detailing proper recycling practice and policy at Princeton. Second, in the spring of 1994, members of both PEA and PERC obtained permission from the department of Building Services to create and post signs in dormitory bathrooms informing students of all important facts concerning the university's recycling program. Funding from Building Services allowed the signs to be laminated and thus more durable; by the fall of 1994, most dorm bathrooms on campus were equipped with the informational signs.

College Environmental Chairs

Four of the five residential colleges currently have positions for an environmental chair on their student college council; such a position first came into existence in 1992. Those holding these positions have, in some cases, been active in twine distribution for newspaper bundling, and have organized informational and promotional talks for RA groups of first-year students. However, election to this position is not accompanied by a specific set of duties; that is, there is no official job description of the environmental chair, and thus the involvement of those holding the position has been highly variable.

It should be noted that these independent student endeavors, while very productive, should be replaced by university-provided and organized institutions. Two observations would seem to support this. First, the membership of most student organizations fluctuates significantly from year to year - and even from week to week - allowing the possibility of dissolution of a particular group; university-supported institutions, however, necessarily remain stable. Secondly, student recognition of a particular institution can depend upon the recognition of that institution by the university. That is, should entering students perceive a university effort to promote recycling, recycling will automatically be seen as the norm. Student organizations can rarely summon this authority.

While administration and faculty seem more responsible in their recycling behavior, as do graduate students who are responsible for the disposal of their own waste, undergraduates seem particularly vulnerable to this dearth of information and promotion, and thus appear to recycle less. In an attempt to understand this discrepancy more fully, studies have been conducted with the hope of attaining some sense of the frequency of undergraduate student recycling and the factors that influence that frequency.

Current Student Opinion

By far the most significant portion of the Princeton University community, the undergraduate population remains relatively uninformed concerning the facilities available on campus. Furthermore, no significant efforts are currently made by the university to promote recycling on campus, efforts that are necessary to mobilize a student body such as Princetonís. These observations are reflected in the results of a survey distributed in 1993, for the second year in a row, by the Princeton course entitled Sociology 280: Sociology of the Environment. Designed to measure the environmental attitudes of undergraduate students, the survey examined the frequency with which students recycle, while asking whether or not these students felt informed about campus facilities for recycling certain products. The results of this survey are shown in Tables 1.2 and 1.3.

Table 1.2 Undergraduates' sense of their own frequency of recycling (%).

Table 1.3 Undergraduates' sense of being informed about campus recycling facilities (%).

The question regarding whether students feel informed or not was apparently misunderstood within the context of the survey, as the percentage of the 151 students who answered the question only ranged in the 60's (as opposed to the 90's for the previous question). Nevertheless, it is a telling observation that, for the most part, there are more students who feel informed about how to recycle than actually recycle all of the time; for example, although 55% of students state that they feel informed about how to recycle mixed paper, only 33% of the same students said that they always recycle mixed paper. If one were to add in those survey participants who selected the answer "Sometimes", then one would exceed the percentage of students who felt informed about recycling them.

In any case, the apparent discrepancy between knowledge and action is intriguing, especially given the fact that every student is provided with a container for the purpose of recycling, and every room is visited for collection by a janitor. A lack of communication and feedback between students and janitors may provide a partial explanation for this discrepancy, as the following example shows. The current policy of Building Services is that janitors should carry two bags: one for trash, and one for mixed paper. However, observation of janitors has revealed that materials from both the trash and recycling receptacles are being deposited in the same bag. This is done because students mix trash with their recyclables, and it is too time-consuming for janitors to sort the two out. Yet, when students see that the janitors are not recycling, they often donít see the point in doing it themselves. This results in a vicious cycle in which neither the students nor the janitors take the time to separate and recycle dormitory waste.

All academic departments have university-provided facilities for recycling the basic materials of co-mingle and mixed paper. While a survey has yet to be undertaken with respect to these areas, the common belief is that recycling percentages are overall higher in the academic departments than in the dormitories.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Although Princeton University does have an organized recycling infrastructure in place, several steps could be taken to greatly enhance the effectiveness of its recycling program. To achieve higher levels of recycling, the university must concentrate on education of both students and employees so that the specifics of recycling are clearer to all members of the university community. Furthermore, a stronger commitment to environmental practices at Princeton is needed, one that would prompt extensive promotion of and research into the costs and benefits of an efficient, expanded recycling system. These ends can be achieved to a great extent by adopting a number of modifications to the present recycling situation on campus. Several of these improvements have proven their effectiveness at other institutions. The following are more minor amendments that require little investment yet would insure much more efficient use of existing resources.

Underclassmen

1.1 Clearly define the role of the residential college environmental chair.

The incipient means for providing environmental education to first year and second year students already exists in the residential colleges in the form of the environmental chair. If a standard job description exists for this position, interested applicants would know the responsibilities that their job entails. The three proposed requirements for the position are:

ï Undertake a program of increasing environmental awareness. This may be accomplished by meeting with RA groups at the beginning of each year to explain to incoming students how the recycling process works and to promote use of existing facilities. Chairs can also provide constant information flow throughout the year through reminders in college newsletters, information posters in dining halls, and college study breaks.

ï Help to improve existing recycling systems and facilitate their use. The most important component of this requirement involves distributing twine throughout the college for newspaper recycling every two weeks. In addition, chairs should search for ways to better the recycling process and deal with any difficulties students may have with recycling on campus by listening to suggestions on how to improve or expedite the process.

ï Meet once or twice a month with the other environmental chairs. These meetings would be helpful for chairs to discuss the recycling situation in each college and to undertake projects which may be too great for just one chair to handle.

Upperclassmen

1.2 Promote year-round education on recycling issues.

The university should include recycling reminders and advice in the "Short and Suite" newsletter published occasionally by the Housing department. The housing packet distributed at the beginning of the year should contain a sheet clearly showing the location of the receptacles and delineating the recycling process.

1.3 Establish a contact number for recycling information.

This can either be the phone number of a designated student, such as a college environmental chair or an officer of an environmental organization, or a university staff member who is informed on recycling matters. The number could even contain a recorded message specifying dates and times of various recyclable pickups. The contact number should be publicized so that students may call with questions and suggestions for improvement.

1.4 Develop a twine distribution mechanism for newspaper recycling.

This is sorely needed in the upperclass residences since no environmental chairs exist to fulfill this need. Student attempts at upperclass twine distribution are too variable to always be dependable. Therefore, Building Services should either instruct janitors to deliver twine every two weeks or make balls of twine available at strategic locations near upperclass dormitories so that students can get twine themselves.

1.5 Improve Spelman recycling percentages.

Paper and bottle recycling bins should be placed in each suite. Currently, Spelman residents are more inconvenienced than other students with regards to recycling; increasing their opportunities to do so should result in a marked increase in recycling within this independent housing.

Graduate Students

In general, the facilities for recycling are similar to those of the undergraduates. Overall the recycling at the graduate level is better than the undergraduate level. However, the problem lies mainly with building services rather than student participation. At present, the recyclables are not collected frequently enough resulting in overflow of recycling receptacles.

Custodians

1.6 Develop a more informed janitorial staff.

Just as it is important to educate students about the importance of recycling, janitors likewise must be instructed as to the significance of properly recycling separated waste and the details of the New Jersey Recycling and Source Separation Act. One way to achieve this goal is to have monthly meetings of the custodians and their supervisor where recycling is discussed. This is currently being done at the University of Illinois and the success of the program has been confirmed by Tim Hoss, the UIUC Recycling Coordinator. Furthermore, the recycling duties of the custodian should be clearly stated in the job description and followed in everyday practice.

1.7 Build an understanding between janitors and students.

No means currently exists to allow passive regulation of student recycling practices by any member of the janitorial staff. After facing a similar problem at Rutgers, the chair of their recycling committee, Kevin Lyons, initiated a program in which students who mixed trash with recyclables were given an ìoops labelî on the offending can. The students are forced to correct the problem before the janitor may properly dispose of the waste. A similar program has been suggested at Princeton, and such advisory notices do exist, but are not, according to the department of Building Services, ever used. A similar system, modeled after Rutgers, should be implemented; though refusal of waste collection may be inappropriate, janitors may certainly leave a short notice detailing what was wrong with the studentsí recycling. At the very least, janitors could make note of severe, chronic offenders; this would allow reporting of those individuals to supervisors, and the possibility of communication between those supervisors and the students.

The following recommendations would require the generation of new structures to regulate campus recycling; some expenditure is required by both.

1.8 Create a university President-appointed committee on recycling.

This could be fulfilled by bringing together students, administrators, faculty, and staff in a format similar to the Residential Life Committee, which currently works to monitor and improve student living. This group should include representatives from Housing, Building Services, Princeton Dining Services, Undergraduate Student Government, and students from the five residential colleges, upperclass, and independent housing. This Recycling Committee would listen to student complaints, discuss and initiate means of improving the program, and most importantly, publicize recycling protocol and the importance of recycling. The latter could be achieved by the creation of a brochure similar to that produced by the committee handling recycling at Georgetown University. Generated by students and recycling staff, and distributed annually, this brochure may serve as a model for such efforts on the Princeton campus. It is imperative that the university allocate sufficient funds to this committee so that it may take meaningful steps to improve Princetonís recycling standing.

1.9 Hire a full-time recycling coordinator.

An experienced, innovative and knowledgeable person whose main concern is organizing and promoting environmentally sound policies and practices on campus is essential. The recycling coordinator would oversee the Recycling Committee, aid in the publication of the recycling brochure, be available and accessible for questions and suggestions, and promote education and recycling. Such a position already exists at many other schools such as Rutgers, University of Illinois, Georgetown, and Dartmouth. In these cases, a recycling coordinator has proven to be an essential element in the creation of an efficient program.

REFERENCES

University Contacts

George Frierson, Director, Building Services

Lynn Grenier, Manager, Building Services

Jane Hulik, Building Services

Other Sources

City of Los Angeles, Integrated Solid Waste Management Office. 53 Simple Things Universities and Colleges Can Do to Reduce Waste: Case Studies of University Source Reduction, Recycling, and Composting, May, 1991. Board of Public Works, City Hall, Room 365, 200 N. Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; (213) 237-1444.

Task Force Members

Mark Higgins '95, coordinator

Naomi Hayashi '97

Ed Gung '97

This material may be used for educational and non-profit use. Commercial use of this information is prohibited without written consent. Copyright © 1995, Princeton Environmental Reform Committee, Princeton University.