1. Food is Not Trash Redefining Wellesley’s Waste Culture by Composting
Presented By
Capstone ES 300: Environmental Decision Making

2. ES 300 Environmental Decision Making
ES 300! The Environmental Decision Making seminar - a capstone course for ES majors.
The topic of the course changes every year, and this year we were given, as you know, the exciting task to evaluate alternatives for food waste diversion on campus.
A.K.A Wellesley College Environmental Consultants
Learning while Doing (and contributing to environmental initiatives on campus) Our goals this semester was not only to learn about composting and food waste diversion individually, but to put that research into practice as, effectively, consultants to the College for this very important initiative to meet the 2014 law (ban?).
aka “Wellesley’s Environmental Consultants”

3. For the next 20 minutes: About Wellesley Methodology Diversion Options
Conclusions

4. Wellesley College Traditionally women’s college in Wellesley MA
Basics:
Wellesley is a traditionally women’s-college located Wellesley Mass about 12 miles outside of Boston.
Private liberal arts institution with approximately 2,300 students
Anything else you want to say, Kelly?
Traditionally women’s college in Wellesley MA
Private liberal arts institution with 2,300 students

5. Dining at Wellesley College
Background on Wellesley College dining:
-5 dining halls: unlimited dining, mandatory meal plan
-3 cafes, 1 college club, the Emporium: pay-as-you-go
5 dining halls
Unlimited dining
Mandatory meal plan
Pay-as-you-go options are limited to
3 cafes, 1 high-end restaurant, 1 kiosk

6. Wellesley’s Food Waste
x 220
So how much food waste does Wellesley produce?
Including both pre- and post-consumer waste, 220 metric tons per year. (Or 220 adult elephants weight-wise.)
Wellesley produces ~ 220 metric tons of food waste per year.

7. Where Does Our Waste Go?
Deer Island
Incinerator

8. Our Project X Excess Food Waste and the 2014 Organics Waste Ban
All Possible Approaches
Some are not feasible for Wellesley X
Feasible Approaches
Reduction
Diversion
Environmental, Social, and Cost Analysis
This is going to be a very self-explanatory walk-through of the concept map.
Say: "In this concept map, we are now at the point of making our recommendations, and here they are!" *change to next slide*
Most Appropriate Options for Wellesley
ES 300's Recommendations
Implementing Composting at Wellesley?

9. Methodology

10. Methodology: Research Design
Delegation of Tasks
Project Teams and Leadership Team
Individual Leadership Positions
"Divide and Conquer"
MassDEP
Other Colleges
WC Administration
Communication with:
Needham Recycling and Transfer Station
Site Visit
Go more into depth about divide and conquer
Concept map about the project divide and conquer
With a cohort of eager ES majors, figuring out how to divide and conquer this monstrous task was a task in and of itself...
Putting together one cohesive report entailed a great deal of collaboration, organization, and delegation of work among the class.
Went about this by:
Delegating all the tasks and sections of the research and writing of the report
We split it up into two types of jobs – individual and project
Then we worked in teams of 4 to address larger sections of the report.
For example, we decided that after looking at the widest range of possibilities that we wanted to research 12 waste diversion options, and so we broke into teams that each analyzed and reported on 2 methods.
Then everyone had individual jobs to make sure that everything was being covered as a whole – each team had a text and data editor, and some people were responsible for overall aspects of the project like graphics, archiving, publication, media coverage, and the like. There was also the leadership team which consisted of our Professor, the Manager, Coordinator, and Overall Text and Data editors.
We then brought everything back together in our weekly class meeting thanks to Leadership team.
To gain breadth in our research, the class also went on field trips, talked to people from MassDEP, spoke with other colleges implementing composting programs, and met with individuals and groups within the College’s administration.
We also had a site visit to one potential composting site which was the subject of one of our investigations – there we met with the Vice President of Agresource Incorporated and learned a lot, but also it was great to get our hands dirty.

11. Our functional unit = 1 metric ton of food waste
Life Cycle Analysis
In our research, we wanted the investigation to be as holistic as possible. So we looked at many different aspects of the project, all incorporated in a version of a Life Cycle Analysis.
We ended up breaking this into three categories by which we scored our options, but we wanted this research to take into account all aspects of each option.
This was one of the biggest sections of our analysis
- explain basics of Life Cycle Analysis (cradle to grave)
- give a brief example (“we looked at material inputs, transportation, shipping, packaging, disposal method, offsets, etc)
- It looks at every step along the way and quantifies the impacts.
This was extremely helpful especially when looking at Environmental impacts because we were able to use cutting edge tools to assess the impacts.
To make this analysis comparable across methods (and applicable to other non-wellesley environments) we did scale all of our analysis like impacts and costs to a function unit of 1 metric ton
Our functional unit = 1 metric ton of food waste
(1 elephant)

12. Quantitative Decision Making Tools
Environmental impacts
Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) and SimaPro
Material input
Energy
Water use
Costs
Direct
Operational
Equipment
Offsets
Social Factors
Campus experience
Education
Difficulty
Social justice
3. Tools we used:
So, the groups examined the methods based on three broad categories of; environmental impacts, cost, and social impacts to the campus. The bulk of our research was spent doing these analyses because these are the most important factors that we knew that the College would want to (and should) focus on when choosing how to implement a waste diversion program on campus.
Environmental Impacts:
SimaPro for Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)
- to assess the effects that a product will have on the environment throughout its lifetime, which allows for comparing and contrasting between products.
- We considered things like water usage, materials that went into the construction, etc to see which products and processes had the largest impacts on the environment.
COST $$
We considered things like:
1) direct (facilities, transportation, tipping fees)
2) operational (transportation, labor, other)
3) equipment
4) offsets
SOCIAL FACTORS
We considered the social impacts that methods would have both on and off campus. We asked things like, how would this composting program change students’ dining experience at Wellesley? How might this program provide educational opportunities for students? How difficult will it be to implement and maintain on campus? And are there any social justice contributions to the method, such as donating food to the hungry?
1) campus experience
2) education
3) difficulty (separation, permitting and regulations, time until implementation, risk)
4) social justice
-In order to measure these, we had to create our own metrics. We did this with two different scales: low, medium, high; positive, neutral, negative.
Note that the questions we asked and the answers we found were very

13. How can we address food waste at Wellesley?
We can start by separating the ways to reduce our total food waste into two groups
Avoiding the creation of waste
Dealing with the waste we inevitably will create.
So within the structure of wellesley, we have two ways to address our food waste issue, by proposing ways to reduce the amount of waste we create in the first place, and diverting the waste we must inevitably make.

14. 12
Diversion Options

15. Traditional Methods
On Campus
Off Campus
Piles
Windrows
Tumblers

16. Mechanized Methods In-Sink Disposal Anaerobic Digestion Dehydration
Mechanized forms of composting
In-Sink Disposal
Anaerobic Digestion
Dehydration
Dehydration w/enzymes
These methods - in sink disposal, anearobic digestion, and dehydration - require the use of heavy machinery. they would be able to process 100% of wellesley’s food waste.
In Sink Disposal
disposal of food waste down the sink. typically present on college campuses; wellesley has 10 insinkerators in Wellesley’s dining halls; these are already used to divert part of Wellesley’s waste. This method requires a high energy and water input.
the pulverized food waste ends up at a wastewater treatment plant. in the case of wellesley, it is going to Deer Island. There an anaerobic digester processes the waste.
Anaerobic Digestion
Anaerobic digesters process organic waste without oxygen; in the digestion chamber, microorganisms break down organic waste through a biochemical process. The end result is biogas, which can be converted to natural gas, and digestate, which is a mixture of fertilizer and waste water.
Anaerobic digestion (off campus)
Off campus anaerobic digestion would divert all food waste to Jordan Dairy Farms. The farm would mix food waste in with waste from livestock in a 10,000 digester tank.
Anaerobic Digestion (on campus)
On campus anaerobic digestion would mean building a 2,5000 gallon anaerobic digester next to the power plant. The campus would offset some of its costs by using the generated biogas as electricity.
Organic waste is diluted before it is placed into the digester to facilitate the process. at the end of the process, in order to separate the fertilizer from the water, the digestate must be dehydrated.
Dehydration (traditional and with enzymes)
In dehydration, a dehydration unit separates water from waste. This waste can then be used as fertilizer.
Dehydration can be done traditionally - where food waste is pulped and then then put through a dehydrator.
It can also be done with enzymes; rather than being pulverized, the food waste is placed is broken down by enzyme-enhanced microorganisms.
The process is very quick - it takes roughly 3.5 hours for processing.
On campus dehydration would be implemented by placing a dehydration unit in each kitchen.

17. Other Forms of Waste Diversion
Donating to People
Donating to Pigs
Vermicomposting

18. Cost Environmental Impacts Social Factors
Methods Analysis
Cost
Environmental Impacts
Social Factors
Slide 1 - Methods Conclusions (Elli, Carly, Ben)
- Across all methods, we compared our cost, environmental impact, and social impact analyses in order to evaluate which are the best options from each perspective, and then which are the best if we consider all three impact categories. We’ll be displaying these results in the form of graphs.

19. Cost per Metric Ton of Waste Diverted
Slide 2 - Methods Conclusions (Elli, Carly, Ben)
Graph shows the cost per metric ton.
Likely the first thing you notice are the large red bars indicating that vermicomposting (if implemented using bins to process 1 metric ton per day) and anaerobic digesters on campus are the most expensive – making them unrealistic for the campus.
Anaerobic off, windrows off, tumblers off, and piles are our best options, all at about $100 per metric ton. At around $130 to $170 we have dehydrators with enzymes, tumblers on campus, and donation to pigs. More expensive but still feasible are traditional dehydrators, donation to people, and in sink disposal, at $300 to $500 per metric ton.

20. Environmental Impacts per Metric Ton
Slide 3 - Methods Conclusions (Elli, Carly, Ben)
We looked at environmental impacts in terms of climate change, human health impacts measured in carcinogens, and ecosystem toxicity.
Our LCA software gives climate change potential in kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent produced. Donation to people and donation to pigs have a large beneficial impact on climate change, because these methods offset production of food and pig feed. Most of the methods have a fairly negligible impact. Both types of dehydrators, and to a lesser extent in sink disposal, have higher impacts primarily because of their electricity usage.
You’ll notice we have a second set of units on the vertical axis. In addition to kg CO2 eq., we have created a system of “environmental impact points.” This involves dividing the climate change impact of each method by the total impact produced in the U.S. in one year, then multiplying by a really big number so that the resulting units are comprehensible. This method, known as normalizing, allows us to combine the scores for climate change, human health and ecosystem health into one aggregate score.
- Looked at raw data from the LCA analysis
- Explain the point system
- Compared the values from our LCA to the national emissions numbers, in order to determine

21. Environmental Impact Comparison
Total Environmental Impact Score
Environmental Impact Comparison
Slide 4 - Methods Conclusions (Elli, Carly, Ben)
This graph shows the results of that combination. It is a log scale, so donation to people and donation to pigs have about 6-8x the negative impact of the next highest-impact method. For donation to people, this is a result of the disposable aluminum pans used to take the food from the college to the shelter; for donation to pigs, it is because the food waste must be boiled to kill any pathogens in meat and dairy products.
On the other end, anaerobic digestion off campus has a net beneficial environmental impact, primarily because of the offsets of fertilizer and conventional electricity production. Vermicomposting, windrows off campus, tumblers off campus, and tumblers on campus all have negligible total environmental impacts.

22. Social Factors Comparison
Ranked Social Factors Score
Social Factors Comparison
Slide 6 - Methods Conclusions (Elli, Carly, Ben)
The social factors category is comprised of several variables that are subjective and unique to Wellesley, such as difficulty of implementing on our campus, weighted with a social justice score. As donation to people is the only method with significant social justice benefits for the surrounding community, it receives the highest rating here. Windrows off campus, tumblers off campus, and in sink disposal receive the next highest ratings.
-----
- Assigned point system to aggregate and then compare the scores within each category and sub-category.
- Considered social justice as a separate category, and thus this category gets a score that’s a sum of all the previous factors and sub-factors.
- Which has the best combination of social factors? (top 3, bottom 3)
- Best: Donations to People, Windrows off-campus, Tumblers off-campus
- Worst: Traditional Dehydrator, Biogreen360, Dehydrator, and Anerobic Digester on-campus

23. Overall Score Based on Ranking
Total Impact of Each Method
Overall Score Based on Ranking
Slide 7 - Methods Conclusions (Elli, Carly, Ben)
We use two representations to show the combined environmental, cost, and social factors. Our first is based on rankings, with the best in each category receiving a score of 1 and the rankings added up. Windrows off campus, tumblers off campus, and anaerobic digesters off campus receive the best overall scores.
But we also wanted to display the results in a way that took into account the magnitude, not just the rank, of each score.

24. Environmental, Economic, and Social
Total Impact
Environmental, Economic, and Social
Overall Comparison
Slide Methods Conclusions (Elli, Carly, Ben)
I’ll explain this graph layout before displaying the results. On the y axis we have cost per metric ton, on a log scale. On the x axis we have the normalized environmental impact points, also on a log scale. So our ideal methods will appear in this area (gesture towards lower left of graph), and will have a green dot indicating a high social factors score.

25. Environmental, Economic, and Social
Total Impact
Environmental, Economic, and Social
Overall Comparison
Slide Methods Conclusions (Elli, Carly, Ben)
Tumblers off campus and windrows do well in all 3 categories, with tumblers on campus not far behind. Anaerobic digester off campus is the option with the lowest cost, at $85 per metric ton, and the lowest environmental impact. It has a somewhat lower social factors score than the other methods, though, primarily because it provides no educational opportunities for students on campus, and because the acceptable rate of contamination is much lower than most of the other options.

26. Environmental, Economic, and Social
Total Impact
Environmental, Economic, and Social
Overall Comparison
Slide Methods Conclusions (Elli, Carly, Ben)
Finally, here are the rest of the methods, which we don’t necessarily want to discount. Although vermicomposting (point to dot) has a high cost, and donation to people (point to dot) has a high environmental impact and relatively high cost, we still want to include them at a small scale in our waste management portfolio. Maia will expand on how these methods fit in to our vision.

27. Conclusions

28. Diversion Scenarios for Wellesley Quick and Cheap
Windrows
Tumblers
Anaerobic Digestion
Slide 3, Final Conclusions (Maia, Ellen, GG)
1. Quick and cheap
- off campus aerobic ($85)(enviro: .03) , off windrowing($92.66)(enviro:.03) , off tumbling ($117)(enviro: .03)
- super cheap, minimal environmental impact, quick to implement

29. Diversion Scenarios for Wellesley Innovative and Responsible
Donation to People
Vermicomposting (small scale)
Down the road…
Slide 3, Final Conclusions (Maia, Ellen, GG)
2. Innovative and Socially Responsible
tumbling on campus (good for $$ ($173.55) (low enviro impact (.03)
donation to people (not good $$) (enviro: -1194) ($353.82)
- education
-+social impact
little longer to implement but cheap (tumbling)
Vermicomposting is $$, but educational and very low maintenance on small scales (Scoop, sustainability hallway, individual rooms)
Tumblers
Anaerobic Digestion

30. Remaining Questions
Questions for the DEP too… take out persuasions for wellesley admin. Generalize questions
Slide 4, Final Conclusions (Maia, Ellen, GG)
ELSA AND ELLEN: If you think that better pics would be more representative please feel free to change them! ALSO this is intended to be a flash slideshow as we mention different things in our talking points. These are just visual aids.
Remaining questions
How will students react?
How much food waste will we ACTUALLY divert?
remember the data from the pilot studies?
How much will we contaminate on a random basis, even with this method in place?
How much money is Wellesley willing to spend?
Will Wellesley be a model institution for successful organic waste management?
Photo credits:
- Cornell bear pic
- Food waste pic
- blue garbage bag
- money
- wellesley crest:

31. Take Home Points for Wellesley
Opportunity for a paradigm shift, innovation, and leadership.
Wellesley College can choose from many feasible options.
Organic waste diversion
must be institutionalized.
Slide 5, Final Conclusions (Maia, Ellen, GG)
waste law = paradigm shift and opportunity for innovation/leadership
we need to compost in some way before its a trend that’s gaining momentum throughout the country and the world and this is a great opportunity for Wellesley to show leadership and innovation
identify goals and priorities for this whole composting thing:
Wellesley has lots of options...
Our analysis is comprehensive and shows that there is no silver bullet.
We think there are really great options for composting and that ultimately a combination of methods might best suit Wellesley’s unique institutional needs
Our analysis is comprehensive, identifies a majority of options for organic waste diversion and provides the analytical work for the college to make next steps
weve done this first step- weve done the analytical work to prepare the college for this and have thought through the steps and identified which methods will be a good fit
We know: it will take time, it will cost money, we will need to include students and staff
a combination of methods is highly plausible (this is a perpetual experiment in how to do it the most efficiently and effectively)
it might change over time as we try new things
But we must make some decisions now.
Must be institutionalized
there will need to be monitoring and working groups for implementation - who will hold responsibility- at all levels- student, dining hall staff, fac, admin. preferably working together and making collective decisions
institutionalize composting!!! make it like every other thing that happens because its just as important.
ultimately structural institutional change will be the only way to successfully implement composting and will be the responsibility of the college administration to institutionalize.
conceptual changes that need to happen: shifts in the system

32. General Take Home Points
Decisions must be institution specific.
This analysis is a useful framework but does not give all the answers.
Student driven projects have educational value and increase awareness .
This is a useful framework but it doesn’t give answers
This was wellesley-specific- other colleges should be specific to them. Partnered with administrative office of sustainability. College priorities were taken into account
Process of this being student driven. This is an educational process. Compliance creates opportunities. Increased awareness. We valued educational outcomes of our process- it was creative, we learned from each other, power in numbers. Holistic assessment. We became experts during the semester.
- useful framework, but doesn’t give you answers. Still have to think about what you value within it.
- not one best option → combination of options (across all three metrics + combinations)
- analysis was intentionally wellesley-specific; just because windrows don’t work for us doesn’t mean it won’t work for you
- Specific facilities, specific suggestions from office of sustainability
- How we valued and ranked methods/options were tailored to priorities of the college
- Cater to your college
- Not just about compliance, about education. Educational process → student driven. Generate better knowledge. Disseminate knowledge/information. Emphasize that have many people working on it → more creative and more able to check each other.
- value educational opportunities of product and process.

33. Acknowledgments Professor Elizabeth DeSombre
Pete Grillo (Biogreen 360 Representative)
Professor Monica Higgins
Heather Billings (Center for Ecotechnology)
Patrick Willoughby
Geoff Kuter (Agresource Inc.)
Environmental Studies Program
Mark Roche (Wellesley College Club, General Manager)
John Fischer, Mass DEP
Jeff Labrie (AVI General Manager, Wang Center)
Emma McCarthy (Lovin' Spoonfuls Operations Manager)
Cherie Tyger (AVI Director of Operations)
Paul Starrett (Starrets Farm, Owner)
Tim Gould (Agresource, Inc)
Casella Organics
Bill Hanley (Biogreen 360 Vice President)
CP Trucking

34. Thank You
Choose another pic

35. Additional Information Slides

36. Social Factors Social Factor Score
Slide 5 - Methods Conclusions (Elli, Carly, Ben)
- Worst: Anerobic digester on campus = high for permitting/regulations, time until implementation, and risk.
- Best: Windrows off-campus = low need for separation, permitting/regulations, time until implementation, and risk; only medium for detriment to campus experience, and lack of education.

37. Waste Reduction Strategies
1 Modify the Meal Plan
2 Change display and/or serving
3 Food Waste Tracking
4 Education and awareness
5 Redistribution of excess food to students
6 Reduce waste from big events

38. Social Impact of the Reduction Options

39. Reduction Scenarios for Wellesley
Education
Behavioral Change
Creation of Identity
Food Waste Reduction
Monitoring
Slide 2 (1 minutes)
feasible waste reduction options
Easy and Quick:
Difficult and Slow:
Photo cred:

40. Social Factors Social Factor Score
Donation to People
Donation to Pigs
Piles (Off Campus)
Windrows (Off Campus)
Tumblers (On Campus)
Tumblers (Off Campus)
Anaerobic Digester (On Campus)
Anaerobic Digester (Off Campus)
Traditional Dehydrator
Biogreen360 Dehydrator
Vermicomposting
In-Sink Disposal
DETRIMENT TO CAMPUS EXPERIENCE
Medium
Low
LACK OF EDUCATION
High
DIFFICULTY
Separation
Permitting and Regulations
Time Until Implementation
Risk
Slide 5 - Methods Conclusions (Elli, Carly, Ben)
- Worst: Anerobic digester on campus = high for permitting/regulations, time until implementation, and risk.
- Best: Windrows off-campus = low need for separation, permitting/regulations, time until implementation, and risk; only medium for detriment to campus experience, and lack of education.