1 / 20

Food and Dining Composting at Clark University

Food and Dining Composting at Clark University. Dave Schmidt NACUBO April 1 st 2008. Why Compost?. Close the loop Divert waste from landfills Reduce emissions. Genesis. Student group project, spring 2006 Focused on waste from Clark Dining Services

remedy
Download Presentation

Food and Dining Composting at Clark University

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Food and Dining Composting at Clark University Dave Schmidt NACUBO April 1st 2008

  2. Why Compost? • Close the loop • Divert waste from landfills • Reduce emissions

  3. Genesis • Student group project, spring 2006 • Focused on waste from Clark Dining Services • Proposed the installation of Earth Tubs • Taken up by the Sustainability Task Force in fall 2007 • Committee formed to conduct analysis

  4. Annual Baseline Scenario • 35 Yard roll-off compactor • $150 / month for service charge = $1800 • $115 per lift, once a week = $5980 • $77 per ton = $18,249 (237 tons / year)

  5. Earth Tub Scenario • Purchase 3 Earth Tubs = $30,000 total • Material can be cured and stored at arboretum, used on grounds • Students estimated 57 tons diverted ~ savings of $4,400 / year • Reduce pickup schedule to once every 2 weeks ~ savings of $3,000 / year • Roughly 4 year payback

  6. Earth Tubs - Bowdoin

  7. Earth Tubs – Harraseeket Inn

  8. Fatal Flaws • Insufficient space on loading dock • Odor issues and proximity to Admissions

  9. We Care Scenario • Tip at We Care Composting Facility • Increase materials that can be composted • Use existing waste hauler’s service and container • Divert trash to a nearby compactor • Increased hauling costs ~ $200 per lift • Decreased per ton fee to ~ $60 • No significant net cost increase

  10. Planning • Summer 2007 • Scope – one building • Committee of building occupants, dining service managers, and Physical Plant staff • Developed plans for infrastructure, cost handling, and procurement

  11. Implementing • New bins • Purchase compostable cutlery and service ware • Divert trash from other buildings • Design educational campaign targeting • Dining Services staff • Building users

  12. Operations - Collections Collect materials from: • Food preparation • Post consumer waste • Containers within the building

  13. Operations – Modular Bins

  14. Operations - Collection

  15. Operations - Education

  16. Operations - Education

  17. Operations – We Care • Handle all organic and biodegradable material, including waxed and soiled OCC • Auger extracts plastic bags • Prohibit “sharps” – anything that can puncture the skin of a worker • Type 1 compost – permitted for unlimited distribution

  18. Data • Online at the end of August • As of February 1st, 145 tons collected • Clark delivers a premium mix, only 5% is trash • Composting program has offset 44% of total daily trash

  19. Emissions • Clean Air Cool Planet Carbon Calculator • Daily waste handled in Mass Burn Facility • 137 tons of trash generates (15) MT CO2e • Mass Burn less CO2 intensive than grid • 137 tons of compost generates (25) MT CO2 e • Clark’s approach: consistent with WRI

  20. Take Away Points • Onsite = potential savings • Reduced pickup schedule and tipping fees • Offsite = no net costs or added labor • Lower fee / ton balances higher lift fee • Opportunity in a change in dining service • Form committee of stakeholders early • Substantiallydivert waste stream

More Related