DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATEMENT Composting on Campus Report Prepared By: Bowling Green State University Environmental Studies 4020: Environmental Impact Statements Instructor: Marco Nardone Team Members: Lin-z Tello Ngan Nguyen Rachel Woods Magdeline Simonis Taylor White Ted Petryszyn Project Coordinator: Alyssa Piccolomini April 2013
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATEMENT
Composting on Campus Report Prepared By: Bowling Green State University
Environmental Studies 4020: Environmental Impact Statements Instructor: Marco Nardone
Team Members:
Lin-z Tello
Ngan Nguyen
Rachel Woods
Magdeline Simonis
Taylor White
Ted Petryszyn
Project Coordinator:
Alyssa Piccolomini
April 2013
Table of Contents Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... 4
2.1 No Action ............................................................................................................................................ 22
3.2.2.4 Atmosphere and Air Quality ................................................................................................................ 39
3.2.2.5 Land Qualities ............................................................................................................................................ 39
3.2.3.4 Cultural Factors ........................................................................................................................................ 42
3.2.4.2 Land, plants, and animals ..................................................................................................................... 43
3.2.4.3 Cultural factors ......................................................................................................................................... 44
3.2.4.4 Water and air quality.............................................................................................................................. 44
4.5 No Action ............................................................................................................................................ 50
A. Class II Composting Facility Requirements .......................................................................... 52
B. Composting Facility Registration Form Class II / Class III ..................................................... 60
C. Application Form ............................................................................................................... 64
D. Windrow Leopold Matrix ................................................................................................... 73
E. In-vessel Leopold Matrix.................................................................................................... 74
F. Orca Leopold Matrix .......................................................................................................... 75
G. Shipping Leopold Matrix .................................................................................................... 76
H. Adkins-Burke Checklist ...................................................................................................... 77
Works Cited ................................................................................................................................................ 79
Executive Summary
The Environmental Studies 4020 Course (Environmental Impact Statements) was asked
to research a potential project for the campus of Bowling Green State University. The focus of
this project was to create a composting proposition that could potentially help the University
move towards meeting its goal of becoming carbon-neutral (as stated by the President’s Climate
Commitment (PCC) that President Mazey signed in 2012).
With this guidance, our group decided upon four different alternatives for implementing
composting on campus: Windrow, Orca, In-vessel, shipping, and the no-action alternative. The
environmental impacts of the alternatives were found using an adapted Leopold Matrix.
To compare the alternatives, an adapted Adkins-Burke Checklist was created and
evaluated the alternatives based on the success in meeting the objective of the project, cost,
environmental impacts, safety, and community factors. Based on this comparison, alternative
four, the shipping alternative, would be the best short-term solution; and alternative three, In-
vessel, would be the best long-term solution to the problem. Alternative four has almost no legal
influences and it costs almost nothing for the University to adopt. Alternative three is most
costly, but it has a tremendous amount of positive effects on the community.
Therefore, we recommend the implementation of alternative four or alternative three
depending on the amount of funding that the University would be able to obtain to complete the
project.
4
Project Description
Since President Mazey signed the PCC in 2012, the Environmental Studies Department,
and various organizations at Bowling Green State University’s campus, have been looking for
ways to help the University move towards being carbon-neutral in the future. Because of this,
our group, along with Dr. Nick Hennessey of the Sustainability Department, and various
managers of Dining Services have introduced the possibility of implementing a composting
facility on campus. The cost of this project can be extremely high, but it can also offer the
University an array of benefits ranging from “green” awards to educational value. Because the
cost of composting machinery can be so expensive, our group, along with Dr. Hennessey, looked
into the possible alternative of having a company pick-up the Oak’s organic waste and shipping
it to their composting facility in Westerville, Ohio. If this were to be the alternative selected, the
University would lose out on a wider variety of educational demonstrations, materials produced
from the organic waste, and positive recognition. This document contains the various findings of
the different project alternatives along with specific information about the alternatives in regards
to cost, logistics, maintenance, and benefits compared to the challenges.
5
1.0 Environmental Setting
The environmental setting for this project varies according to site location. Potential sites
that have been analyzed for composting facilities include:
• An on-site location within The Oaks Dining Hall
• An off-site location that would be located next to the Campus Operations
building, on an area of land that is currently vacant (see Figure 1 below).
As The Oaks Dining Hall is a pre-existing building, we did not analyze the hydrology,
geology, flora/fauna, climate/precipitation, or history of the site. Instead, the building itself will
be described by analyzing its history, current green projects, and waste dynamics (focusing on
pre-consumer and post-consumer waste).
All dining and catering that is handled on campus is owned and operated by Chatwell’s,
Inc. Chartwell’s service is targeted towards schools K-12th grade, higher education (colleges),
and corporations. Their goal is to inform the consumer about healthier choices of foods and
provide these foods in a way that is inexpensive but also healthy for the consumer. In colleges
and elementary schools, there are programs set in place to help educate the kids and instructors
on a better diet. The major program is called, Eat.Learn.Live. This is geared towards providing
student with healthier foods, reaching out to them to ensure that they understand why eating
healthy is essential, and analyzing case studies to understand university trends in food
consumption. Along with providing food, Chartwell’s also provides service to the community
by incorporating their own staff into dining facilities to help monitor the way food is prepared
and served.
For the off-site location, several environmental aspects were analyzed in order to
establish an environmental baseline standard. The geology, hydrology, flora, fauna,
climate/precipitation, history, and site location/proximity to other buildings on campus were
analyzed in detail in order to identify the current conditions of the location. Furthermore, as the
site in question was once utilized as a landfill, research was conducted in order to identify any
concerns that might arise when constructing buildings/facilities on relict landfill sites.
6
Figure 1. Map of Bowling Green State University’s campus
http://www.bgsu.edu/images/bgsu/img23940t.jpg
1.1 the Oaks Dining Hall
The Oaks Dining Hall is a campus-wide dining facility that is located at approximately
41*22’42.56”N 83*38’31.26”W; on the corner of Pike Street and Thurstin Avenue in Bowling
Green, Ohio. The Oaks was built at the site of Macdonald dorms; Macdonald West was torn
down to make space for The Oaks dining center. There are approximately 18,000 students on
Bowling Green State University’s main campus and about 2,000 of those students visit The Oaks
on a daily basis (Bowling Green State University, 2013). The Oaks was constructed in 2010-
2011 and was opened in the fall of 2011. It is LEED Certified and can seat up to 700 guests at a
time.
Proposed composting site
The Oaks
7
Figure 2. Digital image of BGSU’s campus from 1943.
The four alternatives all have very high, negative impacts for the fauna at the site. In
general, all the alternatives will take away parts of surface land. In the Leopold matrix we
ranked fauna in the high negatives (-8,-9) with a significance ranging from (4-10). The windrow
material will take up an area of about 5,600 ft. So some important habitats for local species as
well as other animals, including micro-fauna would be negatively affected. Adding the windrow
compost will also attract different fauna such as raccoons, possums and coyotes. The waste
emplacement and emplacement of tailings, spoils and overburdens for fauna were also ranked
very negatively containing fauna. If the windrow piles cannot contain all the excess waste, it
would negatively affect the surrounding fauna. For example, animals would not have as much
space to run, and there would be less open land for birds to land on.
3.2.2.3 Earth Characteristics
The earth characteristics contain three sections. Construction materials, soils and
landforms are all a concern. Impacting soil in any environment can cause a significant impact.
Soil is important for the health of the flora and fauna in any wilderness area. A change in the soil
of our location could have impact on habitats, ground cover, roads and trails, emplacement of
tailings, spoils and overburden. Due to this soil has been assigned a high significance compared
to other environmental factors. The use of the windrow compost will also have a slight negative
effect due to roads and trails. In order for the windrow turner and bulldozer to reach the windrow
compost there will need to be a road created for them to drive up. This would affect the earth
characteristic because it would create a non-pervious road.
38
3.2.2.4 Atmosphere and Air Quality
Since the Windrow piles are to be placed on a landfill site, the release of methane into the
atmosphere from the landfill will be inevitable. Also if Windrow is the chosen alternative the use
of Windrow turners will release exhaust emissions into the atmosphere. Unless the compost
turner machines run off a clean burning fuel or an alternative energy source, diesel combustion
emissions will be released. Also the use of large dump trucks to pick up and or move the
compost will release pollutants into the atmosphere from their exhaust. The release of such
pollutants negatively will affect the surrounding habitat and environment.
3.2.2.5 Land Qualities
With the addition of window compost piles, there will be some effects on the surrounding
land qualities. Currently the proposed site is completely bare and resembles a flat field. The
addition of three Windrow compost piles, Windrow turner machines and the surrounding fences
will add an industrial image to the land site. In order for the Windrow alternative to be put into
effect some wilderness qualities on the land site will have to be negatively affected. For example
the public would much rather want to see an open field than a fenced in area with three piles of
compost.
3.2.2.6 Impact Summary
In order to assess the impact of the Windrow alternative, a Leopold matrix was created
(found in appendix). Found below are the four categories in which we separated the impacts
from a value of high significance to low significance.
The high negative impacts that deal with Windrow are:
• Habitat displacement • Pest attraction • Predator attraction • Poor air quality due to turning machine exhaust • Attraction of insects • Operational Accidents
39
The medium negative impacts that are a result from Windrow are:
• Odors and emissions from waste • Open field loss • Negative image • Weeds
The low negative impacts that are a result from Windrow are:
• Non-previous access roads • Possibility of leaching to surface or groundwater • Local flora removed • Additional infrastructure built
The positive impacts that are result from Windrow are:
• Use less landfill space • Positive image for Bowling Green State University • Ability to take on more compost at once • Recycle nutrients back to the earth • Increase soil productivity
3.2.3 Orca
3.2.3.1 Description
Orca (Organic Refuse Conversion Alternative) is an alternative to conventional
composting facilities. Orca is a bioreactor system that reduces organic waste to water within 24
hours. The organic materials are broken down by environmentally friendly microorganisms in
an aerobic environment ("Orca," 2010). With the current waste production from The Oaks
Dining Center of over nine hundred pounds per day, the Orca would be a qualified candidate for
this type of large scale waste production.
The ORCA Green waste disposal system works using “bio-chips” which house the micro-
organisms used to break down the organic waste. The “bio-chips” are similar in appearance to
charcoal, but degrade much slower than food-waste, so they house the microorganisms between
uses. The machine operates on a fully-automated schedule, and remains on at all times. The
machine mists water regularly onto the material, and then agitates the mixture for a brief period.
After the mixture has been agitated, the machine allows it to sit and the microorganisms
40
decompose the material. The waste inside is fully reduced within 24 hours. The machine can
decompose vegetables, fish by-products (including the meat and bones), meat (poultry, beef,
etc.), rice, noodles, bread, and fruit. The machine is silent and odor-free because the food is not
allowed to sit and develop an odor. The resulting compost water may be used for irrigation,
compost tea, or non-potable plumbing ("Orca food waste," n.d.).
After completing and analyzing a Leopold matrix for this alternative, our team identified
the following impacts.
3.2.3.2 Physical Chemical Characteristics
The Orca system impacts the physical and chemical characteristics on a very small scale,
this is because the Orca system is not located on the selected landfill site it is actually located
inside the Oaks Dining hall adjacent to the other waste disposal facilities in the dining hall. The
orca system will require pipelines connected to the current drainage system or to a separate
drainage system, which could require some underground construction. This will require some
construction but very minimal, which results in low magnitudes and significance values for
construction materials and soil. The Orca system emits a very small amount of carbon dioxide
gas which would require the Orca to be in a well-ventilated area. The gas emissions will also add
to the greenhouse gas emissions, this is why it is ranked very high.
3.2.3.3 Biological Conditions
When concerned with the impacts that the Orca system could have on biological factors,
our team found that insects were of most concern. Due to the location of the Orca, there is
minimal chance of this impacting the flora and fauna in any noticeable way. Since Orca is an
enclosed system inside of a building there is little chance of this attracting any wildlife.
Unfortunately when the Orca system is processing the waste, it can only contain a finite amount
of waste until the process is finished. It is likely that any pre-consumer and post-consumer waste
that is awaiting processing will require a storage bin that could possibly attract insects in the
building. This obviously would have a negative impact and would require some mitigation to
prevent this issue.
41
3.2.3.4 Cultural Factors
Our team found that installing Orca would have a mild negative impact on cultural
patterns and lifestyle, since workers within the Oaks dining facility would have to undergo new
training procedures in order to learn how to sort out compostable items to place into the new
Orca compactor. Also, health and safety would be negatively impacted to a degree, in the case
of an operational failure or if the machine was placed over capacity, as workers may come in
contact with effluent or waste if the machine broke down or exceeded its capacity. Furthermore,
we found that structures and utility networks would encounter somewhat of a negative impact if
the Orca processor were to break or if the machine went over capacity, as waste may leak into
the surrounding habitat.
3.2.3.5 Ecological relationships
In the case of operational failure, our team found that eutrophication could possibly
occur, resulting in a negative impact. However, this impact would have little significance due to
the relatively small size and capacity of the Orca processor. Finally, operational failure or over-
filling the machine could increase the number of disease and insect vectors in the vicinity (as the
waste would serve as a potential habitat for disease/insect vectors), resulting in a mild negative
impact.
3.2.3.6 Impact Summary
Our team found that the Orca alternative would have the potential to cause a few
significant impacts. We found that severe consequences of installing Orca could occur in the
case of:
• Operational failure • Emplacement of tailings, spoils, and overburden
These were found to be the most significant impacts because Orca has a finite storage
capacity, and if the machine was not able to process waste or if too much waste was placed into
the processor, several negative outcomes could occur.
A few minor negative impacts associated with the Orca alternative include:
42
• Creation of pipelines for drainage, which may disrupt the local environment • A small amount of carbon dioxide emissions • Potential to increase number of insects/pests near the Orca processor • Crew members at The Oaks would need to learn new procedures associated with the
installation and use of the machine
Despite Orca’s expensive price, compared to the “No Action” approach, there a many
benefits that in comparison make the price appear minuscule. The water produced by Orca could
be used:
• For landscaping practices • To create a Grey-water system for plumbing in building at the University • To create a revenue for the campus buy selling the water for multipurpose
Overall, with the vast amount of benefits that would ideally pay for the initial cost of
Orca system and to run the system. Orca would save the University thousands of dollars every
year, which the University would normally use for potable water, on plumbing and landscaping.
The benefits from using Orca would outweigh the minor negative effect from running the
system.
3.2.4 In-vessel
3.2.4.1 Description
In-vessel composting is a process in which all materials are kept in a container to produce
compost in certain conditions of moisture, oxygen concentration, airflow, and temperature (up to
70 degrees). There are two types of In-vessel composting: aerobic, which includes the presence
of oxygen; and anaerobic, in which oxygen is absent (Aslam, 2007). Depending on the size of
the vessel, the system can treat anywhere between 365 tons and 20,000 tons of organic waste per
year. The result is a mixture of organic matter, water, and microorganisms (“Technology Fact
Sheet,” 2012).
3.2.4.2. Land, plants, and animals
The presence of the vessel on the site may disturb the land; the construction materials and
the topsoil will be altered. Though only in a small scale, the construction will also take away
some habitat of plants, birds, land animals and insects. On the other hand, it may increase their
populations at the same times since they are attracted to the composting materials.
43
3.2.4.3. Cultural factors
The utility network will need to be applied in the area due to the huge amount of energy
required to run the system. Transportation network and other structures may also need to be
expanded. There may be some noise from the construction when the system is being installed,
but not significant since there is no residential community around the site.
3.2.4.4. Water and air quality
If roads and trails are to be built for transportation, dust will be released, causing air and
water quality problems. Compared to other types of composting methods, In-vessel releases a
very low amount greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, nitrous oxide and especially
methane. However, the most important impact the system can have is the leaking of odor,
methane and carbon dioxide from inside the vessel, in case of operation failure. This can
significantly increase the amount of insects and microorganisms that are attracted to the
composting materials. Eventually this may lead to health and safety issue for people.
3.2.4.5. Impact Summary
The positive impacts of the project will be the increase of employment that needed to
work on the project, such as on transportation an especially on installation and maintenance.
Also, the land will actually be useful instead of its current conditions which is just a piece of
unused land. A composting system on campus can be a great opportunity to educate students and
give them a closer look at composting technology and green initiatives. Overall, the negative
impacts of In-vessel composting system on the environment are not too significant and can be
reduced once the project is well managed. The main actions that can have impacts on the
environment are:
• Modification of the land surface when the system is set up • Roads and rails for transportation • Energy required to run the system • Waste treatment • Operation failure
The high negative impacts are:
• Construction material, soil and landform
44
• Birds, land animals, insects, and microorganisms • Health and safety issues • Compaction and settling processes
The medium negative impacts are:
• Air quality • Precipitation process • Utility network
The low negative impacts are:
• Wilderness and open-space quality • Trees and grass • Water quality • Transportation network • Cultural patterns
Positive impacts are:
• Employment • Education • Land use
3.2.5. Shipping
3.2.5.1 Description
The company that will be collecting and processing all organic waste is Viridiun, LLC.
In collaboration with Ohio Mulch, Viridiun operates a completely chemical-free, turnkey process
all of which takes place in Ohio; they convert waste into tangible and marketable products –
enriched soil and nutrient-rich mulch. The company is based out of Westerville, OH; this is
where all waste will be transported to on a weekly basis. Viridiun collaborates with many
different states along with Ohio, but Ohio compost is handled in a specific way. In Ohio,
Viridiun does not make their own products out of the compost; instead, they ship it to Ohio
Mulch where they make the product: Green Envy (Abrams, 2013).
Green Envy is 100% organic compost that can be used to help enrich indoor and outdoor
plants (2). It is sold at all Ohio Mulch retailers. Ohio mulch doesn’t just sell organic mulch;
45
they also provide a variety of other substances such as: gardening tools, grass seed and straw,
mulches, seed products, and stone and pavers.
Roughly 2 tons a month will be diverted by composting 4-64 Gallon containers on a
weekly basis. These containers will be provided by Viridiun. Cost of compost program:
$140.00 per month if serviced 1x per week. Approximately 2 tons x $33.00 (Landfill tonnage
fees): $66.00 (Landfill Tonnage Fees). Hauls will be reduced and spread out as well. Every 2
months, Hauls would be reduced by 1. This will result in a savings of roughly $75.00/Mth.
$141.00 plus fuel and environment fees would be the cost to landfill. Essentially, the cost of the
compost program would be cost neutral and as the program grows and more weight is diverted,
Bowling Green will see a savings on the landfill fees.
3.2.5.2 Atmosphere and Air Quality
If the shipping alternative is chosen this means that there will be an negative effect on the
surrounding air quality. In order for the waste to be transported to a facility, it must be shipped in
large trucks. These large trucks produce lots of exhaust which releases CO2 into the atmosphere
thus negatively affecting air quality. This alternative compared to the other proposed ones will
inevitably produce more CO2 emissions because the transport trucks will constantly be shipping
the waste to Viridium in Westerville, Ohio.
3.2.5.3 Employment
The shipping alternative will have a positive effect on employment. As mentioned
previously, The Oaks does produce a lot of food waste. This alternative will support an Ohio
business and therefore, have a positive impact on employment.
3.2.5.4 Impact Summary
In order to assess the impact of the Windrow alternative, a Leopold matrix was created
(found in appendix). Found below are the four categories in which we separated the impacts
from high significance to low significance.
The negative impacts that deal with Shipping are:
46
• Methane and CO2 emissions from trucks traveling • Possibility machinery failure (trucks break down)
The positive impacts that are result from Shipping are:
• No effect to locals- No smell, no inconvenience • Costs less than Windrow and In Vessel
3.2.6 Overall Impact Summary
In general, the selected alternatives each have different impact potentials on the
surrounding area. Each alternative affects the environment in different ways. The windrow and
in-vessel alternatives both have similar impacts on the environment due to the fact that the
methods require either an open or closed pit area to store food waste which is then rotated and
turned into compost. The construction of the facility to store these alternatives has a negative
impact on the area. Also, since windrow occurs in the open, different animals may be attracted
to the area, which has a significantly negative impact on the area of the composting site. For
both windrow and in-vessel, equipment will be required to turn the compost. This equipment
will have a negative impact on the environment not only from turning up the surrounding soil,
but also in fuel emissions. Orca, on the other hand, mainly has negative impacts due to the
potential for mechanical failure or overfilling the compost processor. The shipping method’s
most significant negative impact is on the air and atmosphere due to the increased burning of
fossil fuels that is required to transfer the food waste to the composting site. Some positive
impacts are associated with these alternatives, since both the shipping alternative and in-vessel
have positive impacts due to an increase in employment. Another positive impact for all of the
composting alternatives, other than no action, is that they are able to be used for educational
purposes, and can be a point of pride for Bowling Green State University and its Green
Initiatives Programs.
47
4.0 Evaluation of Alternatives
An Adkins-Burke Rating Checklist was used to compare and evaluate the different
alternatives. This method scores impacts on a scale of -3 to +3, with +3 being the best rating and
-3 being the worst. A rating of zero is neutral. There are no exact guidelines for rating the
alternatives, but a relative explanation of the criteria is defined in the comments section of the
model. A completed copy of the Adkins-Burke model for the alternatives being evaluated can be
found in Appendix H.
Table 2. Results of the Adkins-Burke checklist for alternatives.
4.1 Windrow
Using the Adkins-Burke rating checklist we figured out that for cost the windrow
alternative would have the most negative scores out of all of the alternatives. For example, the
initial cost of purchasing material and the cost of maintenance both scored a -3 where as other
alternatives scored -1 and -2. This is because windrow has the highest price range (we do not
know the official cost of a machine for BGSU, but windrow can potentially have the highest
range). For environmental impacts like methane emission and aesthetics, windrow scored a +3.
However other factors like the overburden of compost, displacement of flora and fauna and the
construction of roads all scored -2 or -1. In the safety section, windrow scored a -2 for risk of
injury due to poor maintenance and material used because windrow uses machines to turn the
compost. Also windrow scored a -1 for students not involved with the project entering
unsupervised. Lastly, under the community factors section, windrow scored a +3 for
environmental education, material produced like organic fertilizer and compost tea and property
48
value. This is because the University will be able to use any compost tea and fertilizer than is a
bi-product of the windrow machine.
4.2 Orca
Using this system we found that Orca resulted in a positive 5 overall rating, ranking it as
the third best option for composting on campus. Orca received a negative -2 for cost range and
raw materials because the cost of Orca is quite expensive yet not as much as other alternatives
and exposed raw material could be a hazard if there are not proper storage containers available.
Orca received a -1 for maintenance hazards safety and for construction cost, this is because the
Orca installation would be costly and there is a possibility of minor hazards from installing the
system. Materials produced received a positive rating of 1 because the Orca system will produce
water and compost tea, which could be used for agriculture or will be recycled into the sewage
system. Aesthetics and environmental education received a rating of positive 2 because since it
will be out of public site it will not pollute our campus aesthetics; also it is an opportunity to
educate students on recycling programs on campus. Students will be affected by the methods
used to collect the organic food waste, which is why Orca did not receive a positive 3 like
Alternatives 1 and 3. Finally, Orca received a positive 3 in property value and methane emission
because the campus will be more environmentally friendly which will make the campus more
desirable and also decrease the methane emissions from sending our waste to a landfill.
4.3 In-Vessel
Based on the Adkins-Burke Rating Checklist, In-vessel composting system does meet the
project’s objective. Compared to the Windrow alternative, it is significantly better because it
will not be directly placed on the ground, it is a closed system (beneficial during extreme
temperatures), and it can automatically be turned. In term of cost, it seems to be the second best
choice, with total score of -4. Compared to other composting methods, In-vessel is not the most
expensive system, though the construction is costly but the materials and maintenance are
relatively less. Some negative impacts of In-vessel include damages due to overflow, impacts on
plants and animals’ habitat, impacts of construction on Lot 12, and increased amount of
49
transportation to access the construction. Significant positive impacts of In-vessel on the
environment are the positive image for the university, and the reduction of that materials go to
the landfill, which means less methane is released to the atmosphere. Overall, the In-vessel
environmental impacts score is 0. In-vessel system does require maintenance since there may be
problems with odor leaking due to improper management. There also needs to be some kind of
security during the construction and afterward when the system is working. In term of safety, In-
vessel system score is -2, and is only better than windrow. The products of In-vessel can be used
as organic fertilizer. This is also be used by the University for environmental education, and
makes BGSU a more sustainable campus.
4.4 Shipping
The Shipping Method would be the number one short-term choice, because it receives a
rating of 8 on the Adkins-Burke checklist. Compared to other composting methods, it is more
budget friendly to ship compostable waste with the company Viridiun until an on-campus
alternative could be constructed. It has very few differences from shipping the waste to the
landfill, and would be an easy transition method, with the benefits of a “green” project. The
project would stay in Ohio, which keeps employment within the state, which is another benefit;
however, it produces more carbon dioxide emissions to ship the waste farther.
4.5 No Action
We gave the No Action Alternative scores of all zeros because there is currently no
composting on campus. All sections reviewed in our Adkins-Burke were based on impacts that
could potentially happen if composting became available on campus. If composting did not
become an option, all actions for removing waste from The Oaks would remain as is.
4.6 Recommendations
After reviewing all of these alternatives, it is decided that Shipping would be the best
short-term method while In-vessel would be the best long-term method. Shipping is definitely
the most cost-effective alternative because it costs almost just as much as the University spends
50
now in sending waste to the landfill site (No Action) and the University would not need to
comply with any EPA standards. In-vessel is the second most cost-effective and is
environmentally preferred to the other alternatives because it is not directly placed on the ground
(leaching is minimized), it is a closed system (unlike Windrow), and the compost does not need
to be manually turned. Orca would be economically preferred because all organic waste would
immediately be put into the machine and this would reduce the amount of odors generated and it
would also be installed in the building. Windrow would only be beneficial if the University did
agree to put in a small composting facility and then add onto it at a later date once more dining
halls were incorporated to the program. Adding onto Windrow is the simplest alternative in
these terms.
4.7 Summary
Based on the summary of our Adkins-Burke chart located above in Figure 1, we
concluded that the Shipping Alternative would be the best choice for the University right now.
With the shipping method of composting, BGSU will not be responsible for contacting the EPA
for regulations, paying fees, the cost of building a composting facility, or hiring staff to maintain
the compost site. Shipping is by far the most cost and labor efficient alternative. Contrary to the
ratings, we also believe that the In-vessel would be the more sought after Alternative in regards
to long term goals for the University. In-vessel received a combined score of 6 in our Adkins-
Burke checklist. This alternative is much more expensive to purchase and maintain in the long-
run in comparison to the Shipping Alternative, however, we believe that the In-vessel Alternative
will benefit the school to much greater lengths in the long run and although BGSU might not be
able to afford this alternative right now, we hope it will be something that can be considered in
the near future.
51
Appendix A Class II Composting Facility Requirements 52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
Appendix B Composting Facility Registration Form Class II / Class III60
61
62
63
64
Appendix C Application Form 65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
Environmental Items
Magnitude / Significance --> M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M Sa. Construction material -2 8 -5 6 -6 3 0 0 -6 3 -2 3 0 0 0 0 -6 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 2 -27 27b. Soils 8 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 21
Magnitude / Significance --> M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M Sa. Construction material -2 8 -5 6 -6 3 0 0 -6 3 -4 3 0 0 0 0 -8 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 2 -31 28b. Soils 8 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 21
Magnitude / Significance --> M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M Sa. Construction material 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -1 1 -4 5b. Soils 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -2 1
Magnitude / Significance --> M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M S M Sa. Construction material 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0b. Soils 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Table X.X: Adkins-Burke Checklist Factor Description Alternative Comment
1 2 3 4 5 A. Success in meeting objective of project
Creating a composting option for the campus of Bowling Green State University
+3 +3 +3 +3 0 Taking the No-Action alternative will not complete the goal of the project.
B. Cost 1. Materials Initial purchasing amount of all
materials -3 -2 -1 0 0 Alternative 1 has the highest price range, Alternative 2 has the second highest and
3 has the smallest range. Alternative 4 would cost just as much as the method that is now in existence.
2. Maintenance Cost of the alternative over time -3 -1 -1 0 0 Untreated compost could result in more pests and foul odors. The fourth Alternative would not exist if maintenance was not upheld. Alternative 3 would be automatically turned.
3. Construction Labor costs, tools, etc. -2 -1 -2 0 0 Construction costs will be similar in Alternative 1 and 3. Alternative 4 will have no construction cost
C. Environmental Impacts
1. Raw Materials Overburden of compost -2 -2 -2 0 0 If the properly sized vessel is not suitable for the amount of waste produced, the vessels will overflow and cause severe damages.
2. Methane emission Reduction of the amount of materials going to the landfill.
+3 +3 +3 +3 0 Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 4 will decrease the amount of waste processed at the landfill, and therefore decrease methane production.
3. Flora and Fauna Some plants and animals could be displaced
-1 0 -1 0 0 Construction of Alternative 1 and 3 will decrease the amount of open area on campus, although, no endangered species live in the area.
4. Aesthetics Creates a positive image for Bowling Green State University
+3 +2 +3 +2 0 Alternatives 1 and 3 will be visible, as they are outside. Alternative 2 and 4 will not be directly visible.
5. Increase in motor vehicle traffic
Construction of roads to easily access compost material
-1 0 -1 -1 0 Access roads will have to be built for Alternatives 1 and 3. Alternative 4 will result in more vehicles entering the loading dock behind The Oaks.
6. Construction Aspects occurring during assembly of compost vessels
-2 -1 -2 0 0 Construction during the process could block Lot 12 on campus or cause The Oaks dining hall to become noisy.
D. Safety 1. Maintenance Hazards
Risk of injury due to poor maintenance and materials used
-2 -1 -1 -1 0 Alternative 1 requires manual turning of the compost pile. Alternative 4 could be a hazard due to driving and operative duties at Viridiun.
Appendix H Adkins-Burke Checklist 78
2
2. Unauthorized personnel
Students not involved with the project entering unsupervised
-1 0 -1 0 0 If fences and security are not put into place properly, students could enter the premises.
E. Community Factors
1. Environmental Education
Use by school and public +3 +2 +3 0 0 Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 have this opportunity. The school and public will not be directly affected by the fourth alternative.
2. Materials Produced Materials such as organic fertilizer and compost tea.
+3 +1 +3 0 0 BGSU will benefit from organic fertilizer produced by Alternatives 1 and 3 (organic fertilizer that does not have to be bought) and Alternative 2 (compost tea). Alternative 4 will also produce fertilizer and tea, but it will not be property of the university.
3. Property Value The effect of the property on fulfilling the President’s Climate Commitment.
+3 +3 +3 +2 0 Alternatives 1, 2, 3 and 4 will make BGSU a more environmentally-friendly campus.
Rating Scale: -3 to +3; -3 being the worst rating, 0 being neutral, +3 being the best rating Alternative 1: Windrow; Alternative 2: Orca; Alternative 3: In-vessel; Alternative 4: Shipping; Alternative 5: No Action
79
Works Cited
Aslam, Danielle.(Dec 19, 2007). The Science Behind In-Vessel Composting. Retrieved From :http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/lea/conference/07conf/presentations/day1/compost101/aslam.ppt Bowling Green Public Works Department. Phone interview. 27 Feb. 2013.
Bowling Green State University. (n.d.). What We Do - Capital Planning and Design. Retrieved April 2013, from Bowling Green State University: http://www.bgsu.edu/offices/architect/ Bowling Green State University. (2013). The Oaks Dining Center. Retrieved February 2013, from Campus Sustainability: http://www.bgsu.edu/offices/sustainability/page96889.html
College Guide to Campus Wide Composting (n.d.). In Project Compost. Retrieved From http://projectcompost.ucdavis.edu/sites/default/files/COLLEGE_.pdf Composting Equipment (2013). In Earth Saver. Retrieved From http://earthsaverequipment.com/Composting-Equipment CUESA. (2013).Composting: Recycling Our Food. Retrieved from: http://cuesa.org/page/composting-recycling-our-food
Evans, Steve D. (Aug 28, 2011) Advantages and Disadvantages of In Vessel Composting Versus Other Organic Waste Treatment Methods. Retrieved from http://ezinearticles.com/?Advantages-and-Disadvantages-of-In-Vessel-Composting-Versus-Other-Organic-Waste-Treatment-Methods&id=6525003
Hennessy, N. (2013). Waste Management, Inc., information on the Oaks. Interview with Randy Abrams, Viridiun. 2013 Kerkes, David J. (January 1995) Factors to Consider When Planning Landfill Construction. Retrieved from http://www.geotechconsultant.com/articles.htm Large Scale Composting (n.d.). In FAO Corporate Document Repository. Retrieved From http://www.fao.org/docrep/007/y5104e/y5104e07.htm
Last, S. (2006). Building on Landfill Sites. Retrieved February 2013, from http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Steve_Last
McLaughlin. W. (1995). Construction Over Old Landfills. Fifth Annual Northeast
Natural Gas Seminar. Retireved 2013 from http://www.scsengineers.com/Papers/Construction%20over%20Old%20Landfills.pdf
Ohio Department of Natural Resources, ODNR Division of Wildlife. Retrieved February 21, 2013, Web site: http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/tabid/4414/Default.asp
Ohio EPA. (n.d.). Composting. Retrieved April 2013, from Ohio Environmental Protection Agency: http://www.epa.ohio.gov/dmwm/Home/Composting.aspx
Ohio Nature. (2006-2013). Ohio Wildflowers List. Retrieved February 2013, from http://www.ohio-nature.com/ohio-wildflowers-list.html
Orca. (2010, August 4). Retrieved from http://www.infobarrel.com/Orca Orca food waste digester . (n.d.). Retrieved from http://burgisenviro.com/textbelow.php?category=orca Pierce, Jeffrey L. (March 2010) In Commercial Development of Closed Landfills: Case studies and Technical/Regulatory Issues. Retrieved From: http://www.scs-secure.com/Papers/6-02%20Commercial%20Development%20of%20Closed%20LF.pdf.
PlentyMag.com. (2009, April 23). Post-consumer waste. Retrieved February 26, 2013, from
Technology Fact Sheet: In Vessel Composting. Retrieved from techaction.org/Factsheets/ref15x07.pdf . 21. June, 2012. The Risks and Rewards of Reclaiming Old Landfills (2005). Boston Business Journal. Retrieved February 2013 from http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2005/04/04/focus4.html?page=all
The Weather Channel. (2013, February 25). Average Weather for Bowling Green, OH. Bowling Green , Ohio, USA: Weather Channel.
Windrow Composting (2003, October). In Job Service Pollution Prevention Opportunity Hankbook. Retrived From http://www.p2sustainabilitylibrary.mil/P2_Opportunity_Handbook/7_II_A_2.html
Wood County Auditor Office. (2013) Property data information for Parcel B07-511-190201002000.Retrieved Feb. 21, 2013 from Wood County Auditor Office.
Wood County Solid Waste Management District (WCSWMD). (2013). Landfill. Retrieved from: http://www.wcswmd.org/landfill.html