Planning for Biogas Demonstration Projects: Community-Based Organic Waste Management As Places of Closed-Loop Energy, Healing and Liberation During Covid-19

Home , Renewable natural gas

PLANNING FOR BIOGAS DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS: COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIC WASTE MANAGEMENT AS PLACES OF CLOSED-LOOP ENERGY, HEALING AND LIBERATION DURING COVID-19

Aaron Browne Sebright

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in City and Regional Planning School of Architecture Pratt Institute

February 2021

PLANNING FOR BIOGAS DEMONSTRATION PROJECTS: COMMUNITY-BASED ORGANIC WASTE MANAGEMENT AS PLACES OF CLOSED-LOOP ENERGY, HEALING AND LIBERATION DURING COVID-19

Aaron Browne Sebright

Acknowledgements

To the alumni of Pratt Institute whose theses on energy and waste management were an invaluable source of knowledge and inspiration for my own research: Riming Guo Joshua Eichen Chidozie Ekwensi Elana Bulman Laichena

To my fellow students who took the time to talk with me about their own research and experience with participatory planning and working with community-based clients: Dhanya Rajagopal Jackson Chabot Josie Matteson Emily Bachman

To the experts of community-based composting and organic recycling who gave me their time and insights on what the on-the-ground conditions are really like: Christine Datz-Romero Kathy Puffer Ceci Pineda Dior St. Hillaire Ron Gonen Michelle ‘Tok’ Oyewole Bridget Anderson

To the professors at Pratt Institute who guided my research during a tumultuous year: Jen Becker Leonel Ponce

To my husband and partner who made my entire graduate school experience possible: Jake Sebright

iii

Table of Contents Chapter 1 – Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Issue Statement ...... 1 1.2 Background Information ...... 2 1.3 Goals and Objectives ...... 4 1.4 Methodology ...... 4 1.5 Literature Review ...... 5 Chapter 2: An Overview of Community Based Organic Waste Recycling in NYC ...... 18 2.1 Background Information ...... 18 2.2 Context of DSNY and Commercial Waste Zones ...... 20 2.3 Community Based Organizations in Waste Management...... 27 2.4 Save Our Compost Coalition and the CORE Act ...... 28 2.5 Anaerobic Digestion in Present Conditions ...... 29 Chapter 3: Evaluating the Operations of BK ROT in Bushwick ...... 31 3.1 The Context of BK ROT ...... 31 3.2 Demographics of Greater Bushwick ...... 34 3.3 BK ROT Operational Analysis ...... 35 3.4 Small Scale Biodigesters ...... 40 3.5 Case Models ...... 42 Chapter 4: Recommendations and Conclusions ...... 44 4.1 Key Findings ...... 44 4.2 Recommendations ...... 45 4.2.1 Develop a Mutual Education Network ...... 45 4.2.2 Build a Participatory Framework for Community Based Growth ...... 45 4.2.3 Plan for the Construction of an Anaerobic Digester ...... 46 4.2.4 Explore Potential for Micro Hauling Within Commercial Waste Zones...... 48 4.2.5 Establish Land Use Protections and Rights for Small to Mid Scale Anaerobic Digesters .. 50 4.2.6 Fund Community Based Anerobic Digestion Construction ...... 50 4.2.7 Develop New Policy for Wastewater Treatment Plant Anaerobic Digesters ...... 51 4.3 Conclusion ...... 51 Bibliography ...... 52 Appendix ...... 55

List of Illustrations Figure 1.1 Emissions from Landfills. Figure 1.2 Emissions from Composting. Figure 1.3 Anaerobic Digester Biogas Production. Figure 2.1 NYC Emissions from Waste Management. Figure 2.2 NYC Residential Waste Profile: Composition of Residential Curbside Aggregate Discards Figure 2.3 Community Based Organic Waste Recyclers in NYC Figure 2.4 2013-2015 Residential Organics Recycling Service. Figure 2.5 Commercial Waste Zones of New York City, Figure 2.6 Food Waste Hierarchy. Figure 2.7 DSNY Organic Waste Management System Pre-2012 Figure 2.8 DSNY Organic Waste Management System 2013-2020 Figure 2.9 Existing Organic Waste Management System of New York City Figure 2.10 Community-Based Composting Diagram Figure 3.1 BK ROT Operations. Figure 3.2 BK ROT Operations. Figure 3.3 BK ROT Overview.

Figure 3.4 Race for Selected Census Tracts of Greater Bushwick. Figure 3.5 Ethnicity (Hispanic or Latinx) for Selected Census Tracts of Greater Bushwick. Figure 3.6 Map of Know Waste Lands and BK ROT in Bushwick Figure 3.7 BK ROT and DSNY Sanitation Districts Figure 3.8 BK ROT and Commercial Waste Zones Figure 3.9 BK ROT and Selected Zip Code. Figure 3.10 Organic Waste Producing Businesses in Zip Code 11221 Figure 3.11 Supermarkets in Zip Code 11221 Figure 3.12 A Very Small Biodigester by HomeBiogas and a Small biodigester by SolarCITIES. Figure 3.13 A Medium Scale 10m3 Biodigester at Fat Beet Farm. Figure 3.14 A Medium Scale 10m3 Biodigester at the Center for Bioregional Living, New York. Figure 4.1 Proposed Anaerobic Digester System Diagram. Figure 4.2 Illustration of Biodigesters on Know Waste Land’s New Lot Figure 4.3 Illustration of Biodigesters on Know Waste Land’s Original Lot Figure A.1 BK ROT and Selected Census Tracts

Chapter 1 – Introduction

1.1 Issue Statement

Waste has always been a challenge for New York City. Despite its identity as a

climate leader, NYC currently emits more than 1.8 million metric tons of carbon dioxide

(CO2) per year, which is associated with the fuels burned in collecting and transporting the waste, as well as the outgassing of CO2 and methane (CH4) that occurs in landfills (NYC

Mayor’s Office of Sustainability, 2019).

Since 2013, New York City, through its Department of Sanitation (DSNY), has made

great strides towards diverting more of its waste away from landfills and towards sustainable

recycling programs. Since 2012, New York City has been working to divert its organic

waste, refused material that is composed of food scraps, yard waste, and other organic

material that can be recycled using methods like composting, anaerobic digestion, or fed to

animals. Organic waste recycling is an important issue for cities as it comprises the heaviest

portion of municipal solid waste by weight and because it is an energy-dense resource that is

otherwise lost to landfills. (DSNY, 2020)

Community-based organizations were the first entities in the city to divert their

organic waste from landfills through recycling operations like composting. Although

individuals and community groups have been practicing small scale organic waste recycling

for decades (primarily through multi-bin composting), the City began collecting organic

waste from residences and schools in 2013 and began rolling out its own organic waste

collection program by sanitation districts. Additionally, the Bureau of Waste Prevention,

Reuse, and Recycling (a department within DSNY) has required certain commercial

businesses that produce large amounts of organic waste to arrange for the separate collection

and disposal of their organic waste using approved methods (DSNY, 2020).

However, with the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic and the associated projected loss

of tax revenue, New York City has massively scaled back its organic waste program and

reversed virtually all the progress the City has made towards meeting its Zero Waste by 2030

goal for food scraps and yard waste. On May 4th, 2020, the New York City Department of

Sanitation suspended the collection of compost at the curb, popularly known as the Brown

Bin program (DSNY, 2020). Organic waste nominally makes up 31% of NYC’s residential waste stream and represents a significant contribution to greenhouse gas emissions when it decomposes in landfills, producing CO2 and CH4 (NYC Department of Sanitation, 2017).

The program that was rolling out across all five boroughs was entirely cut, and only through the lobbying from the Save Our Compost Coalition, made up of many community-based organic waste groups in response to the suspension of DSNY organic waste collection, was

some funding returned for select drop-off sites and collection.

1.2 Background Information

In the absence of municipal organic waste recycling, the primary providers of

responsible, closed looped organic waste management in New York City have been the half-

dozen community-based organizations who utilize distributed composting systems to process

several tons of material per week. Since the beginning of the pandemic, interest in and

business for these community-based services has grown significantly, with multiple

organizations citing the suspension of DSNY organic waste collection as driving most of the

growth in 2020 (D. St. Hilaire, personal communication, October 19, 2020). While their

operations have grown modestly because of the increase in business, community-based

organic waste recyclers are still limited by several constraints, including funding for staff,

physical space, legal threats of eviction from City-owned property and balancing the speed of

growth with the depth and quality of community support (C. Datz-Romero, personal

communication, September 18, 2020).

Considering these limitations, the time-tested technology of anaerobic digestion (the

processing and treatment of organic waste in air-free environments by bacteria in machines called biodigesters) provides a promising path forward for community-based organic waste recyclers looking to increase their processing capacity in a sustainable, closed-loop, and economic fashion. While anaerobic digestion has been used to a limited extent within New

York City to process organic municipal solid waste, most notably to treat human waste at wastewater treatment plants, it has failed to demonstrate the closed-loop potential of this system and it has created a soil amendment product that is difficult to market.

Community-based biodigesters, small scale facilities that are designed and operated by local organizations in neighborhoods, present a promising opportunity to add needed capacity to existing community composting operations that Covid-19 budget cuts have left as the primary system for sustainable, circular food waste recycling in NYC. This study has evaluated community-scale energy assets as the most likely candidates to enable climate justice at the local scale. Community-ownership of energy systems, including small-scale biodigesters, may have an opportunity to take advantage of state agency programs like New

York State Energy Research and Development Authority’s (NYSERDA) REV (Reforming

Energy Vision) program. This program looks specifically at replicable community energy projects and mechanisms that are successful at meeting the goals of the Community

Leadership and Climate Protection Act (CLCPA)—New York State’s landmark climate change legislation that mandates the decarbonization of all aspects of the State’s economy.

1.3 Goals and Objectives

The goal of this study was to study the feasibility of supplementing existing community-

based organic waste recycling systems and enabling them to increase waste handling capacity

vis-a-vis a distributed biodigester pilot project and demonstrate the renewable use of closed- loop, clean biogas (a gaseous byproduct of anerobic digestion composed of CO2 and CH4) at the community level, looking at BK ROT as a case example. The approach of this study was an advocacy/participatory knowledge paradigm that is change-oriented. The research objectives were:

1. Characterize the present economic, environmental, and social and policy conditions

around existing community-based composting operations in NYC.

2. Analyze the existing and projected operational conditions of BK ROT in Bushwick.

3. Contextualize the role of biogas and its byproducts in a just and equitable waste and

energy transition for Bushwick and in NYC’s climate mandates.

4. Provide best practices for community-based organic waste recycling facilities to

utilize anaerobic digestion.

1.4 Methodology

This study used a mixed methods approach that included both quantitative analysis of the

businesses and household organic waste generation in the greater Bushwick area, as well as

qualitative grounded interviews, literature reviews, and select case studies. This study used

demographic data from the US Census, geospatial data from New York City Department of

City Planning (DCP), and data from other city agencies to characterize the existing socio- ecological conditions in the Bushwick area. This study also used a series of semi-structured interviews with representatives from community-based organic waste recyclers to characterize the existing operations of BK ROT and other Community Based Organizations

(CBO), and to the potential scale to which their operations could grow. Additional interviews were conducted with representatives from DSNY, a private venture capital firm working in closed-loop waste systems, an environmental justice advocacy group, and experts on small- scale anaerobic digestion. This study further used quantitative data provided by the community-based organizations, and waste generation estimations derived from business data from Reference USA and CalRecycle to estimate the composition of waste and materials flows happening in the Bushwick area. Additionally, geospatial analysis has been utilized to characterize and assess the current space usage currently allocated for BK Rot in their operation site, Know Waste Lands community garden, and to estimate the kind of growth that could be accommodated through the utilization of adjacent City-owned lots. This study also used a literature review of existing written material on the history and development of community-based organic waste recyclers, their guiding philosophies, and the larger context of environmental justice. Finally, this study includes a set of other models of community- based organizations utilizing anaerobic digestion for waste management, and examples of biodigester systems that would be relevant for CBOs like BK ROT to consider for their own operations.

1.5 Literature Review

In the past five years, the legal and political context around urban energy

transformation has changed significantly, from a place in which climate activism existed in

the margins to a present where City and State governments are now beginning the work of

radical change. In 2015, the entire world started a new chapter in the discussion around

climate change with the adoption of the Paris Climate Accord (Paris Agreement, 2015). This

agreement, which built off decades of work by the International Panel on Climate Change

(IPCC), held for the first time all nations to the common requirement to bring economies and

consumption habits in line with the increasing need to combat the climate crisis. The Paris

Accord was followed in New York City by Local Law 97 (Climate Mobilization Act, 2019),

holding the city accountable to lower emissions of greenhouse gases, and in New York State

by the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act, which begins the fight against

climate change with sweeping requirements and investments (CLCPA Fact Sheet, 2020).

Although the requirements of each of these agreements are broad and comprehensive, they

deal all in some way with the question of energy transitions.

An energy transition refers to the structural and procedural changes that drive the process of switching from one kind of energy source to another (What Is Energy Transition?,

2020). In the present climate crisis, an energy transition is required to switch away from

fossil fuels, unsustainable sources of energy, and any kind of energy production that

exacerbates the emissions of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, and towards clean,

renewable sources. These emissions, including carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide,

ozone, and chlorofluorocarbons, come from many kinds of energy consumption, and are

associated with more than half of the energy consumed in New York City (Lueken et al.,

2020).

These agreements and pieces of legislation build on decades of advocacy by marginalized communities across the world in their fight for environmental, social, and

economic justice. According to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),

environmental justice (EJ) is, “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people

regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, with respect to the development,

implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies”

(Environmental Justice, 2017). An environmental justice community, following this

definition, is a community that lives, works, and plays in an environment burdened by

sources of pollution. This thesis centers environmental justice in the discussion of energy

transitions not just because of the intense work that EJ communities have accomplished to

bring forward radical climate change legislation, but also because of the wider scope that

must be taken to understand the magnitude of change that must occur in society’s energy

systems. To center environmental justice in energy planning and thinking means to

acknowledge that eliminating greenhouse gases from urban energy systems is not enough for

a just transition— that we must also examine the entire lifecycles of fuels and power to

understand the true impact on the people who are exposed to their byproducts when they are

created or destroyed. A just energy transition seeks not only to eliminate greenhouse gas

emissions, but also to eliminate the use of toxic and hazardous substances from all points

along the energy production lifecycle (NY Renews Position Against Biofuels as a Renewable

Fuel for Transportation, 2019).

1.5.1 Environmental Justice Environmental Justice communities are often characterized by degraded

infrastructure, substandard services, unhealthy housing structures, and most notably severe

environmental hazards. The neighborhoods are home to low-income and racialized residents

who typically received a smaller share of city services such as open space maintenance when

compared to wealthier and white communities (Anguelovski, 2013). From Detroit to Los

Angeles, these communities have organized against long-term abandonment and neighborhood degradation by initiating their own projects that respond to their environmental conditions. Residents, community groups, and organizations in EJ communities focus on accessible green and recreational spaces, urban gardens, farmers’ markets, walkable communities, green and healthy housing, and improved waste management.

While the causes of environmental injustice are complex, they tend to originate from the lack of recognition of identity and differences between groups and individuals, with a specific lack of attention to the social context in which unjust distribution of environmental burdens take place. Environmental injustice tends to reflect the broader societal problems such as the unequal distribution of power that led to structures of domination within a society that create and reproduce environmental injustices and discriminatory practices. EJ communities have a clear relationship between environmental inequality and health, whereby contaminated air and water is related to respiratory diseases, infectious diseases, and cancer.

EJ communities are less likely to live close to parks, playgrounds, as well as having unequal access to a variety of healthy food choices available to white and richer neighborhoods

(Anguelovski, 2013).

EJ organizations have historically been on the leading edge of advocacy for economic opportunities within the green economy, affordable, and healthy housing along with improved recycling practices and spaces for gardens within housing. For EJ communities, environmentalism connects with social equity, wealth creation, sustainability, and climate mitigation. EJ communities, especially those in the global south, aim to achieve greater voice in matters of social justice, access to land, labor rights, indigenous peoples’ rights, wealth

redistribution, and opportunities for engaged participation in land use decisions

(Anguelovski, 2013).

EJ organizations play an important role in the stewardship and governance of green

and blue spaces within cities. Green and blue spaces describe urban and exurban settings

characterized by natural elements such as vegetation and water, including parks, greenways,

community gardens, tree-lined streets, rivers, and natural preserves. These spaces have

important benefits for human health, biodiversity, and climate change adaptation. EJ

organizations run programs to increase the use of green and blue spaces for marginalized

people, with a notable history of running and maintaining community garden programs in

cities (Rigolon et al., 2020).

While there is some debate around why non-government EJ organizations have risen in their care and stewardship of green and blue spaces, common causes include the neoliberal approach of public governance, while EJ organizations have sought to address environmental

justice concerns such as unequal access to healing spaces for marginalized and racialized

groups. In this context, marginalized people refer to those experiencing disadvantage such as

low-income people, people of color, women, LGBTQ people, immigrants, older adults, and

people with disabilities. Marginalized neighborhoods thus refer to places with high shares of

marginalized people, particularly low-income people, and people of color (Rigolon et al.,

2020).

The environmental justice movement in the United States originated from the unequal spatial distribution of environmental hazards, particularly hazards associated with waste

management, such as power plants, landfills, wastewater treatment plants, and waste transfer

facilities. Over the course of the past few decades, EJ movements have sought distributional

(equal distribution, quality, and maintenance of green and blue spaces), procedural (inclusive decision-making processes about green and blue spaces that incorporate the values and priorities of EJ communities), and interactional (the feeling of welcome and recognition) justice. This tripartite mission of wholistic environmental justice lends itself to how these organizations seek systemic change, how they establish their own leadership structures, and what types of growth pathways they choose to follow (Rigolon et al., 2020).

1.5.2 Youth and Participatory Planning Young people are the most frequent users of public spaces in cities, especially in informal open spaces in urban neighborhoods. Public spaces are generally planned and designed as adult spaces, where youth are subject to scrutiny and where their behaviors are policed. Youth who experience public space through routine interaction develop important social, civil, and environmental competencies and can build community around common interests. Despite the importance of public spaces in youth development and the fact that they are highly affected by planning decisions, youth are rarely consulted during urban planning processes (Dennis Jr, 2006).

“BK ROT creates space for the leadership of young people of color who

disproportionately face the consequences of environmental destruction and

yet whose visions and values are excluded from the dominant policy and

design strategies for urban sustainability. We are supporting the next

generation of environmental justice leaders who will shape our city.”

(BK ROT, 2020, Pg. 1).

Planning and development professions recognize the importance of effective participation as a necessary and critical component in successful planning outcomes.

However, young people tend to be marginalized from planning processes and limited in their ability to affect decision making. Community leaders and decision makers have a responsibility to ensure that youth are involved in community development, and equally as important, leaders and decision makers must also recognize that young people are already actively engaged in community work and their activities need to be valued and legitimized in the larger society. Youth are meaningfully redefining practices of participation through organizations that are developing critical strategies for community development work. The commitment of many young people today operationalizes key elements of deliberative participatory planning such as respectful dialogue, advocacy, critical education, and cooperative organizing (Gurstein et al., 2003).

Definitions of childhood and youth are social and cultural constructs that vary according to culture, ethnicity, gender, and class. While a person’s eighteenth, nineteenth or twenty-first birthday often signifies dramatic changes in a person’s legal rights and responsibilities, these dates are no longer concurrent with the passage of an individual to full- fledged adulthood in which political, social, and economic powers are equal to those of other adults. The Canadian Mental Health Association (CMHA) established the following definition of youth participation:

“Meaningful youth participation involves recognizing and nurturing the strengths,

interests, and abilities of young people through the provision of real opportunities for

youth to become involved in decisions that affect them at the individual and systemic

levels (1996, Pg. 1).”

Youth participation is fundamentally about the capacity of individuals to feel themselves as citizens engaged in the tasks that influence the development of a culture and a

11 society (Gurstein et al., 2003). In practice, most young people remain outside the planning process, and when they are included, they participate under conditions reflecting adult values and priorities. Youth, and particularly urban youth of color, are isolated, disempowered, and stigmatized in planning processes (Dennis Jr, 2006). Youth participation is likewise a manifestation of youth development, which seeks to help develop the internal assets within young people while simultaneously developing the external assets that are necessary for a supportive environment.

EJ organizations, like BK ROT, are notable for creating space for the leadership of young people of color who disproportionately face the consequences of environmental destruction and yet whose visions and values are excluded from the dominant policy and design strategies for urban sustainability. Using earth work as a medium, BK ROT and other community-based organic waste recyclers work to address deep climate inequities while developing community practices that further land regeneration that reciprocally heal communities (BK ROT, 2020).

1.5.3 Queer, Trans, Black, Indigenous, People of Color Liberation and Healing

BK ROT is a space that is affirming to young queer, trans, Black, Indigenous, people of color folks (QT BIPOC) in Bushwick and the surrounding communities. Queer, Trans,

Black, Indigenous, People of Color Liberation Organizations working in New York City on earth creation and organic waste recycling are notable for sharing specific views on QT

BIPOC liberation in a way that directly influences how and why they work in this space.

Queer Liberation Movement (QLM) is distinct from the mainstream gay rights movement

(GRM) in that QLM operates from a framework of justice and liberation, whereas GRM focuses on equality (Anderson-Nathe et al., 2018). QLM has historically been led by and for

queer people of color, transgender, non-binary and gender non-conforming people (TGNC),

LGBT immigrants, and/or low-income LGBT people. QLM is typically grassroots in nature, and consists of small organizations across the country, whereas GRM is composed primarily of national and state-wide LGBT organizations. QLM is focused on an intersectional agenda that includes comprehensive physical, social and economic reform rather than focusing on seeking inclusion into existing legal systems. A prominent critique of GRM is that it is successful because of how it strategically minimizes queer people’s differences from the dominant society in a way that centers the needs, agenda and representation of White,

middle-class gays and lesbian at the expense of queer and transgender people of color

(Anderson-Nathe et al., 2018).

“Zoning, housing rights, and our sense of the public realm are built

around heterosexual constructs of family, work, and community life.

Planning reproduces structures of heterosexual domination” (Michael

Frisch, 2002, Pg. 1).

Racialized and marginalized people in the United States have often been subjected to

practices that challenge their humanity and right to exist. Despite its diversity, the United

States has also been shaped by a long and entrenched history of oppression, including the

colonization of Indigenous people, enslavement of African populations, and labor-based exploitation of people from Mexico and China. In the past few decades, the field of radical healing has emerged as a reaction to the trauma and oppression experienced by marginalized people. Radical healing is grounded in health-promoting practices and transformation that integrates elements of liberation psychology, Black psychology, and intersectionality (French et al., 2020).

1.5.4 Solid Waste Management and Climate Change Common to all adopted climate change legislation, agreements, and policy is to

reduce or eliminate the release of greenhouse gases from the use of fuel and power (Boswell

et al., 2010). The goal of zero greenhouse gas emissions can yield several co-benefits, as

fossil fuels also produce numerous other hazardous waste products (NOx, PM 2.5, Ozone,

etc.). However, energy sources that are net-zero greenhouse gas emission are not

synonymous with “clean” sources of power, and in fact many proposed technologies like

industrial-scale biofuels are almost identical in terms of toxic byproducts as their

unsustainable counterparts (Clearing the Air on Ethanol, 2007), (Cole et al., 2016). These

sources of energy, like so-called renewable natural gas, are actively being considered to meet

the mandates of the CLCPA (Lueken et al., 2020).

1.5.4 Science and Technology of Organic Waste Management One of the basic problems with landfills is that they are filled with a mix of organic and inorganic materials; over time the contents will break down, releasing both methane and

carbon dioxide. These greenhouse gases are either collected or vented into the atmosphere

(US EPA, 2010).

Figure 1.1 Emissions from Landfills. Source: US EPA, 2010

Composting works by utilizing microbes to break down the organic material, through these processes releases some carbon dioxide, methane, and some toxic chemicals like ammonia (NYC Department of Sanitation, 2017).

Figure 1.2 Emissions from Composting. Source: McGuire Chemistry, n.d.

Biodigestion uses species of methane-forming anaerobic bacteria to break down organic material without oxygen, creating both rich liquid and solid effluents, as well as a byproduct known as biogas, which is comprised of equal parts carbon dioxide and methane

(House, 1978).

Figure 1.3 Anaerobic Digester Biogas Production. Source: House, 1978

There are many fuel and power technologies that have been or are currently being

developed that are both net-zero greenhouse gas emissions as well as being clean and non- toxic, such as hydrogen that is derived from biofuels (“High Hopes for Hydrogen,” 2006),

(Satyapal et al., 2007). Biogas is one kind of biofuel that is composed of methane and carbon dioxide and which is made available when food and organic waste is broken down in devices called biodigesters (Lusk et al., 1996). This resource could meet up to 5% of existing natural gas demand in a manner that produces net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and displace its use effectively in specific parts of the economy, like transportation (The Promises and Limits of

Biomethane as a Transportation Fuel, 2017).

Biogas and its refined biproduct biomethane are both being considered for deployment at industrial scales to meet CLCPA requirements, but there is evidence that simply using it to displace fracked natural gas will cause more problems than it will solve

(Biello, 2011). Because biomethane still releases particulate matter and NOx into the atmosphere it must be scrubbed before its used around humans (Clearing the Air on Ethanol,

2007). While biogas and biomethane to directly displace natural gas as a substitution for cooking and heating, a promising solution is to use it to produce hydrogen fuel that produces no emission of any kinds except water when combusted (Biogas and Fuel Cells Workshop

Summary Report, 2013).

Full decarbonization of New York City’s economy will not only require new clean and zero-emission sources of fuel and energy, but also reductions in the amount of energy consumed in all parts of the economy (Andrews et al., 2016). The CLCPA is one legal instrument that explicitly describes the empowerment of “disadvantaged communities” to decide what changes in energy infrastructure are appropriate for government funding. It also

includes the strongest in the nation requirement of an 80% reduction in 1990 levels of

greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 (CLCPA Fact Sheet, 2020).

Among these emissions are the gaseous byproducts that come from trucks that haul

waste within from places of generation to waste transfer facilities, and from the transfer

facilities to external disposal or recycling facilities. The location and emissions from the trucks associated with waste transfer facilities do disproportionate harm to public health and increase the risk of asthma and other chronic respiratory diseases. The result of these disproportionate health impacts is especially notable as a risk factor for contracting Covid-19

(NY Environmental Justice Alliance et al., 2020).

Chapter 2: An Overview of Community Based Organic Waste Recycling in NYC

2.1 Background Information

Energy recovery from urban waste has existed in New York City since 1905, when the City began a pilot project to convert solid waste into energy when they used an incineration plant to turn Brooklyn refuse into electricity that lit the Williamsburg bridge.

After being prohibited from offshore waste dumping by the Supreme Court in 1934, the City opened its first municipal scale waste-to-energy plant in Inwood, which accepted more than

750 tons of refuse each day. In 1970, the Clean Air Act was enacted and began the long

process of shutting down incinerators and diverting waste instead to landfills. In 1989, a bill

to ban incinerators was adopted by New York City, which led to the final incinerator being

closed in 1990 (Manevich, 2013).

Sustainability, 2019.

Since 1990, New York City has been disposing of most of its solid waste into

landfills, including nearly 31% of NYC’s residential waste stream which consists of organic

waste. When organic waste decomposes in landfills, it produces carbon dioxide (CO2) and methane (CH4), which are greenhouse gases that contribute to planetary warming.

Figure 2.1 NYC Emissions from Waste Management. Source: NYC Mayor’s Office of Sustainability

Since 2013, New York City and its agencies have been working to divert organic waste in both the residential and commercial sectors away from landfills and to organic waste recycling facilities such as composters and anaerobic digesters. Through the passage of Local

Law (LL) 77 of 2013 (Residential Organics Collection Pilot Program) and LL 146 of 2013

(Commercial Waste Zones), New York City has begun to systematically require more organic waste to be diverted from landfills so that more of the embodied energy of organic waste can be utilized primarily in soil amendments. Since 2013, the DSNY been collecting organic waste from residences and schools, rolling out a pilot program by sanitation districts.

Figure 2.2 NYC Residential Waste Profile: Composition of Residential Curbside Aggregate Discards. Source: DSNY, 2017. Additionally, since 2015, NYC’s Bureau of Waste Prevention, Reuse, and Recycling has required certain commercial businesses that produce large amounts of organic waste to arrange for the separate collection and disposal of their organic waste using approved methods.

Although composting has likely occurred in New York City throughout its history,

community-based organizations have been involved with organic waste recycling since at

least 1987, when the Lower East Side (LES) Ecology Center began composting on City-

owned lots in the southeast portion of Manhattan (C. Datz-Romero, personal communication,

September 18, 2020). The LES Ecology Center pioneered drop off sites in 1993 when they introduced organic waste collection at the Union Square green market.

Today, there are at least five community-based organizations engaged in organic waste recycling in New York City: LES Ecology Center, Earth Matter, Big Reuse,

GreenFeen OrganiX, and BK ROT. Earth matter began operations in 2009, and BK ROT started in 2011 (BK ROT, 2020).

Figure 2.3 Community Based Organic Waste Recyclers in NYC. Source: NYC DCP, BK ROT

2.2 Context of DSNY and Commercial Waste Zones

There are several other non-governmental organizations involved in organic waste recycling in the city, such as institutional composters, like botanical gardens, and community

gardens; however, these types of organizations typically only produce soil amendment for

their internal use. Community-based organic waste recyclers, such as BK ROT, are notable

for their mission-driven purpose of education, youth empowerment, and environmental

justice. These organizations use earth work as a key component in uplifting people, places,

and for supporting the development of the next generation of environmental justice leaders.

Prior to Covid-19, DNSY was gradually expanding its curbside organic waste

collection program to all 5 boroughs, and in 2019, all but two of the DSNY waste collection

districts in BK ROT’s service area had some form of organic waste collection.

However, organic diversion rates were highly uneven, with many neighborhoods diverting relatively small portions of their organic waste to this collection. While the service

has grown steadily since its creation on State Island in 2013, the Covid-19 pandemic related

budget cuts have reversed virtually all the progress the City has made towards meeting its

Zero Waste by 2030 goal for food scraps and yard waste.

Figure 2.4 2013-2015 Residential Organics Recycling Service. Source: DSNY, 2015.

Prior to 2012, New York City did not have a long-term organic waste collection program, and organic waste was left in the unsorted solid waste. This material was collected in trucks, transferred a waste transfer facility, and finally shipped to and disposed in mostly out-of-state landfills. In July of 2018, New York City adopted Local Law 152 (the Waste

Equity Law) that recognizes communities that have borne a disproportionate share of the city’s waste management infrastructure and provides them relief with new restrictions on existing and new waste transfer stations. The law went into effect in October of 2019 and commits the City to reduce capacity to handle waste in overburdened communities by up to

50 percent and impose restrictions on new transfer stations in these communities (DSNY,

2020).

In New York City, private businesses have their waste collected by private carting companies. Since 2015, certain businesses in NYC, particularly those with large square footages, have been required to divert their organic waste to recycling programs like composting and anaerobic digestion, via their carting service.

In 2019, NYC passed a historic commercial waste zone law that for the first time creates geographically defined markets in which carting companies will bid to provide collection services to private businesses. With the first contracts expected to be awarded in

2021, private carting companies are now looking to how they will go about offering Figure 2.5 Commercial Waste Zones of organic waste collection and disposal to follow New York City, Source: DSNY, 2020.

the new law. As businesses have access to organics recycling, they could receive collection

services by their zoned hauler, subcontractors, or microhaulers. Microhauling can be broadly

defined as the small-scale collection of materials by bikes, e-trikes (electric cargo tricycles), or low emission vehicles. In NYC, microhauling of organics serves smaller food waste generators that do not have enough volume to warrant a conventional waste truck to service them. Under the new law, microhaulers can collect up to a specific tonnage cap per year. For the kinds of community-based organics recycling organizations mentioned in this thesis, classified as zero emissions microhaulers, they can collect up to 2,600 tons/year of organic material. For operations that use vehicles, they can collect a maximum of 500 tons/year.

These organizations are effectively exempt from the zoned system, up to the capped amount, and operate as separate third-party vendors (as opposed to haulers or subcontractors). If they surpass the cap, microhaulers are required to participate as haulers of a zone or subcontract to any haulers who won bids for zones (Danberg-Ficarelli, Peperone, & Nurse, 2020). This exemption was fought for and won by the NYC Microhaulers Coalition, which includes

Common Ground Compost LLC, the Institute for Local Self Reliance’s Community

Composting Coalition, and BK ROT.

Although there are many ways organic waste can be disposed of, there is a consensus about how cities should prioritize their offerings. Source reduction and food rescue are the first preference for making sure food waste is not wasted food, and landfills, incinerators and mixed waste treatment are generally seen as wasteful and potentially harmful ways of dealing with organic waste (NYC Department of Sanitation, 2017).

This study looks particularly at the small and medium-scale, decentralized composting operations of community-based organizations, and how anaerobic digestion

could supplement their operation. During the processes of collecting and processing organic

waste, greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane, as well as co-pollutants like carbon

monoxide and sulfur dioxide are released into the environment. Another externality is the

leachate produced by the landfill., which is the combination of water, solids and toxics that

slowly drain from the landfill. This liquid must be collected and treated until monitoring indicates that no more water is draining from the landfill.

Figure 2.6 Food Waste Hierarchy. Source: Institute for Local Self Reliance, 2014.

Prior to 2012, New York City had a strictly bifurcated system with separate residential and commercial operations. While NYC collects waste for households, around 90 private carting companies collect waste from commercial businesses. The private system is largely inefficient, dangerous, and unjust (Danberg-Ficarelli, Peperone, & Nurse, 2020).

Trucks are driven through the night on their collection routes that span the entire city. This system leaves workers exhausted, the generation of unnecessary miles driven, and negative impacts from greenhouse gas and co-pollutant emissions. Negative social and environmental impacts from routes and practices impact all New Yorkers, in particular the most vulnerable,

24 since NYC’s waste infrastructure is concentrated in low-income communities and communities of color in the South Bronx, North Brooklyn, and Southwest Queens. After being centralized and collected by private businesses at waste transfer facilities, it is sent to be disposed of in landfills where it generates additional negative externalities.

Figure 2.7 DSNY Organic Waste Management System Pre-2012

Between 2013 and 2020, DSNY operated three separate systems for dealing with organic waste. First, most of the organic waste produced by schools and residences was not sorted and continued to flow to landfills as before. Second, GrowNYC, through the DSNY’s funding of the NYC Compost Project, collected food scrap drop offs from greenmarkets, where some of the material was sent to the wastewater treatment plant at Greenpoint, where it was mixed with sewage sludge to yield higher rates of methane production.

Although there were plans to collect this methane and sell it to National Grid to power the homes of northern Brooklyn, this system has yet to be installed and the biogas

25 produced is flared into the atmosphere. Third, in the innermost ring, DSNY collected organic waste through its brown bin program, where it was sent to Staten Island and the Bronx for large scale composting. The finished compost was then distributed to NYC parks and some community gardens, which helped to grow food for communities.

Figure 2.8 DSNY Organic Waste Management System 2013-2020

However, on May 4th, 2020, DSNY suspended its collection of compost at the curb

(popularly known as the brown bin program), with limited funding later being restored for the NYC Compost project and the GrowNYC compost collection. Once again, organic waste from residences and schools is being sent to landfills, with a limited portion being diverted by the City to meet the fertilization needs of NYC Parks.

Figure 2.9 Existing Organic Waste Management System of New York City

2.3 Community Based Organizations in Waste Management

There are at least 5 community-based organic waste recyclers in New York City.

While there are several other non-governmental organizations involved in organic waste recycling in the city such as institutional composters, botanical gardens, and community gardens, these types of organizations typically only produce solid amendment for their internal use. These organizations use earth work as a key component in uplifting people, places, and for supporting the development of the next generation of environmental justice leaders. CBO organic waste recyclers in NYC are characterized by horizontal leadership structures, the fact that they are mission driven, and that they recognize that slow growth is key to building not only a business, but the relationships and the community connections that make their operations successful.

Figure 2.10 Community-Based Composting Diagram

Concurrent to the City’s process, community-based organic waste recyclers have

continued to operate at a smaller scale. In addition to collecting organic material from

residences and institutions, they also collect from businesses via their micro-hauling service.

This material is then processed by hand and solar-powered electric machines, where it becomes compost in large windows. This material is then distributed to local residents and community gardens to grow food for neighborhoods.

2.4 Save Our Compost Coalition and the CORE Act

Community-based organic waste recyclers in New York City are already well

connected due to the events of 2020. As part of the Save Our Compost Coalition, BK ROT,

LES Ecology Center, and GreenFeen OrganiX have already collaborated on advocacy work

around the restoration of funding for compost drop off sites, the development of the proposed

CORE Act, and on the campaign to prevent NYC Parks terminating the operational leases of

the LES Ecology Center and Big Reuse from being removed from their operating locations.

This coalition, which also includes notable members such as the New York City

Environmental Justice Alliance (NYC-EJA), is an ideal starting point for a biogas-specific

mutual education network that can be fostered among existing community-based organic

waste recyclers. As part of the CORE Act, the Coalition is seeking the long-term protection

and financing of food scrap drop off sites in each borough and may provide an avenue for

funding future expansion projects.

Upon the suspension of DSNY organic waste collection, a group of community-based organizations and elected officials formed the Save Our Compost Coalition to advocate for reinstating funding for food scrap drop-off sites, as well as to put forward new legislation that would stabilize, expand and improve the city’s previous organic waste recycling operations.

The Save Our Compost Coalition is represented at the government level by City Council

Members Reynoso and Powers. While some drop off sites remain because of the Save Our

Compost Coalition, most of the city has reverted to sending organic waste to landfills. The

Save Our Compost Coalition has proposed the Community Organics and Recycling

Empowerment (CORE) Act, which would create or preserve 177 drop-off sites for organic waste.

2.5 Anaerobic Digestion in Present Conditions

Although anaerobic digestion is an ancient technology that recycles organic waste

material, its use within New York City is limited to large-scale projects by the Department of

Environmental Protection (DEP). Today, there are anaerobic digesters located at NYC’s 14

wastewater treatment plants where they are used as part of the process to treat 1.3 billion

gallons of wastewater daily. During the wastewater treatment process, a byproduct known as

sludge is produced, which consists of heavier organic solids, such as feces, food, and paper

fibers (NYC DEP, 2020). Additionally, in a later stage of wastewater treatment,

microorganisms are cultivated to consume the remaining organic material in the wastewater,

yielding a secondary sludge that is collected. Together, the primary and secondary sludge is thickened, and then placed into biodigester tanks for a period of about 15 days, where it is

maintained in low-oxygen environment and heated to about 98°F. Within these biodigesters,

microorganisms digest the sludge and convert much of the material into biogas. The leftover

sludge is then dewatered through a series of large centrifuges and yields a final material

known as biosolids. Biosolids from wastewater treatment plants can theoretically be

composted, added to agricultural soils, or further processed for other beneficial uses.

However, because biosolids from wastewater treatment plants are derived from human

sewage, these soil amendment products are typically ladened with residual pharmaceuticals,

household cleaning products, and other chemicals that can be harmful in many applications.

Because of this, wastewater treatment plant-derived biosolids can be exceedingly difficult to

market and can lead to this material being disposed of in landfills, rather than used for a

beneficial purpose. Additionally, the potential energy that can be derived from human waste

is much lower than the energy that can be derived from food scraps (Msibi et al., 2017).

As part of New York City’s goal of zero waste being sent to landfills by 2030, as outlined in the OneNYC plan, NYC DEP aims to develop a program that will reuse all biosolids beneficially. By utilizing technologies such as composting, drying, and gasification or pyrolysis, DEP hopes to be able to make all biosolids from their anaerobic digestion plants commercially marketable.

Chapter 3: Evaluating the Operations of BK ROT in Bushwick

3.1 The Context of BK ROT

BK ROT was established in 2011 and describes itself as a “terrevolutionary

community” that works to deliver advocacy, education, and youth leader development to the

community of Bushwick and beyond. This community provides accessible, educational jobs

and professional development for emerging environmental leaders. Additionally, BK ROT

seeks to create opportunities for members and the larger community to fight climate change,

environmental racism, and gentrification (BK ROT, 2020).

At the core of BK ROT’s mission is earthwork-- the process of turning organic waste

into nutrient dense soil amendments through sustainable, clean methods. Including the leadership of Executive Director Ceci Pineda, BK ROT has eight part and full-time staff who manage operations, administration, and drop offs. Among the part-time staff are young people of color who have the opportunity not only to engage in earthwork and climate justice, but also build a career with BK ROT by moving into full-time positions.

Figure 3.1 BK ROT Operations. Source: BK ROT Annual Report, 2019.

In 2019, BK ROT employees biked 2,300 miles to gather organic waste from restaurants, coffeeshops, caterers, food coops, wood shops, and households. By using traditional trailers attached to bicycles and e-trike (charged with solar power), the team estimates that they have saved 766 gallons of diesel fuel and have kept approximately 8.5 tons of CO2 and co-pollutants out of the atmosphere (BK ROT Annual Report, 2019).

Figure 3.2 BK ROT Operations. Source: BK ROT Annual Report, 2019.

BK ROT works collaboratively with local community gardens, GrowNYC, and Big

Reuse to manage more material than they would be able to process at their physical location.

Team members drop off organic waste to feed those organization’s own compost systems, which allows BK ROT flexibility and redundancy in how they collect, process, and distribute material. Finish compost from BK ROT is utilized all over Northern Brooklyn and Queens, and nourishes community gardens, farms, back yards, street trees, and home gardens.

Most of the distribution (approximately 43.5 tons) is done primarily at BK ROT’s site, where compost is given in exchange for a donation to local community materials. The remaining material (approximately 9.25 tons) is delivered to community farms with food justice missions with the financial support from the Levitt Foundation. Some of these community farms include 462 Halsey Community Farm, Good Life Garden, and Phoenix

Community garden (BK ROT Annual Report, 2019).

Figure 3.3 BK ROT Overview. Source: NYC DCP, DSNY, BK ROT

3.2 Demographics of Greater Bushwick

Approximately 333,000 people live within BK ROT’s service area, at a typical population density for NYC. The median household income is around $50,000 year, which is less than the city-wide average. The people in their service area are predominately people of color, with a plurality of people identifying as Black (American

Community Survey, 2018).

Additionally, around one third of the population identifies as Hispanic or Latinx, with notable communities of Puerto

Rican, Dominican, Mexican, and Ecuadorian people (American 3.4 Race for Selected Census Tracts of Greater Bushwick. Source: American Community Survey, 2018 Community Survey, 2018).

During an interview with

Ceci Pineda of BK ROT, they

described queer and trans black

indigenous people of color

liberation as being key to BK

ROT’s mission and programing.

While community-based

organizations in earth work Figure 3.5 Ethnicity (Hispanic or Latinx) for Selected Census Tracts of Greater Bushwick. Source: American preceded BK ROT, Pineda noted Community Survey, 2018

that the dynamics and culture of some of these groups were mainstream and were not

respectful or inclusive of queer and trans people. They noted that queer and trans people of

color particularly have a place in the climate world, and that working with the land is a

healing and accepting process for QT BIPOC people. BK ROT, and its home at Know Waste

Lands, is a place that affirms and reflects queer and trans people through plants, earth work,

and ecological relationships that form a template for societies that are diverse and accepting

of QT BIPOC people. BK ROT is a space that is co-created and co-cultivated for people to

find fulfillment, comfort, and safety for queer and trans people of color (C. Pineda, personal

communication, October 2, 2020).

3.3 BK ROT Operational Analysis

BK ROT operates out of a community garden in northern Brooklyn called Know

Waste Lands. Know Waste Lands is approximately 6,000 sq ft in size, and BK ROT utilizes about half the lot (2,700 sq ft) for compost processing, curing and distribution. BK ROT is

considered a somewhat small operation, processing between 2,500 and 4,500 lbs of organic

material per week.

Figure 3.6 Map of Know Waste Lands and BK ROT in Bushwick

They can process approximately 1,500 lbs at their main location and have a total maximum processing capacity of about 4,500 lbs/week (2.25 tons/week) in combination with partner gardens and farms. This past year, they received access to three former NYPD lots that will be turned over to the Parks Department as part of the community garden, allowing for gradual expansion. These lots will add approximately 1,900 sq ft to BK ROT’s operational footprint.

Figure 3.7 BK ROT and DSNY Sanitation Districts Source: DSNY, BK ROT

For the remaining material, BK ROT has historically sent material that was beyond their processing capacity to partners like Big Reuse. However, since Big Reuse is facing a

36 loss of funding and potential eviction from their Parks-owned land, BK ROT has turned to nearby community gardens where they set up auxiliary compost piles that allows them to greatly expand their capacity.

BK ROT revenue comes primarily from grants (78.3%), with additional revenue from commercial service fees (9.4%), donations (3.8%), and residential fees (0.5%). In total, the organization received an annual revenue of approximately $172,500. For expenditures, most went to salaries (77.4%), equipment and supplies (14.9%), professional services (3.8%), and administration (2.5%). In total, the organization had about $142,800 in annual expenditures

(BK ROT Annual Report, 2019). BK ROT is currently building the groundwork to diversify its funding streams to move towards establishing a sustainable business mode, which could include the addition of microhauling to more commercial businesses under the framework of the Commercial Waste Zones law.

As part of their work to develop a sustainable business model, BK ROT worked with the NYC Microhaulers and Transform Don’t Trash coalitions to codify microhauling (the practice of using small human and electrically power vehicles to make collection and deliveries) into NYC’s Commercial Waste Zones law. The framework of this law establishes a food waste hauling cap of 2,600 tons per year for microhauling businesses (BK ROT

Annual Report, 2019). With the adoption of Commercial Waste Zones, there is now a financial incentive for being able to collect and process organic material locally.

Figure 3.8 BK ROT and Commercial Waste Zones. Source: NYC DCP, DSNY, BK ROT

Under Local Law 146 (Commercial Organic Waste Law), establishments covered by

this requirement include retail food stores with more than 10,000 sq ft or a chain of 3 or more

retail food stores with a combined square footage more than 10,000 sq ft, food service

establishments with more than 7,000 sq ft, a chain of 2 or more food service establishments

with a combined area of more than 8,000 sq ft, or a part of a building with other food service

establishments with a combined area of more than 8,000 sq ft. Additionally, Catering

establishments for ≥ 100 people, food service for hotels with ≥ 100 sleeping rooms, sponsors of temporary public events, food manufacturers with ≥ 25,000 sq ft, wholesalers with ≥

20,000 sq ft, and food preparation establishments with ≥ 6,000 sq ft are all required to divert their organic waste (Institute for Local Self Reliance, 2016).

This study looked at one sample zip code, 11221, from within BK ROT’s service area, to analyze the composition of businesses that produce organic waste.

Figure 3.9 BK ROT and Selected Zip Code. Source: NYC DCP, DSNY, BK ROT

NAICS Code Industry Category Count 722 Restaurants 816 445 Supermarkets & Grocery Stores 465 611 Private Elementary and Secondary 155 Schools 623 Assisted Living Facilities 83 311-312 Food Manufacturing 44 424 Food Wholesale & Distribution 25

Figure 3.10 Organic Waste Producing Businesses in Zip Code 11221

The average supermarket produces 3.12 lbs of waste per day, per 100 sq ft. Of all the waste supermarkets produce, on average 29.3% of the waste is organic and suitable for composting or biodigestion (CalRecycles, 2006). The total square footage for supermarkets

in the 11221 zip code is 2.88 million sq ft. Supermarkets in 11221 produce approximately

89,871 lbs of trash per day, or 44.93 tons/day of trash. Supermarkets in 11221 produce approximately 26,062 lbs/day of organic waste, or 13.9 tons/day of organic waste.

Supermarket Square Footage Count 1,500-2,499 59 2,500-4,999 224 5,000-9,999 11 10,000-19,999 2 20,000-39,999 23 40,000-99,999 16

Figure 3.11 Supermarkets in Zip Code 11221

Of the 465 supermarkets and grocery stores in 11221, only 39 are large enough

(20,000 sq ft or large) to be required to divert their organic waste under LL 152 of 2018.

These 39 large supermarkets produce most of the organic waste, which is estimated to be

16,376 lbs/day, or 8.18 tons/day. This organic waste is currently required by law to be

diverted from landfills. This means that the 426 smaller supermarkets and grocery stores

produce approximately 5.72 tons/day of organic waste that is being sent to landfills.

3.4 Small Scale Biodigesters

There are three kinds of biodigesters that this study identified as being ideal for small

scale, community-based organizations. There are very small, commercially available

demonstration digesters, small sized, Industrial Bulk Container (IBC) digesters that

SolarCITEIS can help design and install, and medium size biodigesters that can process nearly one ton of material per week. All three of these digesters could work in BK ROT’s new lots.

Figure 3.12 A Very Small Biodigester (left) by HomeBiogas and a Small biodigester (right) by SolarCITIES. Source: HomeBiogas, SolarCITIES

A very small, commercially available demonstration biodigester (Home Biogas,

$720) can process approximately 55.6 lbs/week of food waste (0.02 tons/week) and requires approximately 32 square feet of operating space. A small, pre-designed, above ground biodigester (SolarCITIES, $1,000) can process approximately 259 lbs/week of food waste

(0.12 tons/week). This setup requires approximately 38 square feet of operating space. A medium, pre-designed, in-ground biodigester (SolarCITIES, $10,000) can process approximately 1,855 lbs/week (0.92 tons/week) and requires approximately 200 square feet of operating space.

Figure 3.13 A Medium Scale 10m3 Biodigester at Fat Beet Farm. Source: SolarCITIES

3.5 Case Models

Fat Beet Farm, Florida

Fat Beet Farm is a food service farm and commissary that grows microgreens hydroponically and uses traditional raised beds. They supply fresh produce to five restaurants in Tampa, Florida. Fat Beet Farm serves as a sustainable practice model for the Food Energy

Water Nexus Zero Waste Initiative, and where nearby college interns work for credit to put

sustainable development theory into practice. Solar CITIES installed a 10m3 biodigester at

the site, built for less than $10,000 with student and volunteer labor under the direction of Dr.

Thomas H. Culhane, the co-founding director of the not-for-profit educational corporation

Solar CITIES Inc. The biodigester is fed a mix of food production, restaurant waste, and

other organic residuals, and has eliminated most garbage pickup for the farm (Solar CITIES,

2019).

The above ground 9’x9′ digester is heated by a 60 vacuum tube solar hot water split

system for year-round operation. It produces both fuel and fertilizer from food waste for

growing and preparing healthy food without the need for chemical soil amendments or

hydroponics solutions and without the need for cooking gas or electricity derived from

petroleum. The food grinder, pumps, and lighting for the site are provided by solar electric

power making the Fat Beet Farm site resilient to service disruption, while reducing costs and

improving living and working conditions for the small, family-owned business.

Bioregional Living Center, New York

The Center for Bioregional Living, located in Ellenville, NY, is a design, education

and consultation firm offering a Permaculture Design Certification program tailored to the

northeastern ecological corridor. The mission of the Bioregional Living Center is to create

regional infrastructure systems, that are diverse and adapted to the local ecological, social, and geological context. It aims to create regionally appropriate models for economic development using permaculture design. Its mission to develop accountable stewardship of urban cityscapes to dramatically reduce the enormous waste generated by those spaces, and

to create positive relationships between cities and outlying rural communities.

The 10m3 biodigester at the Bioregional Living Center was installed by Solar CITIES

with help from the community, at a cost of less than $10,000. The biodigester is an example

that the Center uses to demonstrate how infrastructure can be used for more ecologically

sound and socially responsible ways. The demonstration unit is used to teach about the

interconnectedness of ecology and economy and permaculture in both urban and rural

designs (Center for Bioregional Living, 2020).

Figure 3.14 A Medium Scale 10m3 Biodigester at the Center for Bioregional Living, New York. Source: SolarCITIES

Chapter 4: Recommendations and Conclusions

4.1 Key Findings

This study found that community-based recyclers have experienced significant growth this year, owing in large part to the City’s elimination of curbside collection. These organizations are generally interested in adding additional capacity to their operations, including anaerobic digestion. GreenFeen OrganiX was constructing a simple anaerobic demonstration unit, while LES Ecology Center is in talks with Closed Loop Partners on

building or purchasing a unit. Additionally, this study found that adding organic waste to

wastewater treatment plants is a false solution that produces a soil amendment product that is

unmarketable, and biogas that is burned in communities. While there are plans for biogas

from wastewater treatment plants to be refined and delivered to National Grid, so that they

can sell it to North Brooklyn customers, this plan reinforces the use of antiquated

infrastructure that has been designed around and optimized for the transfer and delivery of

fracked natural gas. While there are many varieties of biodigesters in operation in NYS, there

are no non-wastewater units currently operating in New York City.

There is no one size-fits-all solution to dealing with organic waste, and there was

consensus for a mix of centralized and decentralized systems to deal with organic waste

sustainably, and resiliently. While there is certainly potential for growth in the community-

based organic waste recyclers of the city, the growth must be at the speed of trust, the

community and the relationships required to make such growth successful.

The topic of this study is highly relevant—at the time of writing, NYC Parks is in the

process of evicting two community-based organic waste recyclers (LES Ecology Center and

Big Reuse) from public land, because their lease for the spaces have expired.

4.2 Recommendations

4.2.1 Develop a Mutual Education Network Biodigesters are living machines that require an ecosystem of education, knowledge

sharing and partnerships to maintain and sustain (K. Puffer, personal communication,

September 28, 2020). Biodigesters are affordable, relatively easy to build and able to

significantly increase the waste-handling capacity of their operators. Solar CITIES is a

technical expert based in New York, with team members TH Culhane and Kathy Puffer

having done work with prior community-based groups who have gone on to create the social,

logistical, and financial considerations that make biodigester that are currently in operation

all around the world.

Interested members, like BK ROT, LES Ecology Center, and GreenFeen OrganiX

will need to form a relationship with Solar CITIES that could be facilitated by one of Solar

CITES, one of the leading not-for-profit biogas education organizations in the world, to get

site and operation-specific consultation for how anaerobic digestion might be added to their

waste management systems. Through a facilitation partner like Pratt Institute Sustainable

Environmental System Coordinator Leonel Ponce who have existing connections Solar

CITIES team members and can deliver facilitation expertise, so that members can co-create

visions and frameworks around community based anaerobic digestion in NYC.

4.2.2 Build a Participatory Framework for Community Based Growth

BK ROT could be a case study for what could become a network of community-

based anaerobic digestion systems that would complement the existing work and mission of

CBO organic waste recyclers. For CBO organic waste recyclers, including LES Ecology

Center, Earth Matter, Big Reuse, and GreenFeen OrganiX to properly explore the option of

adding biodigestion technology to their operations, they would need to conduct a

participatory planning exercise to enable the youth leaders of their organizations to determine

how the growth of their organization and work should take place. This study has identified

indicators of success and sustainability for these types of community-based operations, such

as targeting what amount of waste needs to be processed and how much space could be

utilized, which can enable the youth leaders to make the decision most appropriate for their

organization.

A participatory planning process is one that centers the holistic needs of people, and

that utilizes particular techniques, such as the Place It method by urban planner James Rojas.

that To initiate a participatory planning process for if and how construction of a small-scale demonstration biodigester would occur at Know Waste Lands, BK ROT could partner with technical advisors, such as the Participatory Planning Techniques class at Pratt Institute taught by Courtney Knapp, or with alumni of the program.

Students of Pratt could facilitate visioning sessions for the BK ROT staff, board members, and youth leaders, and compile participant’s story telling into a referenceable set of visions for what expansion into the community’s physical and social growth. This set of visions, together with the logistical and financial sources that BK ROT has access to would form a framework for community-based growth.

4.2.3 Plan for the Construction of an Anaerobic Digester With the addition of anaerobic digestion technology, community-based organizations

could add a parallel path to their existing composting systems, which would yield two additional kinds of byproducts. First the biodigesters could produce biogas that would be used for cooking community meals on dedicated biogas stoves. Additionally, biodigesters

produce a liquid soil amendment that is ideal for aeroponic gardening. Like compost, both

the liquid and solid soil amendments could be distributed to grow food through partners like

Universe City in Brownsville, or RISE in the Rockaways.

With the first small-scale demonstration projects constructed, this could lay the groundwork for a future network of distributed biodigesters in underutilized lots, storefronts, or other sites. Like existing composting operations at BK ROT, GreenFeen OrganiX, and

LES Ecology Center, the biodigesters could be used as tools for education and advocacy.

Figure 4.1 Proposed Anaerobic Digester System Diagram.

For BK ROT, they will need to decide how big of a digester they will be able

to support, and for what purpose will they use it for. Given the deep-rooted approach of BK

ROT, they should consider starting with a medium sized, pre-designed, above ground

biodigester from SolarCITIES ($1,000).

In addition to being able to process around 250 lbs/week of food waste on just 40

square feet of operating space, this system would be modular and could run in parallel with

any future food waste processing system.

Figure 4.2 Illustration of Biodigesters on Know Waste Land’s New Lot

4.2.4 Explore Potential for Micro Hauling Within Commercial Waste Zones In the long term, New York City must consider more seriously the number, scale and

distribution of organic waste recycling facilities that will be needed to meet the City’s Zero

Waste Goals. With the adoption of Commercial Waste Zones, there is now a financial incentive for being able to collect and process organic material locally. Although this study’s initial calculations show that accepting waste from a high-volume producing category of businesses like grocery stores may be beyond the projected capacity of BK ROT, further research could identify the appropriate business category in which BK ROT could feasibly process all the organic material from a carting company within the geographically confines

of the North Brooklyn Commercial Waste Zone. Additionally, New York City could incentivize these types of business arrangements through its system of tipping fees, which could be used to favor organic waste recycling that happens in closer proximity to where it is collected.

If BK ROT considers diversifying its income revenue by seeking partnerships with carting companies that have been approved to operate in Brooklyn North Commercial Waste

Zone, they may want to consider utilizing a portion of their main site for a medium digester, also from Solar CITIES) which can process nearly 1 ton of organic material per week on

approximately 200 square feet of space.

Figure 4.3 Illustration of Biodigesters on Know Waste Land’s Original Lot

4.2.5 Establish Land Use Protections and Rights for Small to Medium Scale

Anaerobic Digesters

New York City must also create a new category of land use protections in a similar

manner to the community garden system of today to protect, legitimize and enable the

continued growth of organic waste recycling facilities on City-owned land. Such designations

could be in the form of long-term leases (50 of 99 years), or through the creation of a

community-based trust to which legally ownership of the sites would be transferred to. Long

term, legal protection to these community-based organic waste recycling facilities is essential to their self-determination and continued existence. Additionally, NYC must also consider how the next generation of biodigester facilities will integrate with zoning code and building code. With existing technology, biodigesters can be installed within existing buildings in basements, or on the ground floor.

4.2.6 Fund Community Based Anerobic Digestion Construction

New York City agencies like DSNY, DEP and should have the regulatory ability to restrict

methane producing waste (which is including of organic waste, but also includes byproducts

of wastewater treatment plants), by adding a surcharge for disposal of this kind of waste in

landfills or incinerators. This revenue would then be used to direct government funding for

the development and expansion of existing local, small-scale waste diversion programs,

including composting and anaerobic digestion facilities, with a particular focus on minority-

owned and operated micro-hauling. This revenue could also fund community-based

organizations to create educational materials and marketing campaigns around the valuable

resources in food waste (phosphorus, nitrogen, etc.)

Additionally, there could be direct government funding through grants and contracts for waste prevention and reuse programs to support local community-based organics processing infrastructure within each community district. Agencies like DOT and Parks should also have procurement requirements to source their soil amendments from recycled organic waste produced locally in NYC.

4.2.7 Develop New Policy for Wastewater Treatment Plant Anaerobic Digesters

New York City needs more stringent regulations of transportation of organic waste/methane producing waste, including making 100% of waste collection vehicles zero or ultra-low emission vehicles, with a particular focus on supporting cargo bikes and e-bike infrastructure. The City will also eventually need to retrofit existing wastewater treatment plants and their biodigesters to create enough biogas to support on-site electricity generation needs. If plants have anaerobic digesters that can produce more biogas than necessary to support existing on-site energy needs, government should fund infrastructure to refine this fuel into biomethane and connect it to the existing natural gas infrastructure of the City. NYC

DEP needs to create a regulatory program to monitor and detect leaks at anaerobic digestion facilities

4.3 Conclusion

With the culmination of advocacy, education and organizing, community-based organic waste recyclers have an opportunity to grow with even deeper roots to serve their communities through earth work. With participatory planning, and technical facilitation from new partners, anaerobic digestion and biodigesters can help meet the needs for future community-based growth of local waste recycling.

Bibliography

Anderson-Nathe, B., DeFilippis, J., & Mehrotra, G. R. (2018). Deconstructing and reconstructing identity: How queer liberation organizations deploy collective identities.

Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare, 45(3), 85-112.

Anguelovski, I. (2013). New Directions in Urban Environmental Justice: Rebuilding Community, Addressing Trauma, and Remaking Place. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 33(2), 160–175. Bergeron, P., Corder, R., Hill, A., Lindsey, H., & Lowenstein, M. (1983). SERI Biomass

Program: Annual Technical Report. Solar Energy Research Institute. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/old/1918.pdf

Biello, D. (2011). The False Promise of Biofuels. Scientific American, 59–65.

NY Renews Position Against Biofuels as a Renewable Fuel for Transportation. (2019). NY

Renews Steering Committee.

Biogas and Fuel Cells Workshop Summary Report. (2013). National Renewable Energy

BK ROT : Locally-Sourced Compost for Your Gardening Needs. (2020). Retrieved

December 14, 2020, from https://www.bkrot.org/

BK ROT Annual Report (2019). Retrieved from https://www.bkrot.org/annual-reports.

Concerned Scientists. www.ucsusa.org/biomethane-transportation

Danberg-Ficarelli, M., Peperone, R., & Nurse, S. (2020, June 19). Microhauling Organics In

NYC. Retrieved January 18, 2021, from https://www.biocycle.net/microhauling-organics- nyc/

DSNY. (2020, May 4). Curbside Composting Suspension Guide. Retrieved from https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/queenscb2/downloads/pdf/guide_curbside_compost_suspension .pdf

Dennis Jr, S. F. (2006). Prospects for qualitative GIS at the intersection of youth development and participatory urban planning. Environment & Planning A, 38(11), 2039– 2054. French, B. H., Lewis, J. A., Mosley, D. V., Adames, H. Y., Chavez-Dueñas, N. Y., Chen, G.

A., & Neville, H. A. (2020). Toward a Psychological Framework of Radical Healing in

Communities of Color. Counseling Psychologist, 48(1), 14–46.

House, D. (1978). The Complete Biogas Handbook. Alternative House Information.

Lusk, P., Wheeler, P., & Rivard, C. (1996). Deploying Anaerobic Digesters: Current Status and Future Possibilities. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy96/20558.pdf

Manevich, Y. (2013, March 17). A Timeline of Solid Waste Management in New York City.

Retrieved December 14, 2020, from https://eportfolios.macaulay.cuny.edu/macbride13/research/a-timeline-of-solid-waste- management-in-new-york-city/

McGuire Chemistry. (N.D.). Emissions from Composting.

Milbrandt, A., Bush, B., & Melaina, M. (2016). Biogas and Hydrogen Systems Market

Assessment. National Renewable Energy Laboratory. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy16osti/63596.pdf

Msibi, S. S., & Kornelius, G. (2017). Potential for domestic biogas as household energy supply in South Africa. Journal of Energy in Southern Africa, 28(2), 1. doi:10.17159/2413-

3051/2017/v28i2a1754

NYC Department of Sanitation. (2017). 2017 NYC Waste Characterization Study.

PA’s First Closed-Loop Waste-to-Fuel Project Fuels Refuse Trucks on Ultra-Low-Carbon

RNG. (N.D.). Drew Orient Business Development Vogel Holding, Inc.

Penny Gurstein, Chris Lovato, & Sally Ross. (2003). Youth Participation in Planning:

Strategies for Social Action. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 12(2), 249–274.

The Promises and Limits of Biomethane as a Transportation Fuel. (2017). Union of

Laboratory. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy13osti/56523.pdf

Rigolon, A., & Gibson, S. (2020). The role of non-governmental organizations in achieving

environmental justice for green and blue spaces. Landscape and Urban Planning, 205.

Saur, G., & Milbrandt, A. (2014). Renewable Hydrogen Potential from biogas in the United

States. National Renewable Energy Laboratory.

https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/60283.pdf

Saur, Genevieve, & Jalalzadeh-Azar, A. (2010). H2A Biomethane Model Documentation and

a Case Study for Biogas from Dairy Farms. https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/49009.pdf

Tomich, M., & Marianne, M. (2017a). Cow Power: A Case Study of Renewable Compressed

Natural Gas as a Transportation Fuel. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).

Tomich, M., & Marianne, M. (2017b). Waste-to-Fuel: A Case Study of Converting Food

Waste to Renewable Natural Gas as a Transportation Fuel. Argone National Laboratory.

US EPA. (2010). Landfill Carbon Storage in EPA’s Waste Reduction Model (pp. 1-2).

Appendix

List of Interviews

C. Datz-Romero, LES Ecology Center, personal communication, September 18, 2020.

K. Puffer, Solar CITIES, personal communication, September 28, 2020.

C. Pineda, BK ROT, personal communication, October 2, 2020.

D. St. Hillaire, GreenFeen OrganiX, personal communication, October 19, 2020.

R. Gonen, Closed Loop Partners, personal communication, October 20, 2020.

T. Oyewole, New York City Environmental Justice Alliance, personal communication,

November 3, 2020.

B. Anderson, DSNY, personal communication, November 10, 2020.

Figure A.1 BK ROT and Selected Census Tracts. Source: NYC DCP, DSNY, BK ROT

241, Kings County, New York 271, Kings County, New York 289, Kings County, New York 253, Kings County, New York 313, Kings County, New York 291, Kings County, New York 389, Kings County, New York 315, Kings County, New York 293, Kings County, New York 391, Kings County, New York 311, Kings County, New York 295, Kings County, New York 425, Kings County, New York 341, Kings County, New York 383, Kings County, New York 427, Kings County, New York 317.01, Kings County, New York 385, Kings County, New York 539, Queens County, New York 247, Kings County, New York 387, Kings County, New York 447, Kings County, New York 245, Kings County, New York 395, Kings County, New York 445, Kings County, New York 249, Kings County, New York 393, Kings County, New York 453, Kings County, New York 251, Kings County, New York 423, Kings County, New York 485, Kings County, New York 243, Kings County, New York 429, Kings County, New York 591, Queens County, New York 255, Kings County, New York 443, Kings County, New York 547, Queens County, New York 1237, Kings County, New York 441, Kings County, New York 545, Queens County, New York 285.01, Kings County, New York 439, Kings County, New York 549, Queens County, New York 257, Kings County, New York 433, Kings County, New York 551, Queens County, New York 261, Kings County, New York 431, Kings County, New York 553, Queens County, New York 285.02, Kings County, New York 421, Kings County, New York 555, Queens County, New York 259.01, Kings County, New York 419, Kings County, New York 559, Queens County, New York 283, Kings County, New York 417, Kings County, New York 409, Kings County, New York 259.02, Kings County, New York 415, Kings County, New York 411, Kings County, New York 263, Kings County, New York 435, Kings County, New York 403, Kings County, New York 265, Kings County, New York 437, Kings County, New York 405, Kings County, New York 267, Kings County, New York 413, Kings County, New York 369, Kings County, New York 269, Kings County, New York 401, Kings County, New York 371, Kings County, New York 275, Kings County, New York 399, Kings County, New York 379, Kings County, New York 277, Kings County, New York 397, Kings County, New York 381, Kings County, New York 279, Kings County, New York 375, Kings County, New York 297, Kings County, New York 281, Kings County, New York 373, Kings County, New York 273, Kings County, New York 287, Kings County, New York 377, Kings County, New York

Figure A.2 List of Census Tracts Used in Study