funded by the pennsylvania department of environmental protection study conducted by the food waste...
Post on 18-Jan-2016
216 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
Funded by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
Study Conducted by theFood Waste Composting Coalition
November 1, 2005 to October 25, 2006
Project Administered by the Pennsylvania Resources Council
Phase I Project Objectives
To acquire baseline information needed for planning a pilot program to collect and compost source separated organic matter (SSOM), primarily food waste, from a variety of urban institutions and businesses in the region.
Phase I Project Scope
Task A Recruit urban businesses and institutions Task B Conduct abbreviated food waste audits Task C Research options and costs
Task D Construct a collection and composting model Task E Design and develop marketing materials
Phase I Outcomes
• Estimates of food waste volumes and weights from participating institutions.
• Comparative economic models
• Approach to recruiting project participants
• Training requirements for FWGs.
• Criteria for program effectiveness
Task A Recruit urban
businesses and institutions
Food Waste Generators
Compost Processors
Independent Haulers
Task A Recruit FWGs
• Identified and contacted a total of 17 urban FWGs.– 3 food markets– 2 universities – 1 college– 3 health care organizations– 8 businesses
• Conducted 12 interviews and 11 site visits
• Nine FWGs interviewed expressed an interest to participate in a pilot project
Task A – Recruit Compost Processors
• Identified and contacted nine composting processors– 6 farms– 2 commercial composting businesses – 1 landfill operation
• Conducted 8 interviews and 5 site visits
• Five processors expressed serious interest in participating in a pilot program:– 1 commercial compost processor with a permit to recycle food
waste but without hauling – 2 farmers with composting permits– 1 commercial compost processor with a permit to compost only
yard waste – 1 landfill operation with a permit to compost only yard waste
Task A Recruit Independent Haulers
Identified and contacted one independent hauler with a permit for hauling who is interested in participating in a pilot program.
Task B Conduct Abbreviated Food Waste Audits
Three to four-day food waste audits were conducted at 5 FWGs: Whole Foods Market Carnegie Mellon University East End Food Cooperative Jewish Association for Aging Chatham College
In addition…
Using on site interviews, food waste volumes and weights were estimated for the following FWGs:– Mall at Robinson Center Food Court– Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank– Mung Dynasty– Castel Co Packers– Wholesale Produce Industry of Pittsburgh
Food Waste Audit Description
1. Prepare for staff training
2. Implement training with management and staff
3. Verify set up and implementation plan
4. Prepare food waste audit
5. Implement food waste audit
6. Collect and compile data
7. Conduct a debrief session with FWG management and staff
Animal-based & post consumer
food wasteTrash
Where does it go?
Eggs Ham Cheese Plain PastaFish Soda Cans
Apples
Coffee Grounds
Pasta w/ sauce ChickenOrange Peels
Lettuce
Salad with Dressing Plain Bread Pizza Tofu Pies/Cakes
Plastic Bags
Plant-based food waste
Question: Is food waste really garbage, or is it a resource?
Answer: Food waste can be a resource, if it is composted. Composting is nature’s way of recycling organic material, including food waste, back into a rich, healthy soil.
The Pennsylvania Resources Council is investigating the possibility of setting up a food waste collection and composting system to service institutions such as Chatham College.
From Monday, April 3rd to Wednesday, April 5th, a food waste audit will be conducted in the cafeteria. Please assist us in our study by depositing your leftovers in the bin located by the exit. Thank you for your help!
FWG
Daily Average Weight of Food
Waste
(lbs.)
Daily Average Weight of Green
Food Waste
(lbs.)
Daily Average Weight of Yellow
Food Waste
(lbs.)
Chatham College
330.5 140.8 188.7
Whole Food Markets
1616.7 1143.2 473.5
East End Food Coop.
150.5 140.5 10
Carnegie Mellon University
647.5 358.33 284.66
Jewish Association on
Aging
383.8 32.5 351.3
Table 1: Food Waste Audit Results
What we learned…• Space limitations are a significant obstacle for food
waste composting. • There is staff resistance when faced with “extra work.”• Staff at “Green” businesses were generally eager to
participate.• If using a garbage disposal, there is little incentive to
compost food waste.• Management concerns for odor and pest problems were
common.• If the institution uses a lot of prepared food, there is very
little green waste.
Task C Research options and costs
Precedent Study of Three Existing Food Waste Collection and Composting Operations
• Norcal Waste Systems Inc. in San Francisco, CA• Eastern Organics Resources (EOR) in Wrightstown,
NJ• Rutland County Commercial Food Waste Composting
Program in Rutland, VT
Norcal Waste Systems Inc.
Eastern Organics Recycling
Rutland County Commercial Food Waste Composting Program in Rutland, VT
Precedent Study Conclusions
• In-vessel composting allows for increased capacity
• Staff training is critical to the success of the program
• Contamination of food waste is a persistent problem.
• All tried to ensure a minimum of a 25% price reduction in waste disposal costs
• Demand for compost outweighs production capacity.
• All anticipate a continued increase in food waste composting.
Task C Research options and costs
Economic Analysis• Wholesale Produce Industry of Pittsburgh
(WPIP)• Whole Foods Market (WFM)• Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank
(GPCFB)• Carnegie Mellon University Center (CMUC)• East End Food Coop. (EEFC)
Economic Analysis
“ Worksheet for Evaluating the Collection of Organics for the Commercial Sector” from Portland Metro, the regional solid waste agency for Portland,
Oregon.
Economic Analysis
Tipping Fees: Hauler Costs: Amount & Composition of Waste Stream:
Current Landfill Tipping Fee
Operating costs per hour for the hauler
Total volume of waste stream
Organics Tipping Fee Amount of time per pick up
Density figures for food waste
Number of collections per week
Density figures for waste materials excluding food
waste
Collection Container Costs
Use of a compactor
Table 2: Variables investigated in Economic Analysis
Economic Analysis
Variables Investigated include:• Number of pulls per week for both food waste
and solid waste• Use of compactor and its effect on density and
number of pulls per week• Percentages of waste stream that can be
composted• Effect of subsidizing hauling costs for a pilot
project • Increase in landfill tipping fees
Economic Analysis
• Large FWGs- generate an average of 1.75 to 3 tons of solid waste a day, and their food waste comprises between 75% and 80% of their waste stream.– Wholesale Produce Industry of Pittsburgh (WPIP) – Greater Pittsburgh Community Food Bank (GPCFB)
• Mid-size FWGs - generate on average 1 to 1.75 tons of solid waste a day and their food waste comprises between 17% and 47% of their total waste stream.– Whole Foods Market (WFM)– Carnegie Mellon University Center (CMUC)
• Small FWGs - generate on average 0.6 tons of solid waste a day and their food waste comprises 12 % of their waste stream.– East End Food Coop (EEFC)
Economic Analysis Table ? The Effect of Hauling Variables (frequency, distance and the availability of subsidies) on Waste Handling Costs for WPIP. FWG Scenario App. X
Page #s.
Windrow or Invessel
Lbs. food waste/ week
food / total waste (%)
Compactor
Current # of S.W. Pulls/wk
Proposed # of S.W. Pulls/wk
Proposed # of Org. Pulls/wk
Current S.W. Pull Fee
Composting Site is at or near landfill
Effect on current weekly waste costs No Subsidy*
Effect on Current weekly waste costs with a 60% subsidy**
WPIP Low A
1 & 13 Windrow 16,029 80 No 6 3 3 $139.11 No - $40.07 4% red.
- $290.47 26% red.
WPIP Low B
2 & 14 Windrow 16,029 80 No 6 3 4 $139.11 No + $99.04 9% inc.
- $234.83 21% red.
WPIP Low C
3 & 15 Windrow 16,029 80 No 6 6 Times a week at the same time
$139.11 Yes -$40.07 4% red.
- $290.47 26% red.
WPIP Low D 4 & 16 Windrow
16,029 80 No 6 S.W. – 3 & F.W. - 6 Both pulled at same time
$139.11 Yes -$40.07 4% red.
- $415.67 37% red.
WPIP Low E 5 & 17 Windrow
16,029 80 No 6 S.W. – 3 & F.W. - 6 Both pulled at same time
$139.11 No -Added 25% for distance
+ $168.59 14% inc.
- $165.27 15% red.
WPIP Low F 6 & 18 Windrow
16,029 80 No 6 S.W. – 3 & F.W. - 6 Both pulled at same time
$139.11 No - Added 50% for distance
+ $377.26 30% inc.
- $148.56 13% red.
WPIP High A 7 & 19 Windrow
27,343 80 No 6 3 3 $139.11 No - $68.36 5% red.
- $318.76 24% red.
WPIP High B 8 & 20 Windrow
27,343 80 No 6 3 4 $139.11 No + $70.75 5% inc.
- $263.11 20% red.
WPIP High C 9 & 21 Windrow
27,343 80 No 6 6 Times a week at the same time
$139.11 Yes - $68.36 5% red.
- $318.76 24% red.
WPIP High D 10 & 22 Windrow
27,343 80 No 6 S.W. – 3 & F.W. - 6 Both pulled at same time
$139.11 Yes - $68.36 5% red.
- $443.95 33% red.
WPIP High E 11 & 23 Windrow
27,343 80 No 6 S.W. – 3 & F.W. - 6 Both pulled at same time
$139.11 No -Added 25% for distance
+ $140.31 10% inc.
- $360.49 27% red.
WPIP High F 12 & 24 Windrow
27,343 80 No 6 S.W. – 3 & F.W. - 6 Both pulled at same time
$139.11 No -Added 50% for distance
+ $348.97 26% inc.
- $176.86 13% red.
* Applied current solid waste pull fees to the organics pull fees. ** Based on the assumption that grant funding would cover capital costs for hauling equipment, resulting in a 60% reduction in hauling costs. Data used to derive this reduction is based on processor interviews.
Conclusions
• If the total number of pulls/collections for both the solid waste and the food waste equals or is less than the current number of weekly pulls/collections then the FWG can experience a cost savings when composting their food waste.
• Large FWGs, for which greater than 50% of their waste stream is food waste, are likely to benefit economically from a food waste collection and composting program.
Conclusions
• If the food waste and solid waste can be pulled/collected at the same time and taken to a composting facility and landfill that are either at the same site or in close proximity to each other, then there is a cost savings regardless of food waste generator size.
• The addition of food containing animal products to an in-vessel composting food waste diversion program did not result in a significant cost savings. However….
Conclusions
• An increase in solid waste tipping fees can result in the economic viability of a food waste collection and composting program for large FGWs with a high percentage of food waste in their waste stream.
• Grant funding to cover the capitol costs for collection and hauling equipment reduces the operating costs for the organics haulers and enables a significantly higher number of scenarios to be economically viable.
Task D Construct collection and
composting model
•Pilot Model A: Small-scale - where food waste is less than 12% of their daily total waste stream
•Pilot Model B – Mid-scale – where food waste is between 12% and 50% of their daily total waste stream
•Pilot Model C: Large-scale - where food waste is over 50% of their daily total waste stream
Proposed Phase II Models
Task EDesign and develop marketing materials for recruitment of additional program participants
We discovered that it is best to have a diverse and personalized set of tools when recruiting FWG’s for
involvement in a pilot program. Therefore, as we move forward into Phase II development, we will create marketing tools appropriate for a diverse
base of FWG’s.
Next step is to seek funding to implement and investigate a pilot project based on the three scales
of Food Waste Generators categorized in our study…
Developed by
Food Waste Composting Coalition
January 2007
top related