1

BEST PRACTICES IN FOODSCRAP PROGRAMS

National Webinar

Econservation InstituteSuperior CO

David Juri Freeman and Lisa SkumatzDecember 8th 2010

skumatz@econservationinstitute.orgwww.foodscrapsrecovery.com

© EI 2010, All Rights reserved

Sponsored by EPA Region

2

GUEST SPEAKERS

Susan Darley-Hill, EnvironmentalProgram Coordinator, Western LakeSuperior Sanitary District

Randi Mail, Recycling Director,Cambridge, MA

3

TODAY’S AGENDA

Introduction (5 min)-EI

Research Findings (30 min)- EI

Q&A (10 min)- All

MN Case Study (20 min)- Darley-Hill

MA Case Study (20 min)- Mail

Wrap-up (5 min)- EI

4

THANKS andACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

EI would like to thank all of the programmanagers, coordinators, public works staff, andhaulers who took the time to help us completethis research (Many of which are on the webinartoday!). Also thank you to Region 5 forsupporting this grant project

5

PROJECT GOALS

In-depth research of a number leadingfood scrap collection programs

Food scrap technology transfer. The toolkitwill have tips for implementation, bestmanagement practices, collectionmethods, as well as pitfalls for othercommunities to avoid

Conduct webinars, presentations, andother outreach to disseminate the “toolkit”

6

BACKGROUND ABOUT FOODSCRAPS

EPA says food is 12.5% of waste stream Only 3% is recovered (composted and hog fuel);

5.4M tons generated in Region 5 per year (est.)

141K tons recovered, 5.3M sent to landfill

GHG Impacts Landfills are one of the largest CH4 emitters

Aerobic vs. Anaerobic decomposition

EPA estimates composting avoids .25 MTCE/Ton of foodscraps (lower for yard trimmings and organics)

“The US sent 25M tons of food waste to landfills in2005. The GHG impact of composting this mass wouldbe equal to the equivalent of taking 7.8M passengercars from the road.”-US Composting Council

Source of statistics: Presentation by EPA / Chris Newman Region 5

Gas GWP

CO2 1

CH4 21

N2O 310

7

FOOD WASTE HIERARCHY

Source reduction Reduce volume being generated

Feed people Donate

Feed animals Provide food to farmers

Industrial uses Fats for rendering / food discards for feed prod’n

Composting

Convert into nutrient rich soil amendment

Source : EPA

RESULTS OF THENATIONAL SURVEY

8

9

NUMBER AND LOCATION

183 programs uncovered in the US Includes commercial and residential

Element Population

Avg. Size 62,300

Lgst. Res 617,300

Lgst. Comm 895,500

Smallest Res 170

Smallest Comm 7,700

10

RESIDENTIAL RESULTS

Who collects, Location, Growth

Rural19%

Suburban38%

Urban17%

College Town6%

Tourist community8%

GeographicallyIsolated

2%

Located in MetroArea10%

Rural19%

Suburban38%

Urban17%

College Town6%

Tourist community8%

GeographicallyIsolated

2%

Located in MetroArea10%

11

OTHER PROGRAM ATTRIBUTES

Drop-offs, pilots

Materials in stream

Payments and enrolment

Collection Frequency and Containers

Presence of PAYT

Each program is modified/adapted to fitcommunity resources and needs

12

OTHER PROGRAM ATTRIBUTES

The “average” residential program (if such athing really existed)

Collection of co-mingled food scraps and yardwaste (many started with yard waste alone-addedFS)

Materials collected weekly in poly-carts (32-96gal)

Voluntary participation

Year round program

Program is an additional fee

Operated in conjunction with PAYT

Includes soiled paper, meat, and dairy

13

DIVERSION/PARTICIPATION

Examined average diversion rates-not the whole story

Next looked at lbs per household total

Uncovered lbs per household food only

Wide range of participation depending on programset-up

Diversion

Overall avg. 52%

National avg. (EPA) 33%

Avg. lbs per participatingHH

25-30lbs

Food Waste only 7-9lbs

Avg. Participation 35-40%

14

COSTS

Examined average rates and costs

Organics collection is on average only about a third oftrash costs

Rates and Cost

Trash Organics Total

Avg. HH rate $21.79 $7.68 $27.88

Median HH rate $21.50 $7.50 $27.30

Avg. HH costs NA $5.40 NA

15

COMMERCIAL RESULTS

Who collects,Location,Growth

16

OTHER PROGRAM ATTRIBUTES

The “average” commercial program (if such athing really existed)

Only targets a portion of the businesses

Voluntary participation for an added fee

Rates are lower than MSW rates

Collected in 64-gallon poly carts

Options for collection at least 3x/week

Includes staff education and outreach (often by thehauler)

17

DIVERSION/COSTS

Less data andharder touncover thanRes.

Rates and Cost

Avg. Max Min

Diversion rate 21% 42% 8%

1 cuyd/week rate $60.00 $161.96 $28.58

18

TIPPING FEE

Is it always cheaper to tip organics?

How do tip fees compare?

LF tip fee Compost Tip Fee Difference in Fees % Difference in Fees

Average $82.00 $44.00 $28.00 29%

Maximum $ 148.00 $ 90.00 $ 88.00 69%

Minimum $ 15.00 $ 0.001 $( 22.50 ) -77%

Median $ 95.00 $ 45.00 $ 22.50 42%

TIPS, BMPS, ANDBARRIERS

19

20

SURVEY – BARRIERS?

Based on survey along with about 30detailed interviews

Commonalities regardless of location

Uncovered both perceived and actualbarriers

21

SURVEY – BARRIERS?

Political Will Without political will/champion/support programs

rarely go through

Facility issues Permitting, siting, processing, NIMBYism, distance,

lack of facilities, others

Costs

User fees/rates, tip fees, infrastructurerequirements, enforcement

Contamination Plastic bags, compostable plastic, cornware

Yuck Factor, pests and vectors

Food scraps are ok on your plate- gross in the trash

BEST MANAGEMENTPRACTICESLISA SKUMATZ- ECONSERVATION INSTITUTE

22

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES –SET-UP

ASPECT BMPS / ALTERNATIVES - RESIDENTIAL COM’L

Start-up –gettinginterest

Summit with stakeholders / face-to-face, matchneeds, work on barriersAlt: University incubators (access to grants, etc.)

Same

Pilot ornot?

Especially in areas without many programs;address barriers, tweak processing, familiarize, buildsupport, examine efficiencies; use randomassignment or selected neighborhood, not opt in fortransferability of resultsPilot not needed in all cases; Less need if facilitiestested; use literature & neighbors; quickerimplementation

Same

23

BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES –DESIGN

ASPECT BMPS - Residential Commercial

Eligiblematerials

Add food – AND soiled paperto yard waste program ifpossible – quick & cheap(paper~50%!; “gateway”)ALT: Food scraps only is anoption – consider 12 gal orsmaller container at drop-offs.

Often pre-consumer first forlower container, education issues.Include soiled paper if possible.Compostable serving ware ONLY ifprocessing can really handleOR pre- and post- consumer forhigher tons (but more contam)

Coll’nFrequency –C/S

Weekly; some change to EOWduring winterSome EOW year-round innorth – alternate with recy.BEST: EOW trash, weeklyorganicsALT: in-sink garbage disposaloption

At least as often as trashWeekly not sufficient unless smallgeneratorsALT: in-sink disposal increasing

Coll’nFrequency –D/O

Varies – examples includeevery other day, daily, other

n/a24

BEST MANAGEMENTPRACTICES – RATES

ASPECT BMPS - Residential Comm’l

Rates –Coll’n

BEST: small container embedded intrash (best use, economies); pay extrafor additional service (often with yardwaste)ALT: fee for service PAYT-styleAVOID: fully embedded (esp. ifcollected with YW) because itdiscourages compostingAVOID: computing costs assumingend-product sales – plan for $0revenues to be safe

Usually added fee;typically 40% cheaper /discountALT: A few embedcosts in trashALT: if no ratediscount; 3 months fee,subsidy (adjustingtrash)

Rates -Tipping

Organics lower than trash for incentive Same

25

BEST MANAGEMENTPRACTICES – CONTAINERS

ASPECT BMPS - Residential Comm’l

Kitchen orin-buildingcontainers

Costly – sending to all residentsexpensive / not sending reduces useConsider inexpensive plastic pitchers(2 if possible) – cheap, 1 can be indishwasher at any timeALT: coupons to redeem forcontainer at local vendor (cheaper)ALT: compostable bags/liners– allowbut don’t promote (Yuck factor)

Offer free or discountedcontainers to employees;typically 23-gal slims;larger too heavy.KEY: signage andconvenient placementALT: waxed cardboardfor grocery (free!)Some vented /slit for air

Outdoorcontainers

Generally no larger than 64 gallonsfor weight issues, wheeled, lidded (canoffer multiples); 96 gal. can be ok ifMOSTLY yardwasteALT: Compostable bags – allow butdo not promoteALT: Bags (paper with YW ok / clearplastic poor). Plastic bagscontaminate, hard to remove

64 gallon cart (nolarger) because weightMultiple 64s okWash carts / yuckALT: Compactors (10CY) in somecommunities; somedehydrators reportedALT: in-sink, in-ground

26

BEST MANAGEMENTPRACTICES – EDUCATION PLUS

ASPECT BMPS - Residential Comm’l

Education Consistent, clear, quarterly fornewDefine food scraps clearly!Electronic, social marketing helps

KEY: On-site training(hauler or city); multi-lingual signs, flyers

YuckFactor

Educate / remind not newmaterials – just different containerSuggest layering materials,freeze, or wrap “yukky” itemsFree compostable bags, picturesof clean organics streams help

In addition to residentialsuggestions…Washing containers (1-2/yr; some every time)Lining with compostablebags, cardboard, papertowelsEmpty before fullVented or slit containersfor air

Verminfears

Educate / remind not newmaterials – just different container

27

BEST MANAGEMENTPRACTICES – SUPPORT

ASPECT BMPS - Residential Comm’l

“Selling” /Politicalsupport

ID motivators for stakeholder local (GHG, jobs,LF, public)Waste audit to demonstrateChampions, talking notes to electeds

Savings ifpossibleGreen

End-product

Procurement mandate for local certified compostthe best optionFree compost for participants 1-2/yr generatessupport / participation

28

29

SURVEY – TIPS / SUGGESTIONS

Implementation / other Invest electeds; public support / feedback

Have a zero waste goal

Start with residential to spread costs

Drop-off programs are possible

Schools a good starting place; concentrated, and messagespread to home

Hauler system requirement makes it easier

Warmer months with EOW pickup can cause odor problems

Have been able to move to EOW Trash / recycling

30

SUCCESSFUL TRENDS INREGULATION/PERMITTING

Stakeholder meetings and public comment

Definition of food scraps

Setting a new facility classification/tieredregulatory structure

Examine and review NIMBYism early on

Lowering permitting fees

Exemptions for YW facilities

Innovations in rulemaking process

31

SUMMARY

Nearly 200 active programs in the US alone withsignificant growth in the last 5 years

There is no “average” program- programs areadapted to fit community needs and resources Drop-off only

Added to yard waste

Commercial options

Barriers exist but all can be overcome with properplanning, information sharing, and BMPs Cost may be the exception

Permitting, regulatory issues exist but are beingaddressed

SUSAN DARLEY-HILLWLSSD

32

RANDI MAILCAMBRIDGE, MA

33

34

THIS PROJECT’S RESOURCES

Another Webinar on January 13th- Similarmaterial, different guest speakers Also a PAYT one tomorrow

Website: www.foodscrapsrecovery.com

Report- Full report and presentations willbe posted on the website- you can alsoemail skumatz@econservationinstitute.orgfor a copy

THANK YOU!

Juri Freeman and Lisa A Skumatz Ph.D.Econservation Institute

Phone: 303/494-1178; Tollfree: 866-758-6289

email: skumatz@econservationinstitute.org

PROJECT WEBSITE –www.foodscrapsrecovery.com

To help on statistical studies, fill out survey on: www.serainc.com; orwww.garbageandrecyclingsurveys.com “national survey”.