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