Funded by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Study Conducted by the Food Waste Composting Coalitio

1. Food Waste Collection and Composting Feasibility Study for Allegheny County Funded by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection Study Conducted by the Food Waste Composting Coalition November 1, 2005 to October 25, 2006 Project Administered by the Pennsylvania Resources Council

2. 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.

3. Phase I Project Scope Task ARecruit urban businesses and institutions Task BConduct abbreviated food waste audits Task CResearch options and costs Task DConstruct a collection and composting model Task EDesign and develop marketing materials

4. 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

5. Task ARecruit urban businesses and institutions • Food Waste Generators • Compost Processors • Independent Haulers

6. Task ARecruit 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

7. 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

8. Task ARecruit Independent Haulers Identified and contacted one independent hauler with a permit for hauling who is interested in participating in a pilot program.

9. Task BConduct 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

10. 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

11. Food Waste Audit Description • Prepare for staff training • Implement training with management and staff • Verify set up and implementation plan • Prepare food waste audit • Implement food waste audit • Collect and compile data • Conduct a debrief session with FWG management and staff

12. Plant-based food waste Animal-based & post consumer food waste Trash Where does it go? Fish Soda Cans Cheese Plain Pasta Eggs Ham Apples Plastic Bags Orange Peels Pasta w/ sauce Chicken Coffee Grounds Lettuce Pies/Cakes Tofu Salad with Dressing Plain Bread Pizza

13. Food for Thought Question: Is food waste really garbage, or is it a resource? 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! 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.

14. Table 1: Food Waste Audit Results

15. 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.

16. Task CResearch 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

17. Norcal Waste Systems Inc.

18. Eastern Organics Recycling

19. Rutland County Commercial Food Waste Composting Program in Rutland, VT

20. 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.

21. Task CResearch 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)

22. Economic Analysis “ Worksheet for Evaluating the Collection of Organics for the Commercial Sector” from Portland Metro, the regional solid waste agency for Portland, Oregon.

23. Economic Analysis Table 2: Variables investigated in Economic Analysis

24. 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

25. 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)

26. Economic Analysis

27. 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.

28. 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….

29. 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.

30. Task DConstruct collection and composting model Proposed Phase II Models • 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

31. Task E Design 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.

32. 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…

33. Developed by Food Waste Composting Coalition January 2007