1 / 32

La Crosse County Feasibility Study Final Report Presented by Michael Quirk, 2012 SHWEC Intern

La Crosse County Feasibility Study Final Report Presented by Michael Quirk, 2012 SHWEC Intern. Outline:. Introduction: Assignment Anaerobic Digestion. 2. Method Categorizing Organizations How Data Was Obtained. 3. Results What Was Found Estimations. 4. Conclusion

zena
Download Presentation

La Crosse County Feasibility Study Final Report Presented by Michael Quirk, 2012 SHWEC Intern

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. La Crosse County Feasibility Study Final Report Presented by Michael Quirk, 2012 SHWEC Intern

  2. Outline: • Introduction: • Assignment • Anaerobic Digestion • 2. Method • Categorizing Organizations • How Data Was Obtained • 3. Results • What Was Found • Estimations • 4. Conclusion • Recommendation

  3. Introduction: • Assignment: • Research food waste in our community • Feasibility of having anaerobic digester (AD)? • Profit for county as well as energy, heat, fuel, etc. for others • Environmentally more favorable

  4. Introduction: • Anaerobic Digestion: • Process to breakdown organic products and produce a biogas, methane. • Three main types of digesters: 1. Wet Anaerobic Digester • Total solids: 8-12% • Need a slurry mix in order to be pumpable • Lots of manure or other substrate needed

  5. Introduction: • Anaerobic Digestion: • Three main types of digesters: 2. Dry Anaerobic Digester • Total Solids: 20-30% • Contamination not an issue • Lots of food waste and yard waste needed • Minimum 8,000 tons waste/year

  6. Introduction: • Anaerobic Digestion: • Three main types of digesters: 3. Small Containerized Anaerobic Digester • Hybrid system • Can take less than 1,000 tons waste/year

  7. Introduction: • Anaerobic Digestion: • Very scalable depending on amount of waste • Biggest determinant: type of feedstock

  8. Method: • Categorizing Food Waste Organizations: • Categories: • Lists of all food processing industries, schools, and elderly homes were compiled • List of all establishments with food licenses in the cities of La Crosse and Onalaska • Each organization was grouped into a category: • Food processing industries • Schools • Elderly homes • Fast food (sit down) • Fast food (packaged) • Small-medium sit down restaurants • Large sit down restaurants • Bar and Grills • Cafes • Hotels • Caterers • Attractions Total of about 400 organizations!

  9. 4. How much do you currently pay for in tipping fees/garbage collection for your food waste? And for your total waste stream? 5. What institutional changes would be needed to separate food waste out of your waste stream, and what potential difficulties do you envision? Overall, how difficult would it be? a. Easy, with simple and cheap changes b. Possible, with moderate changes c. Difficult, with lots of changes d. Impossible 6. How difficult would it be to separate out post-consumer waste (i.e. customer waste) from your regular garbage? a. No problem b. Possible c. Doable, but a large hassle/expensive d. Impossible 7. What percentage of post-consumer waste do you think is comprised of food waste? 8. Is there any other information that you feel could be useful for this project? Method: La Crosse County Food Waste Project La Crosse County is researching the feasibility of placing an anaerobic digester on their landfill site. This digester would breakdown waste and ultimately produce a biogas that can be used or sold for energy. The waste the County is primarily interested in is food waste. To assess how much food waste is actually out in our community, I am interviewing numerous organizations and industries that have a lot of potential to contribute. In order to get a better understanding of your organization's potential, I would like to ask you a few brief questions for our feasibility study. Questions: 1. How much food waste (poundage/tonnage) is currently being produced per day or week from each branch or as a whole organization through pre-consumer waste (i.e. in the kitchen)? What percent of your total waste stream is composed of food waste? 2. What percentages or total poundage do you believe each of the following categories contribute to your overall food waste? Fruits and VegetablesDairy MeatBaked Goods OilsPost-consumer Packaged Goods 3. What is currently the waste stream of these products? • How Data was Obtained: • Random Samples from each category were chosen • Interviews were via phone, email, or meeting • Total of ~ 100 organizations responded • Sample Questionnaire:

  10. Method: • How Data was Obtained: • Schools • Production worksheets filled out by kitchen staff everyday • Two middle schools, one elementary (estimates for highschool)

  11. Method: • How Data was Obtained: • Residential • Calculations based on EPA’s studies to estimate • Tennessee and Wisconsin recent studies to support estimates.

  12. Method: • How Data was Obtained: • Post-consumer waste • Calculations based on EPA’s studies used to estimate food waste from restaurants, fast food, and large hotels • City of Chicago study to support estimates

  13. Results: • Food Processing Industries: Kwik Trip • Kitchen and Bakery Items • Kitchen: Cheese, meats, lettuce, bread, and other • Bakery: Cookies, muffins, doughnuts, bread, buns, scrap dough, etc.

  14. Results: • Food Processing Industries: All Others • Not much is being thrown away • Things get saved in freezer for another day • Anything unused goes to donations, farmers, or some other group Biggest Responses:

  15. Results: • Schools: • Production worksheet results: • Not a lot when compared to amount of waste needed • Only displays pre-consumer waste • All staff indicated that a LOT of waste at post-consumer end • Study by student this school year to investigate (1) Data estimations based on percent increase of average population of school size in Wisconsin when compared to middle and elementary level food waste. A 31% increase in avg. school size from middle to high school corresponds to the 31% increase in food waste at the high school level

  16. Results: • Residential: • According to a 2010 study, the EPA estimated that an individual generates 4.3 lbs/person/day. (U.S. EPA, 2010) Population x 4.3 lbs/person/day = Total Metric Tons MSW/day 2240 lbs 113,679 x 4.3 lbs/person/day = 218.22 Metric Tons MSW/day 2240 lbs

  17. Results: • Residential: • The EPA estimated in same study that 13.9% of all MSW is food scraps 218.22 metric tons MSW x .139 = 30.77 tons food waste/day = 11,200.3 tons food waste/year

  18. Results: • Residential: Other Residential Waste Studies • The 2011 Madison Waste Characterization • Average of 16.8% Food Scraps • The 2002 and 2009 Wisconsin State-Wide Waste Characterization (Recycling Connection Corporation, 2009) • 2002: 13.4% of all Residential (one-family homes) waste was food • 2009: 17.5% of all Residential (one-family homes) waste was food • The 2008 Tennessee Waste Characterization (Tennessee State University, 2008) • Average of 16.5% Residential Food Scraps • The 2002 Oregon State-Wide Waste Characterization • Average of 15.6% of all MSW was Food Scraps

  19. Results: • Residential: Range of Residential Food Waste Based on Percent Collected 13.9% - 17.5% (1) Metric tons

  20. Results: • Restaurants: • Not much is being thrown away from pre-consumer side • Things get saved in freezer for another day • More scraps being thrown at post-consumer end • ?? Biggest Responses:

  21. Results: • Restaurants: Post-consumer Estimations • When asked how difficult it would be to separate food waste from regular garbage, all responded, ‘doable, but a large hassel/expensive.’ • Estimates based on a 2006 study by Cascadia Consulting Group were used. (Cascadia, 2006) Rough estimations based on answers from interviews Metric tons • A study done in 2010 by the city of Chicago estimates that 59.3% of all restaurant waste is comprised of food scraps. (Chicago Department of Environment, 2010)

  22. Results: • Restaurants: Post-consumer Estimations • Table based on all organizations within the county: Percent range collected based on range of generation/year throughout county (1) (1) Metric tons

  23. Results: • Hospitals and Senior Homes: • Not much is being thrown away from pre-consumer side • Things get saved in freezer for another day • Plans are already in place for post-consumer • Now they have menus Biggest Responses:

  24. Results: • Other Options: Sanimax • After numerous talks with organizations, it was evident an outside source was involved in a lot of hauling of organic waste • Company named Sanimax currently hauls over half of the organic waste for an AD system in Wisconsin – UW Oshkosh • Take commercial waste: Walmarts (5), Festival Foods (3), etc. • Representative estimated 5000-6000 tons food waste/year within and near La Crosse County

  25. Conclusion: • Definite Options: • Both are enthusiastic about opportunity and are open to partnerships • - Existing infrastructure at landfill

  26. Conclusion: • Unknown Options: Totals of Food Waste Estimations based on Percent Collected (1) • Lots of waste is prevalent in the county, the amount of which is truly collected is an unknown: (1) In metric tons (2) This does not incorporate post-consumer waste by the students and staff. A student will be doing a study of post- consumer waste for a high school this school year.

  27. Conclusion: • Unknown Options: • Other Unknowns: • - Stream of waste (other haulers)? • - How to separate? • i. $$$ • ii. Mandating • iii. Tipping fee adjustments • - Once system in place, who will want to contribute? • i. Better environmentally • ii. Cheaper for providers?

  28. Conclusion: • Recommendation: • After talks with AD vendors, a dry anaerobic fermentation system run by the county with Kwik Trip and Sanimax as long-term partners, would be recommended. (Blythe, 2012) • With KT and Sanimax = great start to amount needed • If only ~ 15% of all other waste was collected = easily enough to make system efficient

  29. Conclusion: • Recommendation: Possibilities: • Byproduct of dry AD = digestate • - Sell in exchange for feedstock to farmers = more solid waste • 50-60% methane production = more profit for county • - Partnership with WWTP? Other? • Once system in place = more interest from other organizations, schools, and whole community • Create benefits for separation

  30. Conclusion: • Overall: • In the county’s hands • Waste is there • Food waste in U.S. is rising every year • ADs common practice in other countries. • - Coming to U.S. • Can be great example of success and leaders of sustanability

  31. Acknowledgments: • La Crosse County Solid Waste Department • - advisor Nick Nichols, Hank Koch • Advisor Professor John Katers • Short Elliott Hendrickson (SEH) • All of SHWEC staff for the opportunity and resources • All organizations throughout La Crosse County

  32. Works Cited: Blythe, Amber. (2012, August 3). Telephone Interview. Cascadia Consulting Group. (2006). Targeted Statewide Waste Characterization: Waste Disposal and Diversion Findings for Selected Industry Groups. California EPA. Retrieved from http://www.cawrecycles.org/files/ciwmb_restaurant_composition.pdf Chicago Department of Environment. (2010). Waste Characterization Study. Retrieved August 13, 2012, from www.cityofchicago.org/RecyclingAndWasteMgmt_PDFs/WasteAndDiversion Study/WasteCharacterizationReport.pdf Municipal Solid Waste. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (2010). Retrieved July 12, 2012, from http://www.epa.gov/osw/nonhaz/municipal/index.htm Recycling Connections Corporation. 2009 Wisconsin State-Wide Waste Characterization Study. (2010). 3.2-3.3. Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. 2008 Tennessee Waste Characterization Study. (2008). Retrieved July 18, 2012, from http://www.tn.gov/environment/swm/pdf/swspfin1.pdf

More Related