Phase I project Objectives


Download 461 b.
Sana10.08.2017
Hajmi461 b.
#13122



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



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



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

  • 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









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



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



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







  • Developed by

  • Food Waste Composting Coalition



Download 461 b.

Do'stlaringiz bilan baham:




Ma'lumotlar bazasi mualliflik huquqi bilan himoyalangan ©fayllar.org 2024
ma'muriyatiga murojaat qiling