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
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.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
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
Plant-based
food waste
Animal-based &
post consumer
food waste
Trash
Where does it go?
Eggs
Ham
Apples
Plastic Bags
Cheese
Fish
Soda Cans
Plain Pasta
Orange Peels
Pasta w/ sauce
Chicken
Coffee Grounds
Lettuce
Salad with Dressing
Plain Bread
Pizza
Tofu
Pies/Cakes
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!
Table 1: Food Waste Audit Results
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
FWG
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
Page 49
Worksheet for evaluating the collection of organics from the commercial sector
(Cells in blue can be changed. Other cells are derived from equations.)
Whole Foods - Green A Subsidized
Assumptions:
Solid waste tip fee
$27.82
Organics tip fee
$25.00
Hauling Fee
$144.45
Collection volume (cubic yds)
Collection container cost/week
$0.00
Collections/week
Percent organics, by weight (Green)
33%
Hours per stop
Percent of organics collected
100%
Weight per pickup (lbs.)
Percentage of material diverted
33%
Change in weekly cost to customer $
104.39
Original
Scenario
30
2
1.00
12,000
w/ Organics Collection
SW
Organics
24.0
6.0
2
2
1.00
0.40
8,040
3,960
Break-even organics tip fee: $
(1.36)
Original scenario: commingled organics
Percent of
Density
total by
(lbs./cubic Percent by
Total by
Operating costs per week
weight
yard)
volume
Volume
weight
Collection
Container
Tip Fee
Commingled Organics
33%
660
20%
12.0
7,920
$288.90
$0.00
$333.84
Other (non-organics)
67%
335
80%
48.0
16,080
Total or avg.
100%
400
100%
60.0
24,000
Organics collected separately
Percent of
Density
total by
(lbs./cubic Percent by
Total by
Operating costs per week
weight
yard)
volume
Volume
weight
Collection
Container
Tip Fee
Separated Organics
33%
660
20%
12.0
7,920
$115.56
$0.00
$99.00
Other
67%
335
80%
48.0
16,080
$288.90
223.67
Total or avg.
100%
100%
60.0
24,000
$404.46
$0.00
$322.67
Whole Foods - Green A Subsidized - Only food waste containing no animal products is being composted.
Solid waste and food waste are picked up twice a week in separate pulls. Hauling costs are partially subsidized.
Total
$622.74
Total
$214.56
512.57
$727.13
“ 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
Table 2: Variables investigated in Economic Analysis
Use of a compactor
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
(%)
Compa
ctor
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
WPIP
Low A
1 & 13
Windrow
16,029
80
No
6
3
3
$139.11
No
WPIP
Low B
2 & 14
Windrow
16,029
80
No
6
3
4
$139.11
No
WPIP
Low C
3 & 15
Windrow
16,029
80
No
6
$139.11
Yes
WPIP
Low D
4 & 16
Windrow
16,029
80
No
6
$139.11
Yes
WPIP
Low E
5 & 17
Windrow
16,029
80
No
6
$139.11
WPIP
Low F
6 & 18
Windrow
16,029
80
No
6
WPIP
High A
7 & 19
Windrow
27,343
80
No
6
6 Times a week at the
same time
S.W. – 3 & F.W. - 6
Both pulled at same
time
S.W. – 3 & F.W. - 6
Both pulled at same
time
S.W. – 3 & F.W. - 6
Both pulled at same
time
3
3
$139.11
No -Added
25% for
distance
No - Added
50% for
distance
No
WPIP
High B
8 & 20
Windrow
27,343
80
No
6
3
$139.11
No
WPIP
High C
9 & 21
Windrow
27,343
80
No
6
$139.11
Yes
WPIP
High D
10 & 22
Windrow
27,343
80
No
6
$139.11
Yes
WPIP
High E
11 & 23
Windrow
27,343
80
No
6
$139.11
WPIP
High F
12 & 24
Windrow
27,343
80
No
6
6 Times a week at the
same time
S.W. – 3 & F.W. - 6
Both pulled at same
time
S.W. – 3 & F.W. - 6
Both pulled at same
time
S.W. – 3 & F.W. - 6
Both pulled at same
time
No -Added
25% for
distance
No -Added
50% for
distance
4
$139.11
$139.11
Effect on
current
weekly
waste costs
No
Subsidy*
- $40.07
4% red.
+ $99.04
9% inc.
-$40.07
4% red.
-$40.07
4% red.
Effect on
Current
weekly waste
costs with a
60%
subsidy**
- $290.47
26% red.
- $234.83
21% red.
- $290.47
26% red.
- $415.67
37% red.
+ $168.59
14% inc.
- $165.27
15% red.
+ $377.26
30% inc.
- $148.56
13% red.
- $68.36
5% red.
+ $70.75
5% inc.
- $68.36
5% red.
- $68.36
5% red.
- $318.76
24% red.
- $263.11
20% red.
- $318.76
24% red.
- $443.95
33% red.
+ $140.31
10% inc.
- $360.49
27% red.
+ $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
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
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.
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