Transcript Document

© 2014 HDR ©
©
Architecture,
2014
2014 HDR,
HDR,Inc.,
Inc.,
Inc.,all
all
allrights
rights
rightsreserved.
reserved.
reserved.
IMPLEMENTING
RESIDENTIAL ORGANICS
DIVERSION
© 2014 HDR, Inc., all rights reserved.
It’s been 10 years since my residential organics program began ……
© 2014 HDR ©
©
Architecture,
2014
2014 HDR,
HDR,Inc.,
Inc.,
Inc.,all
all
allrights
rights
rightsreserved.
reserved.
reserved.
STATE OF THE PRACTICE
(NORTH AMERICA)

Canada
o
o
o
o

2.64 million tons of food waste composted annually as of 2008
As of 2011, 45% of all households composted kitchen waste, 60% of them through curbside collection.
Over 50% of SFD and 22% of MFD composted kitchen waste
E.g. In Ontario, 80% of large municipalities have curbside food waste diversion, serving over 9 million
residents, 2.4 million homes
Participation rates 70% +, capture rates 40% + , divert from 140 to 560 lb/HHD/year
U.S.
o
o
o
o
o
36 million tons of food waste generated/year, around 5% (less than 2 million tons) composted (2012)
Split roughly 50/50 between residential and commercial
As of 2014 180 curbside programs, across 16 states, majority in California, Washington, Minnesota
Around 1/3 of programs serve both residential and commercial sector
As of 2014, 7% of compost sites (347) could compost food scraps, 2% mixed organic streams (87)
STATE OF THE PRACTICE
‘Typical’ Residential Program
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Comingled yard waste, food scraps,
compostable paper
Collected weekly in 32, 64 or 96 gallon carts
Includes all food waste and soiled paper
Voluntary, charges additional fee (70% of
programs)
Often in conjunction with PAYT
Collect 25 to 30 lbs/HHD/week, food waste is
around 7 to 9 lbs/HHD/week
Average participation rate 35 to 40%
Average cost $5.40/month, average charge
$7.70/month
‘Typical’ Commercial Program
•
•
•
•
Focus on higher volume food generators
Collects in 64 gallon carts or 2 yard front load
bins
Often collect multiple times a week
Voluntary, charges extra rate for service but at
lower cost than MSW
STATE OF THE PRACTICE
NORTH CAROLINA




Around 1.24 million tons/year of food waste in NC, 670,000 residential, 570,000 commercial
Less than 30,000 tpy composted (2011)
No requirement for commercial or residential diversion
18 Facilities in North Carolina (listed by BioCycle) that can accept some type of food waste:
o
o
o

Some pilot / small scale residential food scrap programs in effect
o
o

AD facilities – 1 operating, 1 currently closed and scheduled for upgrade in 2014
Private/Closed composting facilities – 6
Private/Open composting facilities - 10
Residential food waste drop-off at Convenience Centres in Orange County
Subscription services (Raleigh, Charlotte)
Study underway in Wake County
DESIGN
CONSIDERATIONS

Level of interest

Feedstock Assessment

Customer Interface

Collection System

Processing Approach

Product Markets

Program costs and cost recovery

Program benefits
LET’S DISCUSS:
KEY ISSUES AND SUCCESS
FACTORS
GENERATING INTEREST

Identify and address the local drivers for (or
against)…
•
Disposal capacity (average tip fee around $40/ton)
•
Current System Costs
•
Diversion targets (hard to meet 50%+ targets
without organics diversion)
•
GHG emission reduction / Green energy

Engage stakeholders / champions

Pilot programs
DETERMINING ELIGIBLE
MATERIAL TYPES

Most successful programs include:
 Year-round yard
 All food scraps
 Soiled/non-recyclable paper

Co-mingled yard/food/paper tends to capture high
percent yard, lower percent food/paper

Separate yard / food offers option for different
processing and collection scenarios (and smaller
organics container)

Good material estimates help with securing
processing capacity – consider material audits
EDUCATION AND
OUTREACH

Food scrap programs have longer learning
curve than recycling

Successful programs promote EARLY and
OFTEN

Define food scraps clearly – use pictoral
materials – “All Food” is simple

Provide in format for frequent and
convenient reference

Provide reasonable instructions to address
odor, vermin etc.
CONVENIENCE FOR PARTICIPANTS

Collect organics weekly, same day as garbage

Provide BINS:
o
o
o
In-home container (durable, dishwasher safe, small)
Curbside green cart (10 gallon for food only, larger for co-mingled
food/yard)
Consider space / building density / building types

Allow compostable BAGS

Restrict garbage (Limits on quantity, every other week collection)
COLLECTION



Collection method (automated, manual,
curbside placement etc.)
Consider collection modeling
Options to reduce costs:
o
o
o

weekly co-collection of garbage and organics
co-collection of garbage/organics week 1 and
recyclables/organics week 2
every other week garbage collection
Typical CDN weekly food waste collection
cost ranges:
o
o
$20 to $25/HHD/annum (co-collection) to
over $35/HHD/annum (separate collection)
PROGRAM COSTS AND RATES





Average U.S. program costs $65 annually/HHD (2010)
Reported organic collection costs approx. 1/3 total trash costs
Majority of collection is contracted
Best practice – either embed fee in trash rate or consider PAYT for garbage
Much lower participation/capture rates if directly charge for service
PROCESSING

Match technology with attributes of organic
stream
o
o


Match products to available markets
Consider integration with existing system
o
o

Increase in volatile organics: move to in-vessel
composting or anaerobic digestion
Degree of contamination affects pre-processing
and processing options
co-processing with yard waste
co-processing with IC&I organics
Allow time for procurement
Dry Fermentation Anaerobic Digestion
Photo courtesy of Zero Waste Energy Corp.
Open Window Composting
ORGANICS
PROGRAM DESIGN
DRY PROCESSING
Covered Composting
Photo courtesy of Gore
Phased solids: Clean World, Sacramento CA
High solids: Urbaser, Madrid, Spain
ORGANICS
PROGRAM DESIGN
WET PROCESSING
High Rate: Gills Onions, Oxnard CA
PROCESSING COSTS




Open Windrow (Low-end) less than $40 per
ton for outdoor windrow
Enclosed (Mid-range) $60 to $120 per ton
for in-vessel aerobic composting
Anaerobic Digestion (Higher-range) $90 to
$145 per ton, for Dry or Wet AD
Range varies due to economies of scale
and complexity of technology
PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY SELECTION





Feedstock quality/contaminant level
Potential for odors and odor management
Area/site size requirements
Utilities: power, water usage and wastewater
Potential permitting issues




Proven operations on similar feedstock
Ancillary cost: Chemicals, effluent
Maintenance, staffing, fuel, water, power
requirements
By-product compatibility
LESSONS LEARNED





No one-size fits all approach
Pilots can generate the data needed to
confirm full-scale program design
Stage roll-out in large jurisdictions
Consider entire collection system –
integrate changes to optimize collection of
organics and other materials
Success requires ‘more hands on’ effort
than other diversion programs
LESSONS LEARNED





Match technology to organic stream
Market may not respond quickly to potential
processing demands
Take the time for a good procurement
process – well defined RFP and contracts
Many processors lack experience handing
highly volatile SSO, bagged materials
Technology transfer is not always easy
For more information contact:
[email protected]
(919) 232-6682
[email protected]
(905) 380-8568
WRAP UP
© 2014 HDR, Inc., all rights reserved.
© 2014 HDR ©
©
Architecture,
2014
2014 HDR,
HDR,Inc.,
Inc.,
Inc.,all
all
allrights
rights
rightsreserved.
reserved.
reserved.