Waste Management 30 (2010) 14861494

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Waste Management
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Assessment of the state of food waste treatment in the United States and Canada
J.W. Levis a,*, M.A. Barlaz a, N.J. Themelis b, P. Ulloa b
a b

North Carolina State University, Department of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering, Campus Box 7908, Raleigh, NC 27695-7908, United States Columbia University, Earth Engineering Center, New York, NY 10027, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

a b s t r a c t
Currently in the US, over 97% of food waste is estimated to be buried in landlls. There is nonetheless interest in strategies to divert this waste from landlls as evidenced by a number of programs and policies at the local and state levels, including collection programs for source separated organic wastes (SSO). The objective of this study was to characterize the state-of-the-practice of food waste treatment alternatives in the US and Canada. Site visits were conducted to aerobic composting and two anaerobic digestion facilities, in addition to meetings with ofcials that are responsible for program implementation and nancing. The technology to produce useful products from either aerobic or anaerobic treatment of SSO is in place. However, there are a number of implementation issues that must be addressed, principally project economics and feedstock purity. Project economics varied by region based on landll disposal fees. Feedstock purity can be obtained by enforcement of contaminant standards and/or manual or mechanical sorting of the feedstock prior to and after treatment. Future SSO diversion will be governed by economics and policy incentives, including landll organics bans and climate change mitigation policies. 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Article history: Received 15 July 2009 Accepted 22 January 2010 Available online 19 February 2010

1. Introduction and objectives Municipal solid waste (MSW) and other non-hazardous solid wastes are generated in the residential, industrial, commercial, and institutional (ICI) sectors. In the US, 54% of this waste is buried in landlls according to the US EPA (US EPA, 2008). In contrast, the BioCycle/Columbia State of Garbage (SOG) survey (Arsova et al., 2008), that is based on landlled tonnages reported by the 50 states, estimated that 64.5% of total MSW generation was landlled. There is continuing interest in strategies to divert waste from landlls as evidenced by a number of programs and policies at the local and state levels. For example, as of 2004 there were an estimated 7689 curbside recycling programs in the US that served $82 million people. This may be an underestimate as only 32 states responded to the survey used to collect these data (Simmons et al., 2006). Similarly, 36 states reported a total of 3474 yard waste composting facilities. A separate food waste composting survey found 273 facilities that currently accept food waste (Olivares and Goldstein, 2008ad; Olivares et al., 2008). Some states have additional programs that are designed to promote recycling such as use-based disposal fees and mandatory deposits on containers in 10 states (i.e., bottle bills). MSW management strategies are often implemented at the state and local level so there is not a
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 919 515 4342; fax: +1 919 515 7676. E-mail address: jwlevis@gmail.com (J.W. Levis). 0956-053X/$ - see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2010.01.031

uniform set of MSW policies across the US. In general, there is much discussion among policymakers and environmental advocates to increase programs to divert waste from landlls via source reduction, recycling and composting. One alternative for the diversion of waste from landlls is to increase the quantity of food waste that is treated biologically, either by aerobic composting (AC) or anaerobic digestion (AD). While programs and facilities to manage yard waste are well established, the management of food waste in composting facilities is less developed and perhaps only in its infancy. There is nonetheless considerable interest in food waste composting and the desire to increase food waste diversion is likely to increase. The objective of this study was to characterize the state-of-thepractice of food waste treatment options in the US and Canada through visits to operating AC and AD facilities, meetings with local government ofcials responsible for program implementation and nancing, and literature review. Issues examined in this study include technologies used to treat food waste, odor control measures, compost quality, as well as economic and environmental factors contributing to current and future food waste treatment. Since yard waste composting programs are well established, the emphasis of this study was on food waste. Nonetheless, food waste was handled together with yard waste in virtually all of the programs, thus they must be considered together. Source separated organics (SSO) is a broad term that may include materials such as food and yard wastes, soiled paper, diapers,

J.W. Levis et al. / Waste Management 30 (2010) 14861494 Table 1 Generation and recovery of yard and food wastes in US.a Waste generated (millions of Mg) MSW Yard trimmings Food wastes
a

1487

Table 2 European countries with facilities processing MSW in anaerobic digesters in 2006.a % Recovered 33.4 64.1 2.6 Country Germany Spain Switzerland France Netherlands Belgium Italy Austria Sweden Portugal United Kingdom Denmark Poland Total
a

Waste recovered (millions of Mg) 77.1 19.0 0.73

Number of plants 55 23 13 6 5 5 5 4 3 3 2 2 1 127

Country capacity (Mg/y) 1,250,000 1,800,000 130,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 160,000 70,000 35,000 100,000 100,000 40,000 20,000 4,605,000

230 29.6 28.8

Data adopted from US EPA (2008).

and pet wastes; however, some jurisdictions directly forbid meat, diapers, and pet wastes. For this study, SSO is meant to include at least food and yard wastes. 2. Generation and recovery of food and yard wastes in the US Table 1 provides a summary of the generation and recovery of MSW, yard waste, and food waste in the US in 2007. The US EPA (2008) estimates that 230 million Mg of MSW were generated of which 77.1 million Mg was recovered via recycling or composting (1 Mg = 1 metric ton). Yard waste and food waste accounted for 29.6 million Mg and 28.8 million Mg of the generated MSW, respectively. Based on US EPA gures, over 60% of the generated yard waste is estimated to be composted, while this estimate is only 3% for food waste. 3. Technologies for source separated organics recovery 3.1. Aerobic composting AC for the purpose of this paper will refer to stabilizing organic wastes through controlled aerobic degradation. The major technologies for AC are: (1) windrows, (2) aerated static piles (ASP), (3) the Gore Cover system, (4) tunnel composting, and (5) in-vessel composting. Detailed descriptions for these technologies except for the Gore Cover system have been presented in Diaz et al. (2007) and Haug (1993). The Gore Cover system is essentially an ASP system in which the piles are covered by a breathable expanded polytetrauoroethylene fabric. The cover allows CO2 to exit, but restricts water inltration and odor releases while the cover is on the pile. Odorous compounds and other emissions are absorbed in a condensation layer that forms on the inside surface of the cover, and the system has been shown to reduce VOC and ammonia emissions by over 90%, as compared to windrow composting of similar green wastes (Schmidt et al., 2009). Odorous emissions may still occur when the cover is removed to mix or handle the material. The Gore Cover system utilizes forced aeration that is controlled to maintain target oxygen concentrations. The composting process includes two active composting phases under cover, followed by initial curing in uncovered windrows, and nal curing in large uncovered piles. The Gore Cover system is considered to be an enclosed system for regulatory purposes throughout most of Europe (Munchen, 2002). 3.2. Anaerobic digestion AD is widely used in the US to stabilize wastewater biosolids but there are only a few pilot scale operations in the US using food waste. Solid waste treatment by AD is more common in Europe (Table 2) where energy costs are higher and the EU Landll Directive 1999/31/EC requires that Member States reduce the amount of organic waste that is landlled by 65% relative to 1995 levels by 2016 (European Commission, 2009). Table 2 shows data for European AD facilities that take MSW. Only a fraction of this total

Adopted from Kelleher, 2007.

capacity is actually food waste. The EU Landll Directive has created signicant incentives to recover organic materials from the waste stream in Europe. A variety of engineered anaerobic reactors to treat food waste are in use in full-scale. These systems can be classied according to: (1) solids content of the feed; (2) number of stages (one-stage vs. multiple stages); (3) operating temperature (mesophilic vs. thermophilic); and (4) method of introducing the feed into the reactor (continuous vs. batch). Detailed descriptions for these various congurations are provided in Rilling (2005).

4. Site selection The objective of this study was to obtain a snapshot of a variety of AC and AD technologies that are used to manage food waste. For AC, site selection was intended to provide a representative sample of the technologies used. Advanced in-vessel systems, aerated static piles, and the Gore Cover system were included, along with simpler windrow systems. For AD, there are only a few facilities in the US and Canada so no formal site selection was required. The purpose of interviews was to understand (1) how materials were processed, (2) the market for end products, and (3) major obstacles. Meetings with government ofcials responsible for program implementation were equally important since the policy to implement food waste diversion is a key driving force.

5. State-of-the-practice 5.1. Aerobic composting of source separated organics Table 3 provides a summary of the state of food waste treatment options in the US. Currently nearly 300 facilities in the US accept food waste. The large majority ($80%) of these facilities process <5000 Mg of food waste per year ($100 Mg per week), and over 90% of these facilities take in <50,000 Mg of food waste per year ($1000 Mg per week). There are <30 facilities in the entire US that take in over 50,000 Mg of food waste annually. About half of the food waste composting facilities in the US are commercial or municipal facilities. Most of the remainder are colleges and universities as well as farms. Finally, it should be noted that only a quarter of the facilities accept residential food waste. The vast majority are processing ICI wastes. It is the ICI generators that are currently driving food waste diversion in the US. Observations from visits to several aerobic composting sites in the US and Canada are summarized in this section. Table 4 describes each of the facilities that was visited.

1488 Table 3 Summary of food waste composting facilities in the US. Region New England Northeast/Mid-Atlanticb Southeastc Upper Midwestc Mountaind Weste Entire US
a b c d e a

J.W. Levis et al. / Waste Management 30 (2010) 14861494

Total 51 48 18 48 36 72 273 and Goldstein and Goldstein and Goldstein and Goldstein et al. (2008). (2008a). (2008b). (2008c). (2008d).

Greater than 5000 Mg/y 9 6 4 13 6 19 57

Greater than 50,000 Mg/y 2 3 2 3 5 9 24

Commercial or municipal composters 16 15 11 17 27 45 131

Accept residential waste 8 3 3 10 13 34 71

Olivares Olivares Olivares Olivares Olivares

5.1.1. Composting technology and odor control None of the visited facilities in the US were close to population centers, but they did use various forms of odor control. For the Gore system at Facility A, the tipping oor was in a 3-sided building. The air from the building was exhausted through a biolter. All of the conveyers were covered, and the composting covers appeared to effectively mitigate any odors during active composting. As explained in the preceding section, the Gore system itself is functionally an in-vessel system and odorous compounds condense in a lm of water on the inside of the cover. Facility D had the tipping area in the same enclosed structure as active composting, and used an active odor control system that provided 9 air changes per hour through a biolter. No odors were noticed at the facility during the visit. Facility B did not use any active odor control, but they have not received any odor complaints due to their rural location. Facility C is by far the smallest facility visited in the US. They do not have any active odor control system and they have received numerous odor complaints. Three of the four composting visited facilities in Canada employed a high level of technology. Facility F utilized a tunnel system that was essentially a covered ASP system. All of the air used for aeration was passed through a biolter for odor control. Facilities H and I both used in-vessel systems with a biolter for odor control. Facility G was the smallest and utilized open air windrows with no odor control. With the exception of Facility G, all were close to either population or industrial centers and were concerned with potential odors. With this in mind, the operators were careful to keep garage doors closed when a truck was not entering. In addition, at Facilities H and I, long-term curing was done at a remote location.

5.1.2. Product quality and contaminant removal A critical aspect of compost operations was the attention that each facility gave to product quality. Each facility had professional agronomists and/or horticulturists on staff. These staff members worked closely with end-users (including farmers) to produce
Table 4 Summary of composting facilities visited. Designation Facility Facility Facility Facility Facility Facility Facility Facility
a

desirable products. In some cases, this included mixing soils into the compost product. Material cleanliness was also important as even minute amounts of glass or plastic could ruin a product. Glass and needles are especially problematic due to the liabilities involved if consumers injure themselves. Beyond these specic concerns voiced by the operators any item in MSW could potentially be present in the feedstock and programs to remove contaminants are essential. Facilities employed a variety of processes including sink/oat tanks for glass and stone removal, and vacuum systems for the removal of plastic lms. Facility A used a vacuum to remove plastic from the nal compost. They indicated that they would have to install a manual picking line if they accepted more commercial food waste as it was typically more contaminated than residential food waste. Facility D had strict guidelines for load acceptance and since they only accept industrial and large-scale commercial wastes, they did not have additional cleaning procedures. Facility B had pickers that manually removed plastics at the tipping area. In addition, they used a vacuum system to remove plastics and a oat tank to remove rocks and glass. They also indicated that they would have to install a manual picking line if they accepted more commercial food waste. Facility C utilized a vacuum system to remove plastic from the compost. Workers at Facility F visually inspected loads on receipt. They also used a magnet on the back end to remove ferrous metals. Contamination was not a major issue at Facility F due to their educational programs and penalties for sending contaminated loads. On receipt of a contaminated load from a grocery store, the operators of Facility F would contact the generator and offer to either have them come and remove the contamination at the facility or send the load back to the generator. This was effective in generating a pure feedstock. The owners ability to enforce this strict policy was bolstered by the fact that the disposal of food waste in landlls is banned in the Canadian province; therefore the waste generators required access to the facility to remain in business. Facility H used four pickers on the front end who were offered pay incentives for removing contamination. Incoming contamina-

Location Northwestern US West Coast US Northeastern US Southeastern US Southeastern Canada Southeastern Canada Southeastern Canada Southeastern Canada

Technology Gore Cover Windrow Tunnel ASP Tunnel Windrow In-vessel In-vessel

Annual throughout (Mg) 318,000 91,000 13,000 91,000 10,000 4,000 25,000 25,000

Substrates accepteda FW, YW FW, YW FW, YW,M FW, YW, BS, M FW, YW, FiW, BS FW,YW, BS FW, YW FW, YW

Food waste (%) <15 <4 <10 8 $50 $50 $50 $50

A B C D F G H I

YW = yard waste, FW = food waste, BS = biosolids, M = manure, FiW = shing industry waste.

J.W. Levis et al. / Waste Management 30 (2010) 14861494

1489

tion was estimated to be 1012% of the initial feedstock. Contamination was higher before Facility H instituted an educational program. Facility H has also threatened grocery stores with returning loads due to contamination. Facility I also used four pickers to debag and remove contaminants from the initial feedstock. The feedstock then passed through a magnet to remove ferrous metals. Facility I was the only Canadian facility to use a vacuum to remove plastics on the back end. The only contamination removal at Facility G was screening for removal of plastic lms. Plastics lms were associated with bagged yard waste that the operator was using as a bulking agent. The operator had used tree bark until its price increased drastically. Ideally, the program for yard waste collection should be modied to exclude plastic bags.

converted from Canadian to US dollars using a 0.85 to 1 exchange rate. 5.2. Anaerobic digestion of source separated organics There are over 120 anaerobic digestion facilities in Europe (Table 2), but only one medium-scale facility is operating in North America. It is located in eastern Canada and takes mixed residential and commercial SSO waste that is collected as part of a green bin program. Facility J can process 42,500 Mg/y. Facility K is a wastewater treatment plant located on the West Coast of the US that processes about 5400 Mg of food waste per year along with biosolids produced during wastewater treatment. Visits were conducted to the Facilities J and K to gain an understanding of AD of SSO waste in the US and Canada (Table 5). Both of the facilities visited use a low solids content or wet digestion process. Facility J uses the BTA wet mesophilic anaerobic digestion technology. There are currently 13 plants globally that use the BTA process. The SSO feed is pulped and diluted to a solids content of about 8%. After separation of plastics and other inert materials the slurry is pumped into the anaerobic digester. After digestion, the slurry is dewatered and the solids are cured aerobically. It should be noted that even in the case of a well-informed and intentioned public, such as the communities that supply SSO to Facility J, the mixed residential and commercial SSO feedstock contains over 10% of non-degradable materials (Table 6). It is therefore necessary for the AD process to include a robust separation stage where these contaminants can be separated from the organic fraction so as to be acceptable as a soil conditioner. This is accomplished by the hydropulper stage of the BTA process used at Facility J. The hydropulper sorts incoming MSW into heavy and light fractions of non-organic material as well as creates a mixed organic slurry (BTA, 2009; Cluff, 2003). Facility K is a wastewater treatment plant that digests food waste along with biosolids produced during waste water treatment. The residential food waste is rst delivered to a material recovery facility (MRF), after which a fraction is delivered to Facility K. At Facility K, the food waste is further processed to reduce its particle size, mixed with the biosolids slurry and then pumped into an anaerobic digester. Facility K accepts food waste because it has excess capacity in its anaerobic digesters. They receive about $22/ Mg for the food waste. Facility K has two mesophilic and two thermophilic reactors. There is not a noticeable performance difference between the types of reactors. Facility J is located in a commercial area, and treats odors from the tipping oor using a biolter. The facility receives feedstock after business hours, and has installed fast-acting doors on the tipping oor. Facility J received only one odor complaint in 2007. Based on the manner in which the food waste is received, the presence of a large wastewater treatment plant, and the industrial zone location of the Facility K facility, no odor control that is specic to the food waste is necessary. Methane is generated at Facilities J and K. Facility J generates about 110 m3 of biogas per Mg of feedstock with a methane content of 4573% depending on the intermittent feeding pattern. This amount of methane generates about 10 GWh of electricity annually. Biogas generation data from Facility K was not available, but

5.1.3. Product sales Only Facility A sold bagged products while the other facilities only sell in bulk. Facility A does not sell much compost for agricultural uses because the nearest organic agriculture was a considerable distance from their location. Facility A also indicated that about half of their customers buy their product because it is the right thing to do. All of the facilities sold product for landscaping, parks, and erosion control. The operator of Facility D claimed that erosion control is a growing market for compost. Facilities B and C are in areas with signicant organic agriculture, so they utilize that market. Facility D also had a sister facility that produces organic compost (i.e., without biosolids) for the nearby organic agriculture. Apart from organic agriculture, Facility D also produced an uncured product for use in traditional agricultural. It is uncured to raise the nitrogen content. Compost is used in conventional agriculture for berries, including vineyards, as well as orchards for its moisture retention and weed suppression properties. The nished compost from Facility F was used for remediation of waste ponds associated with a closed steel mill and also for the reclamation of coal mines. The product demand for these projects is so high that material was shipped as far as 240 km. The compost from Facility G was used for placement under sod in landscaping applications. The nal compost from Facility H was used under sod elds and also as top soil. The presence of some plastic lm in the materials from Facilities F, G and H was tolerated. The nished compost from Facility I was sent to a landscaping company to age and stabilize for a year before use.

5.1.4. Tipping fees The tipping fees at the facilities in the US ranged from about $20 to $50 per Mg. Facility A had the highest tipping fees at $33 to $50. Facility D fees ranged from $20 to $33 depending on the size and length of the contract. Facility B was near the low end, charging $24 per Mg. Facility C charged $33 for food waste and $2 for leaves while manure was accepted for free. At least one facility claimed that the tipping fees did not cover the cost of operating the facility. The facility remained open because it manages the wastes for the on-site organic farm, and also provides compost for the farm. The tipping fees at the Canadian facilities were much higher. Facility F had the highest tipping fee at $68 per Mg, and Facilities H and I both had tipping fees of $60 per Mg. Facility G had the lowest tipping fee at $46 per Mg. All of the Canadian fees have been

Table 5 Summary of anaerobic digestion facilities visited. Name Facility J Facility K

a

Location Eastern Canada West Coast, US

Technology Wet mesophilic Wet mesophilic/thermophilic

Annual throughout (Mg) 42,500 5400

Substrates accepteda SSO FW, BS

SSO = source separated organics, FW = food waste, BS = biosolids.

1490 Table 6 Toronto source separated organics composition.a Waste stream SSO Degradable organics Diapers Fiber Non-degradable material Plastic lm Plastic containers Aluminum Ferrous Styrofoam Glass Other non-digestables Total non-degradable fraction Total
a

J.W. Levis et al. / Waste Management 30 (2010) 14861494

Mean (%) 71.73 9.29 8.85 6.52 0.33 0.20 0.20 0.14 0.12 2.62 10.13 100

Developed from site visits.

Table 7 Comparative biogas yields from different AD facility MSW feedstocks.a Input Food waste + garden waste Food waste + low level of cardboard Food waste + cardboard + garden waste Food waste + cardboard MSW
a

Biogas (m3/Mg) 8090 104112 104112 112136 112144

Adopted from Kelleher, 2007.

it was stated that it can currently only produce enough electricity to cover 90% of their electricity usage. This is due to air quality regulations restricting them to only operate two of their three 2 MW generators at a time. The excess gas is ared. The amount of gas produced varies depending on the feedstocks digested. Table 7 summarizes the reported biogas yields from different MSW feedstocks in anaerobic digestion facilities in Europe (Kelleher, 2007). After digestion, the digestate must be blended with amendments and aerobically cured before it can be used as compost. About 0.33 Mg of digested solids are produced per Mg of SSO feed at Facility J. Most of the digestate is sold in bulk at a low price to composting facilities located near the facility. At the composting facilities, the materials are blended with amendments and cured. It is cheaper to ship the digested solids to composters who are closer to the end market rather than ship the necessary amendment materials to the AD plant and then ship the nal compost product back to the market. The residuals from Facility K are used as landll daily cover. In summary, as evidenced by the presence of many facilities in Europe, AD is a proven technology for the treatment of food waste. The major factors that limit its implementation are the capital cost and the ability to obtain a pure feedstock. The collection and processing of SSO has been successful and may be emulated by other large cities in Canada and the US However, it is as capital-intensive as a new waste-to-energy (WTE) facility. For example, Toronto is planning a 2010 addition of two AD facilities of 110,000 Mg/y total capacity. The manager of Facility J stated that these two facilities will cost $70 million. This is in the typical range of capital costs for WTE facilities. Tsilemou and Panagiotakopoulos (2006) reported that anaerobic digestion facilities cost between $77 and $140 per Mg of capacity, whereas mass burn WTE facilities cost between $77 and $190 per Mg.

6. Compost quality and markets Ensuring the availability of compost markets is a critical component of a facility operation. Each facility visited was asked about

their markets and their potential for growth. Every facility operator was able to sell all of the product they generated and all were condent that they could sell more if the feedstocks were available. As discussed previously, current estimates indicate that <3% of US food waste generation is currently treated by composting. As a result, there is potential for the quantity of product to increase by over an order of magnitude. However, it is unclear whether every operator can truly sell ten times more than their current product. Composting marketing plans should consider the types of products that will be produced in consideration of end-users, how they will be sold (e.g., bagged or bulk), and market location. Bagged products can be sold at signicantly higher prices than bulk products, but the market for bagged products is likely to saturate more quickly. Of the facilities visited, only Facility A sold bagged product. Presumably the others would sell bagged product, if they could reach a bagged compost market. Even though some of the composters who were interviewed shipped nished compost over 240 km, a survey of compost users in Florida found that a majority of compost users are <48 km from their supplier (Rahmani et al., 2004). There are numerous opportunities for compost use in horticulture. Walker et al. (2006) surveyed horticultural trade associations in Illinois to determine their experience with compost use. The majority of users were landscapers, lawn care companies, golf courses, nurseries, and retail garden centers. Less than 5% of respondents used compost for commercial growing (e.g., trees, berries, vegetables, etc.). These applications nonetheless remain viable in niche markets. The main reasons given for using compost were to increase water penetration and retention, improve drought resistance, improve soil tillage properties, build humus content, improve plant health, suppress weeds, and use fewer chemicals. Only 15.5% of the respondents found compost to be more economical than commercial fertilizers. Rahmani et al. (2004) reported that a majority of respondents had problems with inconsistent compost quality. Quality concerns have led to a decrease in horticultural compost use (Walker et al., 2006). Development and implementation of compost quality standards may increase horticultural compost use. Developing specic blends for local growing and soil conditions can also aid in developing markets for compost. Many composting facilities make compost that is designed for use in consideration of local soil conditions. Facility D makes a specic organic blend for the local organic agriculture. Compost is ideal for organic farmers who cannot use mineral fertilizers and maintain their organic certication. Erosion control and road projects are another major compost use. This is a growing area where government purchases may be able to increase demand. For example, the California Integrated Waste Management Board (CIWMB) has worked with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to increase compost use in California road projects. Similar projects in other states could greatly increase compost demand and provide additional markets. The operator of Facility D indicated that erosion control was a growing market, and they are developing a specic erosion control mix for use by state and local transportation departments. SSO recovery activity is increasing nationwide and it is unclear whether or not there exists high end compost markets for all of the compost that may be produced in the future. Government policies or regulations could help to increase demand for compost. Increasing fuel prices may reduce the distance that it is economical to transport compost. However, increasing fuel prices will also make agrichemicals more expensive to produce and transport and thus increase the demand for locally produced compost. Recent droughts in the Southern US may lead to increased compost demand for its water retention value. The growth in organic and low-till agriculture may also increase compost demand. Compost quality standards may increase the value of compost. Given the

J.W. Levis et al. / Waste Management 30 (2010) 14861494

1491

uncertainty associated with future compost demand, both local and regional analyses of potential agricultural markets for compost are needed to insure that supply and demand remain balanced.

7. Implementation issues Practical issues that must be considered in the implementation of a food waste diversion program are discussed in this section including regional variations in the economics of food waste diversion programs, feedstock purity, available diversion and carbon credits, odors, and stafng requirements. There are four potential drivers for the implementation of a food waste diversion program in the commercial and/or residential sector. The rst is regulations banning food waste from landlls as is the case in Nova Scotia, Canada. In this case, the economics of food waste diversion need not compete with landll tipping fees. In the US, this is best exemplied by yard waste composting programs in states that have banned yard waste from landlls. A second possibility is that it may be cheaper to compost food waste than it is to bury it in a landll. In this case, market forces will control the implementation of food waste diversion programs. The third possibility is that waste generators want to do the right thing, i.e., there is a perception that the diversion of food waste is good environmental stewardship. Finally, demand for soil amendments produced from AC or AD may encourage food waste diversion. The rst driver is straightforward, it is difcult to develop an economic model based on the third driver, and little evidence was found for the fourth driver in the US or Canada so discussion here will focus on the second driver. Signicant variations in the cost of food waste diversion programs were observed in different regions of the US For example, the landll tipping fee near Facility A was in the range of $88 to $110 per Mg while the tipping fee at Facility A ranged from $33 to $50 per Mg. Assuming that the material can be collected for less than the difference between $33 to 50 and $88 to 110, then composting is economical in this location. Similarly, landll tipping fees in some parts of the Northeastern US approach $110 per Mg which includes hauling waste up to 1000 km to Virginia and Central Pennsylvania. Compost facilities sited in the New York, New Jersey and Connecticut areas may be more economical than current landll alternatives. This contrasts with Ohio where tipping fees are closer to $28 per Mg and, in some areas, there are more landlls than composting facilities; as a result, it is more difcult for composting to compete with landlls based on both the cost to compost and the potential for increased hauling distances. These regional differences lead to the adoption of different technologies and strategies for feedstock purity. In Ohio, composters must minimize costs. This results in the use of simple technologies and it is not economically feasible to sort material for contaminants prior to composting. This contrasts with the Northeast, where the potential for higher tipping fees at composting plants allows for more sorting and contaminant removal. Ultimately, feedstock purity is essential to a marketable product. Education of the waste generator is the rst and most effective strategy. However, a strategy for handling materials with contaminants is also essential. One alternative is the manner in which this is handled in Nova Scotia where commercial generators can be required to come to the compost facility and remove contaminants or lose collection service. This management strategy is enabled by regulations that are not prevalent in the US. A second alternative is to employ sufcient resources for manual sorting prior to composting as was practiced in several Canadian facilities as well as some facilities in the western US. A third alternative might be to focus on a few large generators of a nearly pure feedstock, e.g. farmers markets, food processing plants, and perhaps grocery

stores that commit to signicant training. Whatever the strategy for insuring a pure feedstock, the facility operations plan must include a clear directive on how to manage a load that is unacceptably contaminated and a denition for unacceptable. The manner in which odors are managed is another issue that is locale dependent. Composting facilities in populated residential or commercial areas will need more stringent odor controls. Facilities in rural areas may not need as much odor control. Covered systems like Gore, enclosed ASPs and in-vessel systems are effective for mitigating odors and emissions. The need for odor control in rural areas is more ambiguous. While odors may not affect neighbors, windrow systems have been shown to release GHGs including N2O and CH4. Composting will also result in the release of a variety of volatile organic compounds. Given that composting plants are often being built to improve upon the environmental performance of landlls, careful analysis is required to ascertain whether it is justiable to build facilities without odor control, irrespective of location. AC and AD are also seen as ways to achieve landll diversion targets. During site visits, it was noted that in one city in California, there appeared to be a huge incentive to divert waste from landlls. The result was that in some cases, the quality of the diverted material was hardly distinguishable from MSW. Thus diversion by itself, without a careful plan for the quality and management of diverted waste, may not be successful. Carbon credits for avoided GHG emissions from landlls are also under discussion. The potential for carbon credits and/or diversion credits is dynamic and varies by region. There is debate over what credits are allowed, and their ownership. Ownership must be established as part of program planning to avoid problems as an SSO program develops. A critical factor in the discussion of carbon credits from avoided landlling will be the assumed decay rate for food waste in a landll and the assumed landll gas collection efciency, issues that are beyond the scope of this report. Finally, the stafng requirements of a composting facility are an important consideration. Most of the facilities that had successful sales programs for the compost product employed people with expertise in agriculture. This staff worked with buyers on the development of products that were of interest. This included addition of specic soil and in some cases specic nutrients to the compost product prior to sale.

8. Environmental implications of AC and AD technologies There are numerous factors to consider in evaluating alternatives for organic waste management. Organic wastes produce methane when they decompose anaerobically in a landll or AD facility. Methane has a GWP 25 greater than CO2, making landlls the major contributor to GWP from the waste management sector (IPCC, 2007). The methane captured at landlls or AD facilities can be used to generate electricity or to provide steam for district heating. These benecial uses of the methane offset other fuels (e.g., coal and natural gas) that would have been used to produce electricity and heat. Landlling, AC and AD processes also use diesel and electrical powered equipment, which also produce emissions. These varying process emissions should be considered in comparing the environmental performance of these alternatives. A variety of life-cycle work has been done to quantify these process emissions (Sonesson, 1996; Komilis and Ham, 2004; Lundie and Peters, 2005; Pagans et al., 2006; Levis, 2008). As discussed earlier, the soil amendments produced from AC and AD facilities also have benecial value and may offset fertilizer production. Compost use as a soil amendment can also lead to carbon sequestration. It is more difcult to quantify some of the environmental benets from land application of AC and AD residuals, but life-cycle methodologies

1492

J.W. Levis et al. / Waste Management 30 (2010) 14861494

have been proposed (Hansen et al., 2006). Finally, biological decomposition in AC facilities can also lead to VOC, CH4, and N2O emissions (Anon., 2001; Beck-Fris et al., 2000; Hellebrand, 1998; Schenk et al., 1997). N2O has a GWP that is 298 greater than CO2 on a 100 year time scale (IPCC, 2007). These environmental concerns must be appropriately weighed to make the most sustainable SSO management decisions. 8.1. Carbon offset credits Climate change policy may also encourage organics diversion from landlls to AC or AD facilities. AC and AD projects both lead to fewer greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions than landlling. Due to these avoided GHG emissions, implementation of organics diversion projects in lieu of landll may potentially provide carbon offsets in carbon trading markets. The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM) developed in the Kyoto Protocols allows emission-reduction (or emission removal) projects following approved methodologies to earn carbon credits. Avoided methane emissions due to the implementation of composting projects are accepted by the CDM. Eight such projects have already been registered with the CDM-Executive Board; all of these projects are in Asia or Oceania. For comparison, there are 83 registered landll gas recovery projects and nearly 1200 total registered projects (UNFCCC, 2009). The Alberta-offset credit system also provides carbon credits for composting projects that replace landlling of organic wastes (Alberta Environment, 2008). Recently, the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) announced a protocol to offer offset credits for composting projects that avoid methane emissions from landlls (McComb, 2009). They also offer offsets for low-till agriculture projects, where compost would be utilized. AD projects could also potentially earn carbon credits as a renewable energy projects (CCX, 2009). 8.2. Effects of potential climate change legislation on SSO management Recently there has been increased discussion and debate regarding policies to mitigate the effects of climate change in the US. The two most commonly discussed policy mechanisms for GHG mitigation are cap-and-trade systems and carbon taxes. The purpose of both approaches is to reduce GHG emissions in an economically efcient manner. The fundamental difference is that carbon taxes set the price of GHG emissions and allow the market to determine the level of reductions, whereas cap-and-trade programs set the reduction level and allow the market to determine the cost. Under either approach, changes in solid waste management (SWM) will be driven by the realized price of GHG emissions reductions, whether set by policy or determined by the market. In 2006, SWM resulted in 129 Tg of CO2e emissions, representing 2% of total US. GHG emissions and 13% of non-energy related GHG emissions. Furthermore, landlls represent the second largest source of anthropogenic methane in the US. (US EPA, 2009a). Therefore, GHG mitigation efforts may impact the cost, performance, and direction of SWM. Setting a price for GHG emissions would encourage material recovery where it results in reduced energy demand, as is true for many materials in MSW. For example, in 2007, Alberta Province in Canada enacted the Specied Gas Emitters Regulation that required all facilities emitting over 100,000 Mg of CO2e to reduce their emissions by 12% by 2010 (Alberta Environment, 2008). Consequently, a landll in Alberta incurred a $350,000 (CAD) emissions tax (personal comm.) and this landll is now investing funds to upgrade its gas collection system. The latest proposal before the US Congress on climate change is the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 (ACES) (US EPA, 2009b). ACES passed the House of Representatives in June of 2009 and would create a cap-and-trade system for GHGs in the US. The US EPA has performed an economic analysis of ACES (US EPA,

2009b) and made predictions regarding future carbon allowance price levels using two different economic models. The two models are the Applied Dynamic Analysis of the Global Economy (ADAGE) and Intertemporal General Equilibrium Model (IGEM). In the latest analysis, the allowance prices predicted by both models never vary by more that 1 $/Mg CO2e, so only the IGEM numbers were used here. It should be noted that even if permits are given freely to emitters, the allowance price may represent an economic opportunity for landlls that effectively reduce their GHG emissions. An analysis was performed to investigate the possible economic effects of ACES on landlling food waste. Fig. 1 shows the expected price of carbon allowances using the IGEM model, as well as the best-t exponential function, and its R2 value. A rst order decay function was used to determine the amount of methane generated annually per Mg of food waste. Table 8 shows the model parameters that were used. Additionally, the global warming potential of methane was assumed to be 25 (IPCC, 2007). The discount rate used for this analysis was 3%. Fig. 2 shows how the price of fugitive methane emissions from the disposal of one Mg of food waste will change over the next 20 years, based on the IGEM modeling scenario. Implementation of ACES is estimated to create an incentive for food waste diversion of $7 per Mg initially and from $9 to over $11 in ve and ten years, respectively. Such an economic incentive coupled with increasing local and statewide landll diversion policies including organics bans could provide a new driving force for increased organics diversion via AC or AD. AD may receive additional incentives from ACES as utility companies look for low carbon renewable energy sources. Renewable portfolio standards that require a set amount electricity to be generated from renewable sources will likely provide additional incentives. These incentives will make SSO management more protable where it is already economically viable, and improve its viability where it is currently marginally unattractive. 9. Summary There is growing interest in the diversion of food waste from landlls and the challenge is to develop implementation strategies

Fig. 1. Regression of EPA predictions of carbon allowance prices based on IGEM model. Table 8 Model parameters for fugitive methane emissions modeling. Fugitive emission parameters k (y1) 0.15 L0 (m3 CH4/ Mg) 300 Moisture wet weight (%) 70 Methane oxidized (%) 10 Year 499 80

Gas collection efciency (%) Years 01 Year 2 Year 3 0 50 70

J.W. Levis et al. / Waste Management 30 (2010) 14861494

1493

References
Alberta Environment, 2008. Landll Gas Baseline Emissions Intensity Protocol for Alberta. Draft, Alberta Environment, Edmonton, Alberta. <http:// www.offsetsgroup.ca/pdf/mar26/Base_Protocol_Plan_LFG_March30.pdf> (accessed 26.10.09. Anon., 2001, Source Test Report 01-171, Ammonia and Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Emissions from a Greenwaste Composting Operation. South Coast Air Quality Management District, Diamond Bar, CA. Arsova, L., van Haaren, R., Goldstein, N., Themelis, N.J., 2008. State of Garbage in America. BioCycle 49 (12), 2229. Beck-Fris, B., Pell, M., Sonesson, U., Jonsson, H., Kirchmann, H., 2000. Formation and Emission of N2O and CH4 from compost heaps of organic household waste. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 62, 317331. BTA, 2009. BTA International. <http://bta-international.de> (accessed 10.07.09). CCX, 2009. Chicago Climate Exchange. <http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/> (accessed 01.03.09). Cluff, R., 2003. Specics on Canada Composting Plants. K. Ostrem, Toronto, Canada. Diaz, L.F., de Bertoldi, M., Bidlingmaier, W., 2007. Compost Science and Technology. Elsevier, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. European Commission, Directorate-General for the Environment, 2009. Environment Biodegradable Waste <http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/ compost/index.htm> (accessed 15.05.09). Hansen, T.L., Gurbakhash, B.S., Christensen, T.H., 2006. Life cycle modelling of environmental impacts of application of processed organic municipal solid waste on agricultural land (EASEWASTE). Waste Management and Research 24 (2), 153166. Haug, R.T., 1993. The Practical Handbook of Compost Engineering. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida, USA. Hellebrand, H.J., 1998. Emission of nitrous oxide and other trace gases during composting of grass and green waste. Journal of Agricultural Engineering Research 69 (4), 365375. IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), 2007. Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Kelleher, M., 2007. Anaerobic digestion outlook for MSW streams. BioCycle 48 (8), 51. Komilis, D.P., Ham, R.K., 2004. Life-cycle inventory of municipal solid waste and yard waste windrow composting in the United States. Journal of Environmental Engineering 130 (11), 13901400. Levis, J.W., 2008. A life-cycle analysis of alternatives for the management of waste hot-mix asphalt, commercial food waste, and construction and demolition waste. Masters Thesis, Raleigh, North Carolina: Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering, North Carolina State University. Lundie, S., Peters, G.M., 2005. Life cycle assessment of food waste management options. Journal of Cleaner Production 13 (3), 275286. McComb, S., 2009. Composting generates cash for greenhouse gas benets. BioCycle 50 (6), 1821. Munchen, R., 2002. Composting Biological and Yard Waste with Membrane Textiles, <http://www.gore.com/MungoBlobs/415/607/Satellite.pdf> (accessed 29.06.09). Olivares, C., Goldstein, N., 2008a. Food composting infrastructure. BioCycle 49 (8), 3435. Olivares, C., Goldstein, N., 2008b. Food composting infrastructure. BioCycle 49 (9), 2528. Olivares, C., Goldstein, N., 2008c. Food composting infrastructure. BioCycle 49 (10), 2931. Olivares, C., Goldstein, N., 2008d. Food composting infrastructure. BioCycle 49 (11), 3840. Olivares, C., Goldstein, N., Rhodes, Y., 2008. Food composting infrastructure. BioCycle 49 (12), 3031. Pagans, E., Font, X., Sanchez, A., 2006. Emission of volatile organic compounds from composting of different solid wastes: abatement by bioltration. Journal of Hazardous Materials 131 (13), 179186. Rahmani, M., Hodges, A.W., Kiker, C.F., 2004. Compost users attitudes toward compost application in Florida. Compost Science and Utilization 12 (1), 55 60. Rilling, N., 2005. Anaerobic fermentation of wet or semi-dry garbage waste fractions. In: Klein, J., Winter, J. (Eds.), Biotechnology, second ed., Environmental Processes III, vol. 11c. Wiley-VCH, New York, USA. pp. 152 166. Schenk, M.K., Appel, S., Daum, D., 1997. N2 O emissions during composting of organic waste. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium on Growing Media and Plant Nutrition in Horticulture, Freising, Germany. International Society for Horticultural Science, Leiden, The Netherlands, April 1997. Schmidt, C.E., Card, T.R., Kiehl, B., 2009. Composting trials evaluate VOC emissions control. BioCycle 50 (4), 3336. Simmons, P., Goldstein, N., Kaufman, S.M., Themelis, N.J., Thompson, J., 2006. The state of garbage in America. BioCycle 47 (4), 2643. Sonesson, U., 1996. Modelling of the Compost and Transport Process in the ORWARE Simulation Model, Report 214. Department of Agricultural Engineering, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden. Tsilemou, K., Panagiotakopoulos, D., 2006. Approximate cost functions for solid waste treatment facilities. Waste Management and Research 24 (4), 310322.

Fig. 2. Net present cost of fugitive methane emissions from a Mg of food waste based on IGEM model.

that are both scaleable and economical. Food waste is generated in the residential and ICI sectors. The easiest material to collect is that from large generators of reasonably pure material as is generated in the ICI sector (e.g. grocery stores, farmers markets, food processing industry, large restaurants). In all cases, training and commitment is required on the part of the waste generator to insure a feedstock that is largely free of contaminants. Given a pure feedstock, there are multiple proven technologies for the aerobic or anaerobic treatment of food waste. Technology selection will be guided by project economics, the need for odor control and location of the treatment facility. There are many regional factors that will inuence technology selection including the cost of competing waste management alternatives, local regulations, population density, and emissions standards. At present, the facilities visited were able to sell all of the material generated and indicated that there was more demand than supply. The benets of compost as a soil amendment are well documented, and methods to quantify these benets from a GHG perspective are needed. While promising, it is important to assess whether demand is sufcient to absorb an order of magnitude increase in supply in certain regions. There are a number of practical implementation issues that must be addressed, the most important of which are project economics and feedstock purity. Project economics will vary by technology used and region as indicated above. Feedstock purity can be obtained by enforcement of contaminant standards and/or sorting of the feedstock prior to and after treatment. AD of SSO is the most desirable alternative from an environmental perspective because of the production and benecial use of methane and, after aerobic curing, a soil amendment that is similar to what would be generated by aerobic composting. At present, the cost of AD is in the same range as that of mass burn combustion. Strategies to reduce the cost of AD, while still insuring complete methane capture, would lead to the most benet from a SSO diversion program. The technologies to produce useful products from either aerobic or anaerobic treatment of SSO are in place. Widespread adoption will be governed by policy incentives, favorable economics, or regulation.

Acknowledgements This research was supported by Waste Management Inc. through a gift to the Center for the study of Sustainable Use of Resources. JWL was supported in part by a Fiessinger Fellowship from the Environmental Research and Education Foundation.

1494

J.W. Levis et al. / Waste Management 30 (2010) 14861494 US EPA, 2009b. EPA Analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 H.R. 2454 in the 111th Congress. Ofce of Atmospheric Programs. Washington, DC. Retrieved from <http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/economics/pdfs/ HR2454_Analysis.pdf> (accessed 29.06.09). Walker, P., Williams, D., Waliczek, T.M., 2006. An analysis of the horticulture industry as a potential value-added market for compost. Compost Science and Utilization 14 (1), 2331.

United Nation Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), 2009. Clean Development Mechanism (CDM). <http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/ mechanisms/clean_development_mechanism/items/2718.php> (accessed 11.11.08). US EPA, 2008. Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2007 Facts and Figures. EPA 530-R-08-010. Ofce of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC. US EPA, 2009a. Inventory of US Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks 19962007 Ofce of Solid Waste. EPA430-R-08005. Ofce of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC.