© 2014 HDR Architecture, Inc., all rights reserved. © 2014 HDR, Inc., all rights reserved.

IMPLEMENTING RESIDENTIAL ORGANICS DIVERSION

© 2014 HDR Architecture, Inc., all rights reserved. © 2014 HDR, Inc., all rights reserved. It’s been 10 years since my residential organics program began ……

 Canada o 2.64 million tons of food waste composted annually as of 2008 o 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 o E.g. In Ontario, 80% of large municipalities have curbside food waste diversion, serving over 9 million residents, 2.4 million homes o Participation rates 70% +, capture rates 40% +, divert from 140 to 560 lb/HHD/year  U.S. o 36 million tons of food waste generated/year, around 5% (less than 2 million tons) composted (2012) o Split roughly 50/50 between residential and commercial o As of curbside programs, across 16 states, majority in California, Washington, Minnesota o Around 1/3 of programs serve both residential and commercial sector o As of 2014, 7% of compost sites (347) could compost food scraps, 2% mixed organic streams (87) STATE OF THE PRACTICE (NORTH AMERICA)

STATE OF THE PRACTICE ‘Typical’ Residential Program‘Typical’ Commercial 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 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

 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 AD facilities – 1 operating, 1 currently closed and scheduled for upgrade in 2014 o Private/Closed composting facilities – 6 o Private/Open composting facilities - 10  Some pilot / small scale residential food scrap programs in effect o Residential food waste drop-off at Convenience Centres in Orange County o Subscription services (Raleigh, Charlotte)  Study underway in Wake County STATE OF THE PRACTICE NORTH CAROLINA

 Level of interest  Feedstock Assessment  Customer Interface  Collection System  Processing Approach  Product Markets  Program costs and cost recovery  Program benefits DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

LET’S DISCUSS: KEY ISSUES AND SUCCESS FACTORS

 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 GENERATING INTEREST

 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 DETERMINING ELIGIBLE MATERIAL TYPES

 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. EDUCATION AND OUTREACH

 Collect organics weekly, same day as garbage  Provide BINS: o In-home container (durable, dishwasher safe, small) o Curbside green cart (10 gallon for food only, larger for co-mingled food/yard) o Consider space / building density / building types  Allow compostable BAGS  Restrict garbage (Limits on quantity, every other week collection) CONVENIENCE FOR PARTICIPANTS

 Collection method (automated, manual, curbside placement etc.)  Consider collection modeling  Options to reduce costs: o weekly co-collection of garbage and organics o co-collection of garbage/organics week 1 and recyclables/organics week 2 o every other week garbage collection  Typical CDN weekly food waste collection cost ranges: o $20 to $25/HHD/annum (co-collection) to o over $35/HHD/annum (separate collection) COLLECTION

 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 PROGRAM COSTS AND RATES

 Match technology with attributes of organic stream o Increase in volatile organics: move to in-vessel composting or anaerobic digestion o Degree of contamination affects pre-processing and processing options  Match products to available markets  Consider integration with existing system o co-processing with yard waste o co-processing with IC&I organics  Allow time for procurement PROCESSING

ORGANICS PROGRAM DESIGN DRY PROCESSING Dry Fermentation Anaerobic Digestion Photo courtesy of Zero Waste Energy Corp. Covered Composting Photo courtesy of Gore Open Window Composting

ORGANICS PROGRAM DESIGN WET PROCESSING High solids: Urbaser, Madrid, Spain Phased solids: Clean World, Sacramento CA High Rate: Gills Onions, Oxnard CA

 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 COSTS

 Feedstock quality/contaminant level  Potential for odors and odor management  Area/site size requirements  Utilities: power, water usage and wastewater  Potential permitting issues PROCESSING TECHNOLOGY SELECTION  Proven operations on similar feedstock  Ancillary cost: Chemicals, effluent  Maintenance, staffing, fuel, water, power requirements  By-product compatibility

 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 LESSONS LEARNED

© 2014 HDR, Inc., all rights reserved. WRAP UP For more information contact: (919) (905)

© 2014 HDR Architecture, Inc., all rights reserved. © 2014 HDR, Inc., all rights reserved.